North Bay Non Sequiturs

Perhaps it was having been away from the North Bay for nearly two weeks following minor league baseball in the South, but when I returned home, I seemed to look at North Bay land-use issues with fresh eyes, eyes that were more open to situations that felt off-kilter.  I’m not saying land-use gaffes, but land-use solutions that grated at the edge of my consciousness.

Hence, my first ever review of North Bay Non Sequiturs:

“Historic Downtown”: While I was away, the near-final touches were completed on the new interchange at the north end of Petaluma, where Old Redwood Highway meets Highway 101.

While I still think that the community would have been better served if the construction costs could have been diverted to street repairs and the infrastructure to support walkable urban projects, I’ll agree that the new interchange works well.  So well that drivers can now pay more attention to the directional signs, including the one pointing toward “Historic Downtown” at the end of exit ramp from southbound 101.

As I considered the sign last week, it dawned on me that I don’t want to live in a town with a historic downtown.  I want to live in a town with an active, vital downtown, which I’d be happy to just call “Downtown”.

I’d prefer that my downtown have lots of older buildings because it would look good and because that would imply that it hadn’t been touched by the destructive redevelopment impulses of the 50s and 60s, but I also want my downtown to be adding new buildings to fill the holes, to grow larger, and to convey a burgeoning economy.

I don’t want my downtown to be something preserved under a bell jar.  Are there signs pointing to the “Historic Downtowns” of Chicago, New York City, or San Francisco?

“Historic Downtown” sounds like an aging amusement park, a place to take the kids after they’re through playing in the pool. 

Besides, how do we reconcile newer and integral elements, such as Theatre Square, with a “Historic Downtown”?  Do visitors even know to look for Theatre Square if we only direct them to the “Historic Downtown”?

I’m not going to suggest that anyone put duct tape over the word “Historic”, but I’d chuckle if someone did.

(Postscript: Since I began working up a head of steam on this topic last week, the sign that offended me has disappeared.  But I suspect that its absence is short-term and related to the final tidying up of the interchange project.  I doubt that the marketing approach for downtown has changed because I was able to find another “Historic Downtown” directional sign only a short distance away.)

Amy’s in Rohnert Park: My wife and I occasionally use products from Amy’s Foods.  Although we’re not committed to their products, I’ve generally found their food to be tasty and am pleased to have Amy’s and their commitment to organic packaged foods firmly embedded in the North Bay.

When Amy’s first announced their plan to try a restaurant concept, I was surprised.  It’s not like Chef Boyardee or Birdseye ever opened direct-to-consumers outlets.  But Amy’s is a different kind of business run by folks who seem to have a coherent vision, so I sat back to await the result.

I never expected a Rohnert Park drive-thru on a corner parcel in front of the Graton Casino, with gas stations on two opposing corners and nary a home in sight, one of the least walkable restaurant settings that can be imagined in the North Bay.

Perhaps I was misled by a flawed mental image of the typical Amy’s customer.  I think of Amy’s as serving people who favor walking for the health benefits and who have a deep concern about the environment, with climate change a particular fear.  I can’t reconcile that image with the restaurant that now exists.

I’m not saying that the most Amy’s customers are urbanists, but I’d expect them to have much in common with urbanism.  Yet the Amy’s drive-thru is most assuredly not urbanist.

There’s nothing wrong with the architecture of the Amy’s drive-thru.  It’s quirky but fully realized in a fashion that I wish the large drive-thru chains would emulate.  But the location leaves me flummoxed.  I can’t imagine the board room conversations that led to this result.

National Night Out: For the second year in a row, the Petaluma Police and Fire Departments hosted a function on National Night Out.  Conducted in the parking lot for the Target store in the East Washington Place shopping center, the Petaluma effort was described as a “community-building campaign that promotes police and community partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie to make our neighborhoods safer, better places to live.”

I wasn’t able to visit the event this year, but did stop by last year and found it a pleasant event, with children enjoying a bounce house and facepainting while parents enjoyed the food, some chatting with other folks who might have been their neighbors.

Overall, it seemed a nice evening for those in attendance.  But there is something wrong with gathering in a big box parking lot to promote “neighborhood camaraderie to make our neighborhoods safer, better places to live”.  And it’s even more wrong in a community that still prohibits most block parties, the quintessential event that should be promoting “neighborhood camaraderie”.

It’s true that the enforcement of the Municipal Code prohibition of block parties in most locations is lackadaisical to non-existent, but the prohibition still has organizers and participants looking nervously over their shoulders and the purveyors of block party rentals asking to see copies of non-existent permits.

I understand that the City resources needed to remedy the Municipal Code issue would have to come from a different pot than the resources used to host the National Night Out.  But if we could find just enough dollars to change the Code, then maybe we wouldn’t need to trek to a big box parking lot to learn about neighborhood camaraderie.

Okay, this was fun.  If anyone has North Bay Non Sequiturs that bug them, please share.  Perhaps this can become a repeated feature.

In my next post, I’ll write about a civic plaza proposed for Boyes Hot Springs, north of Sonoma.  Having walked the site and explored the surroundings, I endorse the idea heartily.

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

Bucking the Rules on the Fourth of July

Long-time readers may recall my crusade over Petaluma’s block party rules, but I’ll recap the background for new readers.  Deep in the Petaluma Municipal Code is a provision that disallows block party permits anywhere except on cul-de-sacs, a prohibition that effectively eliminates many streets and even entire neighborhoods from engaging in an effective way of building neighborhood cohesiveness.

Admittedly, the Police Department generally doesn’t enforce the rule, instead turning a blind eye toward block parties or even giving tacit, unwritten approvals.

Nonetheless, block party organizers, who are trying to do the right thing for their neighborhoods, find themselves uneasy and unsure.

In more than a year of intermittently pushing the issue, I’ve gotten the Police Chief and the entire City Council to acknowledge that they endorse block parties, but that hasn’t translated into Municipal Code edits.   And now another block party season is upon us.

I first became aware of the offending Municipal Code clause when a neighborhood activist contacted me about a block party he hoped to organize for the Fourth of July 2014.  The organizer, who is a regular reader, asked me who at City Hall he should contact for a party approval.

I didn’t know the answer to his question, so asked a few folks at City Hall and managed to find the one City employee who interpreted the Municipal Code provision strictly by the letter.  Neither the organizer nor I knew of the flexibility being shown by others at City Hall so the organizer’s proposed 2014 block party became a driveway party, pleasant but without the camaraderie of neighbors meeting in the shared space of the street.

Over the past year, the organizer read my updates as I became aware that person with whom I’d spoken, although well-intentioned, was the outlier and that Petaluma was generally casual about enforcing the troublesome provision.

So, for 2015, the organizer again planned a Fourth of July party, this time without asking for permission.  And to show that he bore no ill will over my failed intercession of a year before, he invited me to drop by, which I happily did.

It wasn’t the biggest block party in Petaluma, but it was well-organized and well-enjoyed.  Traffic cones blocked the street at the intersections at both ends of the party, shade structures were set up in street for cooking and eating, fathers were pitching wiffle balls to sons, kids were kicking a soccer ball around, and all seemed to be having a fine time.  Also, everything in the street was arranged so that emergency access was continually available if needed.  It was what a Petaluma block party should be.

The organizer, who polled the neighborhood both on-line and door-to-door while planning the party, told me that almost everyone participated and fully everyone was willing to move their cars off the street for the day.

Hearing just that part of the story, some might think that Petaluma block parties are doing just fine and that the Municipal Code needn’t be changed.  But that’s because I haven’t yet shared two elements of the story.

First, up until a few days before the party, some neighbors were uncomfortable about the lack of City sanction and suggested that the party again be limited to the driveways.  The organizer held firm that the City wasn’t an issue and that street as shared space was essential to the success of the party, positions on which he was fully correct.

(As the organizer was recounting this part of his story, the soccer ball bounced loose and bounded down the driveway toward the organizer’s garage.  A young girl, perhaps eight years old, began running to retrieve the ball before recollecting that she was now in someone’s driveway.  She abruptly stopped and asked permission to get the ball, which was of course granted.  And then the organizer and I laughed about even eight year olds understanding the difference between shared and private spaces, validating the organizer’s insistence on the party occupying the street.)

Also, a key element of the party was a bounce house.  But when the bounce house rental folks arrived, they wouldn’t put the bounce house in the street without a copy of the City block party permit, which of course didn’t exist.  A quick negotiation resulted in the bounce house being set up in a neighbor’s driveway, where it was still well enjoyed.  But the party setting would have been more festive with the bounce house in the street.

So the block party culture is alive and well in Petaluma.  But the City’s ill-conceived rule still sends small clouds across the sky on otherwise sunny days.

Before closing, I should note that the block party wasn’t the only event of the day in the organizer’s neighborhood.  The day began with a Fourth of July parade through the entire subdivision, with an estimated 150 children following an antique fire engine in festive garb and on decorated bikes.  (I was invited to watch the parade, but was unfortunately given the wrong start time.  Seeing no one assembling, I departed in puzzled disappointment thirty minutes before the parade started.)

The block party organizer attended the parade, with his children joining the parade.  As he described the event to me, the biggest benefit was the new acquaintances that were made.  He reported there had long been a divide between those whose homes had been built before the recent recession and those whose homes were built afterwards.  It was another version of the frequent old-timers versus newcomers animosity.  Standing on the sidewalk and watching their children parade past gave an opportunity for new introductions to continue healing the breach.

I didn’t ask whether the parade had secured a city permit.  But I have my suspicions.

In my next post, I’ll write about where urbanism falls on the political spectrum.   It’s a more complex question than many seem to grasp.

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

In Springtime, a Middle-Aged Man's Fancies Turn to Sidewalk Cafes, Brew Pubs, and Block Parties

With spring having sprung (not that we had a real winter in the North Bay), it’s time to check in on a few old favorites, both places and subjects.

Ray’s Deli: I’ve previously written about the role that Ray’s Deli and Tavern plays in the life of my Petaluma neighborhood.  Recently, a local architect suggested meeting at Ray’s to discuss the relationship between urbanism and climate change, a suggestion to which I quickly acceded because of both the subject and the meeting place.

However, the architect was late for our Friday afternoon meeting, so I ended up sitting at a community table, sipping on a bottle of water and observing the springtime angst of junior high school students newly freed for the weekend. 

It was a mind-numbing swirl of apprehension over who had said what to whom, who was fighting with whom, and who might have a secret crush on whom.  The drama, amped up by a Friday afternoon in springtime, was enough to make my head spin.  And to make me decide that being a junior high teacher must be in one of Dante’s circles of hell.

But the key urbanist point is that we were all occupying the same space.  Me awaiting a climate change conversation and the hormone-charged mass of teenage tragicomedy were both considering the same assortment of deli sandwiches, chips, and beverages.

And we’d all walked there.

It was an uncommon combination for a largely auto-oriented small city.  It was also pretty darned cool.

McDowell Brew Pub District: A few months back, I noted a brewing (pun intended) pedestrian problem along North McDowell Boulevard.  With the Lagunitas Brewery putting down ever deeper roots on the east side of McDowell and upstart breweries such as Petaluma Hills getting underway on the west side, there was an increasing problem with pedestrians crossing the 40 mph McDowell without the benefit of traffic aids.

Right now, the problem is exacerbated because most of the available parking is on the west side of McDowell and most of the patronage is heading to Lagunitas on the east side.  A parking lot proposed by Lagunitas on the east side will alleviate some of the concern, but there would still be a problem with pedestrians engaging in an evening of brew pub hopping.

In my earlier post, I debunked the idea that a painted crosswalk would be a solution, noting that drivers tend to overlook crosswalks when driving at higher speeds.  Also, the stripes give pedestrians a false sense of security.  The paradoxical result is that car/pedestrian accidents tend to increase after crosswalks are painted on high-speed streets.

The only solution I could conceive at the time was a full signal, but cost was neither affordable for a financially-strapped City nor justified by the few financial benefits that would flow to the City.

I still stand by my previous conclusions, as unhelpful as they may have been, but was recently forced to take another look at the situation.

I’d been unexpectedly lucky in my previous visits to Lagunitas, often snagging one of the few current parking places on the east side of McDowell.  So when an urbanist friend recently suggested meeting at Lagunitas for urban conversation at 2:30pm on a Thursday, I readily agreed.  How much beer drinkers could possible start imbibing that early in the week or the day?

As it turns out, there were a lot of early beer drinkers.  I eventually parked two blocks away on the east side of McDowell.  And as I walked back toward McDowell, my friend called.  She was at McDowell and ready to cross, but was dismayed by the number of cars and their unwillingness to stop.  So she would await my arrival.

We eventually worked our way across the street and had a pleasant and enlightening discussion, but the experience of crossing McDowell stayed with me.  So I now have another solution to offer.

And it’s the obvious solution, building off the work of Twenty is Plenty, Vision Zero, New York City, and even my own thoughts on traffic calming in my neighborhood.

Here’s the comprehensive plan.  We reduce the lane widths on McDowell from 12 feet to 11 feet or even 10 feet, add bulb outs at intersections, and perhaps adjust the lane alignments with slight angle points, all of which would encourage lower speeds.  As drivers respond to the more constrained conditions and new reduced car speeds are observed, the speed limit could be set at the lower speed, perhaps 25 mph.  Now we paint the crosswalk across McDowell and the drivers would respect it.

I’m sure that many are shocked with the idea of reducing the speed limit on a major arterial, but it’s the likely way of the future, with many communities going this direction to encourage alternative modes of transportation and to save the lives of pedestrians.

Besides, the length of McDowell between the major cross streets either direction from the breweries, Penngrove Highway and Corona Road, is a little less than a mile.  The additional time to drive that distance at 25 mph instead of 40 mph is only 50 seconds.

I know that the total extra time is that 50 seconds multiplied by the many people who drive McDowell over course of a day.  But that still leaves the question of whether many people multiplied by 50 seconds each is worth more or less than the reduced stress levels of the brewery district pedestrians and the reduced risk of pedestrian injuries or fatalities.  It’s not an easy balance to judge, but I come down in favor of the pedestrians.

Also, if pedestrians can cross McDowell safely and the businesses east of McDowell aren’t adversely impacted by the street parking for the breweries, then Lagunitas needn’t build the new parking lot and the lot can instead be used for new industrial uses.  Wow, economic development through lower speed streets!  What a concept!

I have no expectation that a lower speed McDowell will be implemented anytime soon.  But I think it’s the way of the future.  I hope to live long enough to write “I told you so.”

Block Parties: To conclude, I’ll touch on block parties.  When I last mentioned the subject, the Petaluma City Council has apparently given their approval to City staff to update and to clarify the block party rules, including a green light for block parties in more locations.  Since that update, I’ve sent my thoughts to City staff on how the rules might be updated, including ideas I’d gleaned from other North Bay cities and from observing block parties during the summer of 2014.

However, there has been no resulting action.  I know that City staff has a number of high priorities.  I also know that I could have been more diligent with my follow-up.  Nonetheless, it seems a shame that we’re facing another summer of legal limbo for what should be a rite of summer, simple neighborly block parties.

If you’ve been thinking of hosting a block party, but have been awaiting clarification on the rules, here are my thoughts: 

• ·         Proceed with your party planning.  Block parties are great ways to build communities and the City seems supportive even if the Municipal Code is lagging behind.
• ·         Go ahead and check with the Police Department.  (Email me if you need help with contact information.)  But don’t be deterred if the response seems ambivalent or vague.  Their hands are also tied.
• ·         When configuring your use of the street, remember that passage of emergency vehicles can quickly become an urgent need.  Leave a travel lane of at least 16 feet in which the only impediments are items such as chairs which can be whisked away quickly as needed.  (Last year, I attended a party where a bounce house blocked the emergency vehicle lane.   The organizer told me that eight men could move the bounce house quickly if needed.  Relying on eight men to be immediately available during an emergency seemed a bad plan.)
• ·         Although the City doesn’t yet have an insurance requirement, they may soon.  And an insurance rider may be good protection for a party organizer in the event of a bounce house accident.  I’d recommend at least checking with one’s agent.

But above all, have fun.  And if you want to invite me to the party, I’m always willing to enjoy some neighborhood camaraderie.

Next time, I’ll mount my soapbox to complain about flawed thinking behind sidewalk and bike path alignments.

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)

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)

Looking Around Town: Checking on Continuing Stories

I describe this blog as a perspective, with an urbanist eye, on land use in the entire North Bay.  However, I live, work, and participate in the Petaluma community.  Unless I watch myself carefully, I can easily find myself writing only about Petaluma.  Lately, I haven’t been watching myself carefully.

That became evident when I began to write updates on several stories I’ve been following.  All of the stories were based in Petaluma.  Oops.

I promise in the near future to again begin traveling beyond the Petaluma city limits.  At least I’ll do so as soon as the broken glass is swept up.  (For those not in the Bay Area, the North Bay sustained a 6.0 earthquake early Sunday morning.  The entire household was awakened, except for the 14-year-old Golden Retriever who continued to snore blissfully.  We sustained no damage, not even a picture askew, but the towns of Napa and Sonoma weren’t as lucky.)

I have a working list of projects which I intend to visit around the North Bay.  But if readers have particular projects they’d like me to visit, or public hearings they think I should attend, let me know.  I’m always interested in inside information.

So, today will be a summing up of older Petaluma stories.  My next post will be final thoughts on the athletic field at the River Front project in Petaluma (where else?) about which I’ve recently written twice.  And then I’ll take a quick look at planning in England.  But after that, I promise, I’ll widen my perspective to include more of the North Bay.

Fairgrounds: As I’ve previously written, there will be a special meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat this coming Tuesday, August 26th.  We’ll continue our independent analysis of the redevelopment options for the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  Several members are preparing sketches for sharing and discussion.  The meeting will be at the Aqus Café at 2nd and H Streets.  We’ll begin at 5:30.  Everyone is welcome.

I’ve been corresponding with a parent who has been active with the Live Oak Charter School on the fairgrounds.  She advised me of several factors, including funding for improvements under the recently passed Petaluma City Schools bond measures, that increase the likelihood that Live Oak will remain in its current location.  Anyone who is preparing a sketch for Tuesday evening may want to include Live Oak in its current setting on the Gnoss Concourse.

Block parties: In response to my recent suggestion that readers contact their favorite City Councilmembers to advocate for loosening and clarifying the block party rules in the Petaluma Municipal Code, several readers promised to do exactly that.

One faithful reader even copied me on her emails to all seven Councilmembers.  To their credit, six of the seven responded.  The messages ranged from “That’s interesting” to “Let me look into it and see what I can do” to “Here are some thoughts for making a change in 2015.”

I’m pleased that she received responses, but would have preferred if at least one had been “Let’s get this fixed right now!”  Perhaps I was hoping for too much, particularly during an election season.  Plus, reduced City Hall staffing has an effect on the speed of administrative changes, no matter how laudable.  I’ll let this situation perk for awhile in hopes that something develops.  But failing that, at least we have a plan for 2015.

Celebration of Evening Bus Service: I haven’t yet seen the numbers, but suspect that the celebration of Petaluma Transit evening bus service was a failure to launch.  I hung out near the Boulevard Cinema for an hour in the early evening.  I saw a few students hanging about, perhaps ready to take advantage of the reduced admission charge, but it was far short of a critical mass.

The failure is disappointing.  Not so much because of the time spent by transit staff in organizing the event or the post that I devoted to the subject, but because the community needs strong transit service, including evening service.  And because local students need to achieve transit comfort to reach their full potential in the 21st century.

However, as Thomas Edison was reported to have said upon the failure of another light bulb concept, we’ve haven’t failed as much as we’ve found another idea that doesn’t work.  We’ll take a step back, reassess the opportunities, and try again.  And we’ll eventually succeed.

Keller Court Commons: I previously wrote of this pocket neighborhood project that would bring an alternative and more compact land use pattern to Petaluma.  In my post, I noted my disappointment that the zoning code required the project to become a planned unit development (PUD), arguing that the additional hurdle shouldn’t have been required for the more benign land use.

The project easily secured its first Planning Commission approvals a couple of weeks ago.  Afterwards, I finally met the developer face-to-face.  He hadn’t seen my post, but among his first comments was astonishment that he’d needed to form a PUD, noting that no other community in which he’d worked required more than a conditional use.

It was great that Petaluma was able to approve Keller Court Commons.  It was less great that the city made the process more difficult than elsewhere.

Next time, I’ll conclude my thoughts on the athletic field at River Front in Petaluma.

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: One More Time Around the Block

When I last wrote about block parties and the unwillingness of the City of Petaluma to permit them in locations where other cities have few concerns, I promised that I was finished with the subject for awhile.  I was wrong.  Righteous indignation led me back for one more post.

For those who are new to the topic, the Petaluma Municipal Code bars block parties except on cul-de-sacs.  As far as my research went, Petaluma is the only North Bay city with this unusual and puzzling restriction.  I decided to become an advocate to change the rule.

The code section hasn’t stopped all Petaluma block parties, although I know of at least one that was canceled when the cul-de-sac rule was cited.  The more common result is the block parties proceed, as I found on a successful tour of Fourth of July block parties, but only after most party organizers spend time working with the Petaluma Police Department to secure a permit, only to often proceed without a permit.

The genesis of this blog post came when I was invited to yet another Petaluma block party.  Unfortunately, it fell during a recent vacation, but I prevailed on a local friend and possible future block party host to attend in my place.  In his report, which included the photos illustrating this post, my replacement included a phrase the caused me to again tackle the block party issue.

In my pre-party communications with the party organizer, she advised me that, although her party site isn’t on a cul-de-sac, she has nonetheless been able to secure approvals from the Petaluma Police Department for past parties.

But apparently the approval was more difficult to secure this year, although she turned in her application weeks in advance.  According to the report from my proxy and confirmed by the organizer, she received verbal approval to proceed only a single day before the party.

Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive, but that situation offended me.  Here is a woman who collected over a thousand dollars to fund the party, who secured concurrence from every neighbor, and who we should be praising for her contributions to the community.  Instead, we treated her like a border-line scofflaw by making her seek a last-minute approval on the day before the event, when her focus should have been on the final organizational details for the party.

As I’ve written before, this criticism isn’t directed at the Police Department.  I can appreciate that they’re trapped between common sense of what they feel is the community good and the overly stringent words in the Municipal Code.  No, my criticism is directed toward those who could be trying to implement a change to the Municipal Code, but aren’t.

Consistent with every other Petaluma block party of which I’ve been aware this year, this most recent party

was another success.  My replacement reports that everyone had a fine time and that the past success of the block party has spawned neighborhood parties on other holidays throughout the year.  As good block parties should do, this block party is building community.

At least for this year, I’ve done about as much as I can to advocate for more reasonable block party rules in Petaluma.  I still love block parties as one-day experiments in urbanism, but keep running into dead-ends in my advocacy.

However, it’s possible that you readers can still make a difference.  If you believe that Petaluma should be more encouraging of block parties, I suggest you contact your favorite City Councilmember and ask for a change.

I’m not asking that you put yourself forward as the host of a future block party.  (Personally, I live on a street that probably carries too much traffic to be a good block party location.  It’s more likely that I’ll be the lieutenant for a block party a couple of streets away.)

Instead, I’m asking that your advocacy be based on four points:

One: You want to respect the folks who currently organize block parties by removing the current dichotomy between the strict letter of the Municipal Code and the more common sense approach taken by the Police Department.

Two: You want to encourage more block parties in reasonable locations.

Three: You want your community to be able to make small, incremental, common-sense fixes to problems when they’re noted.

Four: You want your community to build a tradition of problem-solving that can be applied to the bigger civic issues that will arise in future years.

If you agree with four points, and I hope that most readers will, then please undertake some advocacy.  And let me know how it goes.

In my next post, having truly exhausted the block party topic, I’ll turn to a bigger subject, the future of the Sonoma Marin fairgrounds.  I’ll discuss the conversations at the last Petaluma Urban Chat meeting and set the stage for the upcoming meeting.  Of course, Petaluma Urban Chat has no official standing in the ongoing fairgrounds negotiations, but if we can put together common-sense solutions, perhaps we can influence the negotiations.

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)