Taking the Next Step - Opportunities to Get Involved during the Week of June 19

Theatre district of London

Another week is nearly upon us, with yet more chances to publicly advocate for urbanist-oriented solutions.  It’d be a great week to get involved.

UPDATE – See Community Separators meeting on Thursday, June 23.

Meetings this Week

Rohnert Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Monday, June 20, 5:30pm, Rohnert Park City Hall, Conference Room 2A, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park – The BPAC will consider the ongoing construction of the SMART multi-use path and the potential for a bike-share program, along with parking and sharrow  design decisions.

Petaluma City Council, Monday, June 20, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma – The Council will consider appointments to several bodies, including the Planning Commission and the Pedestrian Bike Advisory, bodies that can facilitate or impede urbanist concepts.  It takes a real geek to watch as Council appointments are made.  I’ll be there.

Sonoma County Planning Commission, Thursday, June 23, 1:05pm, 575 Administration Drive, Room 102A, Santa Rosa – The Planning Commissioners will consider the questions of both the renewal of the current Community Separators and the possible additions to the Separators.  It’s a worthy topic.  I wish I was able to attend.

Meetings Further Out

Petaluma Planning Commission, Tuesday, June 28, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma – The Adobe Road Winery is seeking to establish a wine-making footprint in downtown Petaluma.  But the permitting and construction steps toward that goal will be long and slow.  To make the Adobe Road name more familiar in Petaluma as the bigger project creeps ahead, the winery is seeking approval for a tasting room in the Great Petaluma Mill, at the corner of Petaluma Boulevard and B Street.

Petaluma has long been perceived as on the fringe of the Sonoma County wine scene, although the pending approval of a Petaluma Gap appellation could change that perception.  The proposed tasting room, to my knowledge only the second winery-branded tasting room in downtown Petaluma, would be another step on Petaluma’s path to the wine mainstream.

While a wine tasting room on its surface may not be urbanist, any land uses that pull people downtown, creating a sense of activity and place, is urbanist.  A wine tasting room meets that standard.

Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, Monday,  July 11, 9:00am, Santa Rosa City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa – SMART staff will introduce the proposals received for transit-oriented development on the SMART-owned parcels adjoining the Downtown Santa Rosa station.

Rail~Volution, October 10-12, Hyatt Regency, San Francisco – The leading conference on the use of rail for community building is coming to San Francisco this fall.

Other Opportunities to Get Involved

Petaluma Boulevard South – Bikeable/walkable revisions to Petaluma Boulevard South recently flickered onto and off of the Petaluma City Council agenda.  A group of citizens was energized by the flicker and is organizing to bring the subject of calming Petaluma Boulevard South back to the City Council with enough votes to approve it.

If you’re interested in advocating for improvements to Petaluma Boulevard South that will make the street more friendly for non-motorists and will allow better connectivity between the residential areas southwest of the street and the retail/recreational opportunities to the northeast, let me know.  I’ll get you in touch with the forming group, of which I’ll be a member.

Urbanist Visitors:  Many readers attended a series of talks by Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns and Joe Minicozzi of Urban3 last January in Santa Rosa.  They spoke about the theory of why sprawl often fails and the numbers that support the theory.  Initial conversations are underway for a return visit by Marohn and Minicozzi later this year, a visit that may include time in Petaluma along with other Sonoma County communities.

Petaluma was well-represented at the January meetings, but it was largely urbanists who were already familiar with the work of Marohn and Minicozzi.  If we organize properly, having them visit Petaluma might be an opportunity to educate others who hold positions from which they can make a difference.

I’ll need folks to help with organizational and fund-raising efforts.  Please let me know if you’re willing to lend a hand.

Lots of opportunities to get involved.  Please grab at least one and hopefully more.

When I next publish, I’ll continue telling of my experiences with CNU 24, specifically the built environment of Detroit.

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

The Train is Coming, Are We Ready?

SMART train in the shop

I’ve written before about Friends of SMART.  The citizen advocacy group was active in the initial formulation and voter approval of SMART, the coming commuter rail system for the North Bay.  They’ve continued to provide encouragement and occasional constructive criticism as the SMART moved into construction and now nears operation.

I became involved with Friends of SMART when our positions aligned in the discussion about where the second train station in Petaluma should be located.  I then played a role in their battle to allow an effective bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Jennings Avenue in Santa Rosa.

I enjoy hanging out with the folks at Friends of SMART who give liberally of their time to help improve their communities.

Now, it also turns out that being a member of Friends of SMART has perks.  The SMART General Manager recently contacted the Friends of SMART president and invited him to bring the membership for an early morning tour of the SMART shop, followed by a preview train ride from the shop to the downtown Santa Rosa station and back.

Friends of SMART (photo by Chris Stevick)

Thus, I found myself gathering with thirty other folks on a grey morning earlier this week at the SMART yard near the Santa Rosa Airport.

As a civil engineer, I’ve been around a fair number of industrial sites, from hydroelectric powerhouses to steel fabrication yards.  And yet there was still something uniquely impressive about the SMART shop with its sparkling newness, its array of tools and spare parts waiting to spring into full use, and the visual incongruity it offered, with the hulking mass of a train ready to carry passengers but confined for the moment inside a building.

SMART staff

Equally impressive was the SMART staff who spoke with us, comfortably and familiarly citing the various sections of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) with which rail systems must comply, the procedures SMART was implementing to assure that compliance, and anecdotes from the world of railroading that justified the strict regulatory approach.

Although the train ride was more within the everyday experience of many people, and therefore less new and different, the improved train technology was still impressive.  From the smoother acceleration and braking to the lack of clacking over rail joints, the changes were incremental but noticeable.  Also, compared to the aging interiors of the BART cars, the new and better appointed SMART cars were a very different experience.

But, as positive as the experience was, the view from the rolling train still gave me pause.  Almost a year ago, in writing about the location for the second Petaluma station, I used these words, “If we can’t facilitate the type of places where people would live who would be likely to ride the SMART train, then the train may be an engineering success, but a financial and social failure ….”

Riding the train

Those words were directed at SMART, but can equally well apply to many of the cities along the SMART alignment and also some regulatory agencies.  During the short ride taken by Friends of SMART, we saw the downtown Santa Rosa station where any new housing is still years away and the North Santa Rosa station where the Jennings Avenue crossing remains blocked by fencing, forcing potential riders into a longer and uncomfortable walk, while the Public Utilities Commission ponders a decision.

Looking beyond the extent of the preview ride, Rohnert Park is just getting underway with transit-oriented development.   Petaluma is even further away, with the exception of a project that is more suited to car-oriented families than to bike/ped/transit-oriented millennials or seniors.  Nor, with the exception of local transit service, has Petaluma made much progress with parking or improved pedestrian/bicycles routes.  And Novato, despite a late decision to add an eventual downtown station, will greet the first SMART train with stations that have few homes within walkable distance.

To be clear, the cities don‘t have the sole responsibility for some of these deficiencies.  Other agencies, including SMART itself, share some culpability.  But spreading the blame around doesn’t make it less of a concern.

Earlier this week, I had lunch with a career hotelier.  Our conversation was about the steps leading up to a hotel opening.  He made the point that having the hospitality operation complete and integrated on opening day set a tone that could carry through the life of the hotel, but that making up for a disorganized opening day could take years.

 I don’t think commuter trains are quite as prone to the ”Day One Equals Destiny” equation, but starting strong still matters.  With stories rolling in about low ridership on new rail systems elsewhere in the country, many of them related to a failure to encourage land use that would provide passengers for the rail line, it’s a concern that the North Bay will have so little development in place for SMART’s opening day.

Also, low initial ridership will embolden the critics of the SMART who have predicted few passengers, perhaps allowing them to further slow the needed strategic decisions.

Promoting land uses to integrate with the coming rail service was a task that needed to be tackled on a timely basis.  Unfortunately, the window for a timely response has already closed.  But sooner still remains better than later because the train will arrive whether or not we’re ready.

When I next write, I’ll take note of a recent poll that showed a third of all Bay Area residents thinking of moving elsewhere.  I don’t believe they really mean it, but the poll still tells us something to which we should be listening.

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

Getting Urbanism Wrong: Transit-Adjacency

In my last couple of posts, I argued that urbanism is a potent form of environmentalism, but one that can be easily misapplied.  And then I offered examples of urbanism, and environmentalism, gone sideways.

I’ll finish this three-part journey into the environmentalism of urbanism with a look at the potential, and the potential to do badly, of transit-oriented development.

I recently met a local transit advocate over sandwiches at Ray’s.  After chatting about several other subjects, including the possible parklet at Ray’s, my lunchtime companion raised a topic that was important to him.  Looking at the planned mixed-use development next to the downtown Petaluma SMART station, he asked how we could be sure that the future residents would ride the SMART train.

It was an insightful question, so insightful that urbanists have coined a word for transit-oriented development gone awry.  In transit-oriented development, the nearby transit stops are an essential element of the residential lifestyle.  Take the transit away and the entire nature of the development changes.

In transit-adjacent development, the nearby transit stop is a nice amenity, but the residents remain likely to live much of their daily lives in their cars. The disappearance of the transit would make only a small difference in projects.

So my companion was asking how to ensure that the Petaluma Station development would be transit-oriented and not transit-adjacent.

The line between transit-oriented and transit-adjacent is fuzzy and subjective, with data about the demographics of the tenants, the sizes of the unit, and the approach to parking being key elements in assessing where a project falls.  However, even without that data, I’m moderately comfortable pointing out examples of transit-oriented and transit-adjacent development in the Bay Area.

A couple of years ago, I took a tour of mixed-use projects near BART stations.  Although the eyes I brought to that tour are different than they would be today, I think I can still discern transit-oriented from transit-adjacent.

The apartments at the Pleasant Hill BART station, with its many larger apartments and convenient parking is transit-adjacent.  Even in its website, it’s positioned as a luxury apartment complex that happens to be next to a BART station.  If BART were to disappear tomorrow, the ad copy would need to be edited, but the nature of the project wouldn’t change significantly.

I’m sure that many of the Pleasant Hill apartment residents use BART regularly, but I suspect that many of those do a daily calculation of whether they should drive to work or use BART.  In a true transit-oriented development, that computation is never made.  The residents are committed to using transit and many don’t even own cars.

In contrast to Pleasant Hill, the developments adjoining the Fruitvale and Richmond (at top) BART stations are transit-oriented.  Less parking for the residents is provided, the retail stores are arranged to serve folks heading to or from trains, and physical connection between the BART station and the housing is more intimate.

Some may point out that the Fruitvale and Richmond developments serve a less affluent segment of the population.  The observation is correct and offers further proof of a thought I offered in my last post, that poverty, or at least reduced resources, is an indicator of a more green life.  The Pleasant Hill residents can keep a luxury coupe in the covered parking and decide, depending on destination, whether to drive or to ride BART.  Many of the residents at Fruitvale and Richmond don’t have that option.

This brings us back to the question of how to ensure that development near transit stops become transit-oriented in North Bay communities, many of which don’t have the affluence of Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill, but generally have more resources than Fruitvale or Richmond.

I’ll offer three standards required for transit-orientation.  First, the mix of housing units should be attuned to the people who are more likely to live transit-oriented lives.  Studio apartments for young professionals  trying to pay off student loans by living car-free or for seniors who no longer drive, but still like to travel around, are better transit-oriented residential units than three-bedroom apartments that would attract families with school and recreational needs that can’t be met by transit.

Second, there must be parking maximums and those maximums should be set low.  Singles without cars or families with only a single car are more likely to use transit.

Third, the cost of parking should be separable from the cost of housing.  If every unit has an assigned parking place with a monthly cost embedded in the rent, then it’s easier to justify buying a car.  But if someone trying to live a green or frugal life can save both the cost of a car and another $200 in monthly parking, that person is more likely to rely strictly on transit.

Appropriate architecture and site planning, with visual integration between homes and transit stop, along with convenient walking routes, can further ensure transit-orientation over transit-adjacency, but if the above three standards are met, then the development is already well along the path to transit-orientation.

And now I can return to my companion’s question, how is Petaluma doing at ensuring that the Station Area development will be transit-oriented?

The answer is not very well. 

Although the final distribution of unit types, studio versus one-bedroom versus two-bedroom, will be dependent on a developer submittal and the City entitlement process, there are ways the City can incentivize developers to focus on the smaller units that would tend more toward transit-oriented.  The best tool is to tune the impact fees to encourage smaller units.

Unfortunately, the City has done nearly the exact opposite, with impact fees that are the same regardless of unit size.

Let’s take a simplified example of a developer having 1,500 square feet of space that could be made into three 500 square-foot studios that would likely rent to singles or couples who would use transit daily or a single 1,500 square-foot two-bedroom unit that would likely rent to a family that would need a car to convey kids to school and sport and might generate, at best, one transit rider per day.

Clearly, transit-orientation requires the three studio units.  And the City of Petaluma assesses impact fees that would be three times as much for the three studios as for the two-bedroom unit.  So the incentives run the wrong direction.

To be fair to the City, I understand some of the underlying reason for the impact fee schedule.  Having accrued significant debt and deferred maintenance under the suburban model, the City is trying to capture enough revenue from urban development to balance the books.  But having backed the wrong horse between urbanism and suburbanism, trying to get square by putting a bigger burden on good urbanism feels like doubling down on a failed proposition.

And that’s before we tackle the question of whether a transit-friendly unit in downtown should pay the same road impact fee as a car-oriented unit on the urban fringe, as is the case under the current fee schedule.

The story on the parking side isn’t much better.  The weak link of low maximum parking counts and decoupled parking costs is off-site parking.  A tenant could choose to not rent a parking space, or to keep a car above the maximum allowed, and instead park a car in an adjoining neighborhood, irritating the neighbors and undermining the intent of transit-orientation.

The solution, a parking management district, is clunky, but effective.  Neighbors would be issued parking stickers and only cars with stickers could park in their neighborhood.

When the master plan for the Station Area was prepared, the consultants saw the need for parking management and called for it in the final report.  And three years later, nothing has been done.

So, transit-orientation remains the environmentally-friendly goal.  But my lunchtime companion was correct in worrying about whether the City of Petaluma has the will to avoid the unacceptable fate of transit-adjacency.  Once again, the better environmental outcome might not be realized.

With my next post, I’ll stay in on the topic of the environment, but go a different direction, returning to a favorite topic of how urbanism fares under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

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

Making Car Non-Ownership Seamless

Convincing people to make lifestyle-changing commitments to transit is a multi-faceted challenge.  There are some bright folks who are offering creative solutions.  But there may also be transit agencies which are failing to address the problem.

One can make two types of decision regarding transit use.  Let’s call them “daily use” and “everyday use”.  Both are based on rational assessments of the cost and convenience of transit versus car.  Both are good for traffic congestion, air quality, etc.  But the everyday use decision is far more important to urbanism and to the world.

Daily use is the decision to take transit for a particular trip, without a commitment beyond the current day.

For the first five years of my career, I rode BART from Walnut Creek to San Francisco nearly every workday.  I didn’t make that decision because of any grand philosophical justification or government dictate.  I rode BART because it was cheaper than paying for gasoline, bridge tolls, and parking.  Plus I preferred spending my morning commute reading the San Francisco Chronicle instead of watching brake lights.   My morning memories of those years are mostly Herb Caen and Armistead Maupin.

But despite riding BART to work nearly every day, I still had a car.  I had to live in a home at which parking was available.  And I continued to paying for insurance, maintenance, etc.  On any particular morning, I could have chosen to drive to work instead of riding BART.  And sometimes I did so because of post-work commitments.  I was a car-owner who happened to use transit regularly.

Today, I still make daily use calculations several times a month.  When considering a meeting or athletic event in the Bay Area, I think about transit options versus driving, considering cost and convenience.  And I still have a car in the driveway.

But there is another more profound decision that can be made.  To have one fewer car in the household and to instead rely exclusively on transit.  (I’m using “transit” as shorthand for a comprehensive car non-ownership strategy.  Transit alone is rarely sufficient for living with one fewer car in the garage.  But it can be an essential element of a strategy that might also include a personal bicycle, bike share, taxis, CityShare Cars, etc.)

Historically, the “one fewer car” strategy was usually conceived as a family finding a way to make do with one vehicle instead of two.  But the millennial generation is beginning to show us that a car reduction from one to zero is also a possibility.

The cost savings of making an everyday transit decision and pruning a car can be large.  Not only are the car purchase, maintenance, and insurances costs eliminated, but if one lives in a cutting-edge setting where housing and parking have been decoupled, the cost of a parking space can also be dropped.  If the parking is structured, the savings can be $20,000 or more.

But the decision to do with one fewer car is more complex that deciding to walk to a bus stop Monday through Friday.  It’s about assembling a cost-effective strategy for all the needs of living, from weekly grocery shopping to the delivery of a large screen television to taking a weekend in the wine country.  If the obstacles to any of those tasks become overly burdensome, it’s easy to buy a car, secure parking, rejoin the masses, and resume adding traffic congestion to the streets and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

So providing ways to facilitate the everyday transit decision is good public policy.  Some folks take the charge seriously.

Hacienda, a mixed-use project in Pleasanton that will someday host almost 20,000 on-site workers and nearly 4,000 residents, has taken a step in the right direction.  In partnership with City CarShare and Schneider Electric, and under the review of UC Berkeley, a fleet of electric vehicles has been made available to the residents and workers.

Need to make a business trip to San Francisco, go to lunch with co-workers, or visit a hardware store during a break?  An electric car is available.

It’s still a trial effort.  The long-term implementation is still uncertain, including details such who covers the cost.  But it’s a creative idea that makes living without a personal vehicle one step easier.

Contrast that to some of the North Bay thinking.  Now that it’s commonly understood that the widening of Highway 101 remains at least seven years away, there is additional regional hope that the coming SMART train can be part of a comprehensive strategy to do with fewer personal vehicles.

Early on, SMART seemed to embrace the challenge.  Management talked of shuttles that would deliver passengers from stations to places of employment.  And SMART was an active participant in land planning efforts to add transit-oriented development near the stations.

More recently, both initiatives seem to have faded.  I recently heard a rumor that no funding would be available for shuttles.  And despite the Petaluma Station Area Plan having been adopted nearly a year ago, the SMART parcel adjoining the downtown Petaluma train station hasn’t been made available to developers.

I don’t sit at the SMART management table.  But I think a train can be a good regional addition.  And I sympathize with SMART’s problem.  The long-range planning assumed a continued robust economy that would generate solid sales tax revenues.  The economy hasn’t been robust and may still be years from being as strong as hoped during the planning.

Nonetheless, the SMART goal should be to facilitate non-car lifestyles.  At present, SMART seems to believe that delivering a working train that may encourage daily use will be adequate.  It’s not.  We need a system that will encourage everyday use.  Shuttles, transit-oriented development, and a big picture strategy are required.  And they’re required now.

The Hacienda electric car program isn’t a complete solution, but it can be part of a complete solution.  Which seems to be more than SMART is currently offering.

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

From Today to TOD – The Next Steps

A few years ago, a poll was taken about which planning departments in the Sacramento area were the most responsive and helpful.  The City of Sacramento came in last.  Between an organization chart that placed key reviewers in separate silos and a long-standing culture of poor responsiveness, developers found Sacramento a difficult place to do business.

Some may find that result refreshing, thinking that the role of a planning department is to make development difficult for developers.  They’d be wrong.  The best role of a planning department is to shape development so it meets that needs of the community, while creating an environment in which developers are encouraged to build projects that benefit the community because they can make a profit.

That’s the role that the Sacramento planning department was failing to fill.

In response, the city manager and city council took action.  New management was recruited and a reorganization was implemented.

Developers noted the changes, but weren’t enthusiastic.  Most had seen other cities go through similar modifications with little eventual improvement.  This time, they were wrong.

Months later, the local district of the Urban Land Institute held a meeting on the new city planning organization.  A developer told a memorable story.  Early during the transition, he was in his car when his phone rang.  On the other end was the new City of Sacramento planning director.  The director praised the concept behind a project that the developer was considering and asked what he could do to help the developer move the project ahead.

The developer was so startled that he dropped his phone.  He had rarely heard from a Sacramento planning director previously and certainly never with an offer of assistance.

Some of the initial euphoria over the changes at Sacramento has since faded, as often happens with early enthusiasm.  And economic hard times forced staffing changes.  But enough effect lingered that Sacramento now has a passel full of interesting and beneficial urbanist projects in the works.  Many hurdles remain to be cleared, but the future of Sacramento looks much brighter than it did only a few years ago.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about a number of issues surrounding the Petaluma Station Area Plan.  I’ve written about a transition in parking philosophies and the points on which a parking strategy might be tripped.  I’ve written about how much retail the Station Area can likely support.  I’ve written about adjoining land patterns and the need to recognize non-conforming land uses.  And I’ve written about the impact fee conundrum for transit-oriented development (TOD).

All of those topics, and more, are crucial and will remain crucial.  But equally important is outreach.  Talking with developers, whether in the Station Area itself or in surrounding parcels, who might be enticed to develop projects that will help bring the TOD to full fruition.

As illustrated by the accompanying photos, the area around the Petaluma Station Area has little urbanism in its current makeup.  It will take a long and sustained effort to make changes.

This doesn’t mean that the City of Petaluma, or any city, should grant broad concessions to get a TOD underway.  That’s a land-development model that has gotten us into much of the economic mess in which we now reside.

Instead, the goal should be a win-win-win.  A win for the City in the form of an immediate upswing in economic activity, a win for developers in the form of profits, and a win for the next generation of local residents in the form of economically sustainable development.   And win-win-win solutions are only found through frank interchanges of needs and concerns.  They don’t evolve in vacuums.

These comments aren’t intended to criticize the City of Petaluma planning department.  I certainly don’t have access to their call logs or know with whom they’re meeting.  I hope that they and others in City Hall are actively reaching out to, listening to, and encouraging possible developers.

Instead, the comments are meant to alert all cities that have urbanist goals to remember that adopting an urbanist plan is only a first step.  That a plan is a necessary foundation, but useless if there isn’t an ingrained commitment to implement the plan by actively working with the community and developers.

I’ve seen too many cities go through long and arduous processes of adopting far-sighted planning documents, only to be puzzled when developers didn’t immediately begin submitting conforming projects.  I don’t need to see any more failures.  We should all learn from Sacramento.

Reminder: The Petaluma Planning Commission will begin consideration of the Petaluma Station Area Plan at 7:00pm on March 26 in the Petaluma City Hall.

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

From Today to TOD – Impact Fees

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about the hurdles of converting from drivable suburban to walkable urban, with particular reference to the pending Petaluma Station Area Plan.  I’ve discoursed on subjects as varied as parking, adjoining properties, and transitional uses.   Today, as I near conclusion, I’ll grapple with the thorniest issue, impact fees.

Impact fees are charges that are collected on new development and are intended to fairly assess new residents for their share of the infrastructure improvements needed to support a growing population.  Impact fees are usually collected at issuance of building permits, although alternative arrangements are sometimes permitted.

The breadth of possible impact fees are limited only by municipal imagination.  The most common fees are for roads, water, sewer, storm drainage, schools, and parks.  An impact fee can only be imposed if a study has been done justifying the amount of the fee.

(Note: “Impact fee” is a generic term for this type of development charge.  It is also the term used in California.  However, other states use alternative terms.  In Oregon, these fees are called “system development charges” or “SDCs”.  I was involved in setting the SDC rules for the Oregon community where I lived before moving to the North Bay.)

By law, an impact fee can only consider the incremental impact of new homes or businesses.  It can’t be used to remedy existing infrastructure deficiencies.  However, that’s a fine line that is often erased by shuffling feet.

The StrongTowns theory tells us that many communities are increasingly victims of infrastructure maintenance shortfalls and are dependent on the fees from new development to cover the gap.  As a result, city councils and their consultants often struggle with the distinctions between new impacts and existing deficiencies.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) further confuses the question.  Although the point is rarely noted, most impact fees studies include an implicit assumption that new development will follow the same pattern as existing development.  That each new single-family home will generate the same ten vehicular trips as existing homes, will water the same area of lawn, and will produce the same number of school children.

What should a city do about impact fees when new development is targeted toward residents who prefer to make trips by transit, by bicycle, or by foot, rather than by car?  Who generate fewer school children because they are predominantly millennials or seniors?  Or who live in smaller spaces because much of their social life is conducted in the public realm?

Looking at Petaluma, as least as seen through the lens of the proposed Petaluma Station Area Plan, the answer is unclear and potentially unsatisfying.  Early in the station area planning process, the consultant team determined that the current impact fee structure would overburden the station area, with the result that development might not be financially feasible.  Combined with the knowledge that TOD residents generally require less infrastructure to live their daily lives, this put a burden on city staff to reassess the impact fees.

(Note: There is also a time factor to the infrastructure demands for TOD residents.  Early in the life of a TOD, residents may make nearly as many car trips as other city residents because the commercial elements of the TOD are still evolving.  But as the TOD begins to meet more daily needs, these car trips will likely reduce.  The impact fee standards don’t address this possibility.)

Concurrent with the findings of the consultant team on the impact fees for the station area, there was a growing concern in Petaluma that the impact fees were too high for all development.  The recently adopted General Plan included infrastructure improvements that were to be funded by impact fees.  Many argued that the resulting impact fees were stifling development.  (Once again, there were hints of the StrongTowns-predicted conflation of infrastructure needed to support new development and infrastructure needed to sustain the existing community.)

The city decided to reduce impact fees throughout the community.  The reduction for residential housing was about 30 percent.  The station area planning consultant was directed to reconsider the financial viability of the station area plan with the lower fees.  The results of this update haven’t yet been released.

This impact fee reduction was likely appropriate and the city should be applauded for taking the step.  But it sidesteps the question, which is fundamental to this discussion, of whether people who live in a TOD should be subject to the same impact fees as those who choose to live on the urban fringe.

To be fair, there is a distinction in the impact fees between single-family homes and multi-family homes.  Thus, the average TOD residence will have somewhat lower impact fees that the average residence at the urban fringe.  However, the impact fees remain the same between walkable TOD multi-family units and apartments at the urban fringe which are surrounded by parking lots and require a car for nearly every daily task.  And that seems flawed.

I concur that it would be an overly difficult task for a city to finely tune impact fees to each set of circumstances throughout a city.  However, the burden on cities under the California Government Code, Section 66020, is to make “proper and valid findings that the construction of certain public improvements or facilities, the need for which is directly attributable to the proposed development”.  “Directly attributable to proposed development” would seem to require acknowledgement of alternative types of development such as TODs.

There is one other point on which TODs differ from other types of development.  Like most cities, Petaluma’s impact fees are the same regardless of the size of the residence.  This feels appropriate for most situations.  From personal observation, a 1,200 square foot home is likely to have a similar number of residents as a 3,500 square foot McMansion.

However, many TODs include a new size of residence.  Micro-units of perhaps 300 to 400 square feet that are intended for a single person.  If the impact fees remain the same for these units, the incentive for a developer is not to build micro-units, because the fees per square foot might be four times greater than for conventionally-sized units.  And yet micro-units can fill a housing niche and add vibrancy to a TOD.

The station area consultant recognized this conundrum early in the process and suggested that impact fees for TOD units be scaled to unit size.  Thus far, the suggestion hasn’t been acted upon.

I won’t pretend that setting impact fees is an easy task.  Indeed, it’s complex and multi-faceted.   But the ultimate goal is the fair distribution of infrastructure costs.  I’m not sure that we’re yet approaching that goal when it comes to TOD.

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

Getting from Today to TOD – Adjoining Land Uses

I‘ve recently written about the challenges of transitioning from a car-dependent drivable suburban land-use pattern to the walkable urban pattern of a transit-oriented development (TOD).  Here and here I wrote about the issues around parking, finding a balance between the mixed-use of a TOD and the parking requirements of those who live elsewhere.  And here I wrote about the extent of retail that a TOD might be able to support.

The transition to a TOD is a change that many, including me, believe should happen and will happen for a wide range of environmental and financial reasons.  But that belief doesn’t make the transitional steps any easier.

Today, I’ll look at the role of surrounding land uses.  In the North Bay, we often think of TOD as primarily new construction around a transit stop.  But in other parts of the world, large blocks of vacant land don’t exist near transit stops.  Instead, the success of a TOD depends greatly on the existing pattern of land use.

Atlantic Cities recently reported on a study by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development on proposed new transit stops in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The study ranked each neighborhood on five parameters.

I think the graphical presentations of the findings are contrived and unhelpful.  It is rare that multiple parameters should be weighted equally.  Plus the area of the pentagon is excessively affected by a single parameter with a low number.

But the five parameters described, population density, physical form (walkability), car dependence, presence of amenities, and proximity to employment, are reasonable.

In past posts, I’ve used the pending Petaluma Station Area Plan as the prism through which to look at TOD issues.  I’ll do so again today.

To set the scene for people who may not know Petaluma well, there are four general areas that adjoin the downtown Petaluma SMART station.  Immediately to the southwest are the vacant parcels on which the TOD would be constructed.

To the southeast, across D Street, is largely vacant land.  It’s certainly likely that the eventual development of this land will be shaped by the proximity to the station and the TOD, but that development may not happen for years, so doesn’t provide any benefits during the key early years of the TOD.

To the northeast, across Lakeville Street, are the well-restored Burdell Building and the East D Street neighborhood.  The neighborhood dates to the first half of the 20th century and is largely comprised of modest homes on relatively large lots.

To the northwest, across E. Washington Street and behind some streetfront retail, is a large area of aging industrial.  The streets are unpaved and the buildings late in their lives, with the owners working to keep tenants in place until new uses for the area can be economically justified.  The general plan designates this area for further mixed use, expanding the concept of the Petaluma Station Area.

Looking at these areas versus the five parameters of the Center for Transit-Oriented Development yields these insights:

Population Density: Until the development of the TOD site, the population density of the area will be poor.  The East D Street neighborhood is the only source of residents and it’s a relatively non-dense setting.

Physical Form: The blocks are bigger than might be preferred for convenient walking.  More importantly, Lakeville and E. Washington Streets are major arterials.  They are legitimately perceived as barriers to safe or comfortable pedestrian access. 

Car Dependence: In Petaluma, and in most North Bay cities, car dependence remains high.  There are few areas where people can live convenient car-free lives.  Perhaps the Petaluma Station Area will become one of those areas, but that won’t happen for many years.  Even the early residents of the TOD will likely do many of their daily chores by automobile.

Amenities: Not surprisingly given the low density, there are few amenities in the station area.  There are shopping opportunities in the River Plaza and along E. Washington Street, but the offerings are limited and the access difficult except by car.  And there are no schools or cultural opportunities in the area.

Proximity to Employment: SMART is convinced that jobs are readily accessible at other stations along the rail line.  Which is a good thing because there are few jobs in the proximity of the downtown Petaluma station.  The largest source of employment is probably the industrial area on the other side of E. Washington Street.  Or perhaps River Plaza.  But neither is conveniently accessible to pedestrians and both offer sufficient parking to make the train an unlikely travel option.

Overall, except for the vacant parcels on which the conceived TOD would be constructed, the area around the downtown Petaluma SMART station is spectacularly unsuited for a TOD.  And other North Bay cities would likely report the same.

This doesn’t mean that TOD is a bad idea.  What it means is that we’ve constructed a world that has diverged excessively from the land uses we’ll need in the future.  And that the transitions back will be long and arduous.

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

From Today to TOD - Retail

In a pair of recent posts (here and here), I wrote about the difficulties of integrating transit-oriented development (TOD) into communities that have a drivable suburbia slant.  The two previous posts addressed how providing parking for transit users can conflict with a desire for mixed-use development near a transit stop.  I also wrote about a transitional solution that the City of Petaluma hopes will provide a working compromise and the hurdles that the solution must yet overcome.

But parking isn’t the only element issue that creates transitional difficulties.  Some are even more intractable than parking.  Such as retail.

A favored vision of TOD enthusiasts, and of urbanists in general, is streetfront retail.  The image they evoke is of the communities of the 1930s in which our parents or grandparents were raised, with rows of locally-owned storefronts marking the downtown.

Consistent with this vision, ground floor retail, underneath residential or office space, is a key element in many urban planning codes and conceptual plans.

But three key elements have changed since the 1930s.  First, cars have become far more pervasive.  And we’ve constructed a world in which the incremental cost of car usage is so small that few feel constrained in how many miles they drive.

Second, drivable suburban development has met the retail needs of the car drivers.

Third, the internet is capturing an ever increasing share of retail.  About 18 months ago, a planner told me that internet sales were only about 3 percent of all retail sales.  When one considers that cars and food are among the largest sources of retail sales and that both are relatively immune to encroachment from the internet, perhaps the number was correct.  But it seems evident that the internet’s share of retail will continue to increase, perhaps even finding business models that can capture shares of car and food sales.

Many have rediscovered, or never forgotten, the value of shopping downtown for a handful of screws or a sheet of sandpaper.  But most, when looking for a new power drill or belt sander, will drive to a home improvement store or shop on-line.  And the absence of those big-ticket, big-profit items from downtown undermines the commercial viability of downtown retail.

Developers have long understood that cities were seeking more retail than the market could support.  I’ve worked on multiple projects where the space designated by the code as streetfront retail was given transitional titles of “live-work” or “interim residential”.  A commitment was given that the space would become retail as soon as the market could support it.  But no developer believed that change would ever happen.

Within the past week, an architect told me of designing residential space with 14-foot ceilings to meet a city requirement that the space be easily converted to retail at a later date.  The developer didn’t believe that the space would ever be anything other than high-ceilinged residential.

Perhaps most tellingly, a developer acquaintance recently tried to sell an entitled, but unconstructed, mixed-use project.  The potential buyers were consistent in their determination of the project value.  Approximately $35,000 per residential unit.  And no value for the streetfront retail.  Although the buyers would build the retail, they expected to discount rents significantly in order to keep the spaces filled.  So they couldn’t project any profits.  At least they weren’t considering retail a negative asset.

And if you need yet one more example, look at the vacant spaces in the Theatre Square project in Petaluma, especially in the locations away from the primary pedestrian routes.

The Petaluma Station Area plan met the problem head-on.  The team headed by Opticos Design of Berkeley that developed the master plan knew that retail would be dodgy.  Especially in a city that recently gave the green light to two drivable suburban shopping centers.  Not surprisingly, the Opticos team found that the market didn’t exist for retail along the full street frontages.

In the words of the Final Draft report, January 2013, “Retail cannot be supported at every building, but if the current conditions change such that more retail can be supported, the code should be sufficiently flexible to allow that use.”  (For those who are reading along, this is from page 3-17 of the Petaluma Station Area Master Plan.)

The effect is that the initial buildings, if they comply with the master plan, will have some retail, but not as much as would have been required under the current code.  Instead, much of the street frontage will be residential.   (Techniques such as stoops or small private gardens will be used to transition between the public space of the sidewalk and the private space of the homes.)

If retail conditions change, later buildings might include a higher proportion of retail.  Although I suspect that Target and Amazon will be actively working to prevent that possibility.  And will likely succeed.

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