by Joel Bassett Quick for the Local Stewardship Project of
HowMany.org
Petaluma, California is famous in various circles. Poultry
farmers may know that the chicken incubator was invented there in the
late nineteenth century, California historians might know it as "
The
egg basket of the world",
and land-use planners and legal professionals
may know it as the city that won a landmark case further expanding
local governments' legislative power. When I first walked around the
downtown Petaluma a few months ago I was thrilled with how lively it
is. I grew up in a city about the same size on the other coast, the
difference is that Petaluma's downtown business is booming and the
outlying areas aren't sprawled to the horizon.
Petaluma was once home to the most lucrative farming
operations in America. After the agricultural industry became largely
consolidated after World War II, the citizens of Petaluma were faced
with a challenge; people wanted to settle on the old farmlands and
commute to nearby San Francisco. In response to this the people of
Petaluma got together and accomplished an unprecedented feat. They
wrestled with the growth that threatened to turn their small city into
a large bedroom community, and they won.
There are plenty of reasons that limiting growth in an area
might be a common goal of the people who live there. It may be as
simple as wanting to preserve the unspoiled natural landscape. It might
have to do with their way of life and livelihood, such as wanting to
allow those who can to continue farming. Growth is also messy; traffic
congestion increases, water shortages can occur, and sewage systems are
often pushed beyond capacity. New schools, police stations, and fire
stations must be built, and the city staff has to increase. All of
these things cost money, in fact the larger the city the higher the
taxes tend to be. Improvements are expensive and once an amenity is in
place it requires ongoing upkeep. Certain areas of the world are also
home to plant and animal species found nowhere else and urbanization of
the landscape destroys habitat leading to extinction.
In most senses growth means more people. Growth in America is
often viewed as "inevitable". This has a lot to do with the history of
our nation; we have grown in population from migration to North America
from all corners of the Earth. However, we share the world with many
other nations that are no longer growing - some are in fact shrinking in
population, while others are stable. The number of nations that are
reporting a leveling off of their population has grown significantly in
the past few decades. This points to a current trend in which growth is
becoming unusual within nations and it often carries negative
connotations, as does rapid decline. Perhaps it is time we Americans
recognized this trend (commonly referred to as the demographic
transition) and started realizing that sooner or later population
stability will become the rule, growth will be managed, and our cities
will be allowed to mature qualitatively. Thanks to cities such as
Petaluma, growth is clearly a choice.
The setting for a growth boom
At the beginning of the 20th century Petaluma, California was
a small city with a few successful manufacturing businesses and an
agricultural economic base of large ranches.1 At that time
Petaluma was
famous for two things; its eggs and its chickens. These and other
farming goods sailed from area ranches down the Petaluma River to
markets on the San Francisco Bay daily.2 The world's first
incubator,
invented in Petaluma in the 1880's, was also manufactured there until
after the turn of the century.3 This small city was located
on the Petaluma River, up
the river from the San Francisco Bay and down the river from Santa
Rosa, in Sonoma County. This was a fantastic location when water was
still the principal means of shipping and travel. By the turn of the
century Petaluma had a beautiful city center full of well-built
business and apartment buildings.4
With the rise of the automobile Petaluma began to lose some of
its hold on the egg market in the Bay Area.5 Other locations
in the
region were just as viable for raising chickens now that trucks could
haul the eggs safely from place to place over ever-improving roads.6
A highly respected businessman was brought up from San Francisco by the
Petaluma Chamber of Commerce to determine what Petaluma should do to
remain a lively center of business.7 That man was H.W.
Kerrigan and his
solution was for Petaluma to keep on doing exactly what it was
doing - shipping eggs down the river.8 He began promoting
Petaluma as the
"Egg basket of the world" while the World War I was drawing to a
close.9 By 1920 people had come from all over the country to
get into
the chicken business in Petaluma.10 While Petaluma had a
number of
other strong businesses as well, both raising chicks and selling eggs
remained lucrative Petaluma commerce for the next few decades.11
This changed for several reasons as the post World War II
economy developed, with America leading the global capitalist economy.
After World War II the entire nation began to change its way of life.
The once largely rural population of the United States began to move to
urban areas to work for large companies, and farming became more and
more centralized. The automobile gained increasing use as a means of
daily commuting from outlying areas to commercial centers. There was
quite a handsome amount of federal funding given to local governments
to help metropolitan areas subsidize suburban residential settlement
across the nation. There were questions of whether or not towns that
once had a business model that allowed them to successfully coexist
with nearby larger urban areas would survive in the new economy. In the
1950's there was a push by local businesses to cover many of the older
buildings in Petaluma with "slip covers" or facades that lent them a
more "modern" look.12 This was in part an effort to retain
customers of
retail stores who were just as easily able to drive into San Francisco
to purchase goods.13
A few events took place in short succession that charged the
people of Petaluma with resolve to get a handle on growth and
development. One was the building of Highway 101 through Petaluma,
which brought the city into commuting distance range from San
Francisco. A man named Max Kortum led a grassroots revolt against the
building of the highway through downtown Petaluma.14 This
movement was
part of a larger "freeway revolt" all over the Bay Area in reaction to
multiple highway projects.15 Highway 101 was originally
drawn to go
right through the Petaluma's downtown area, but due to the efforts of
locals the freeway was moved further to the east of the city.16
Another event that sparked local resistance was the
demolishing of the old city hall.17 The magnificent old
building was
completed in 1886 and served as the center of the city's government
until 1956 when this structure was demolished.18 It was
replaced with a
single story building with no real charm or appeal that still stands
today. A third major blow to the town was the demolishing of the Healey
Mansion in 1962, which was a large Victorian style residence near the
downtown area.19 The Heritage Homes Association
(HHA) was formed in the
1960's to begin the work of preserving some of the older buildings in
the area. The area of town known as West Petaluma, was the original
city built in the decades around the turn of the twentieth century.20
This area of town has varied and beautiful architecture
that the HHA
actively works to beautify and preserve, as it has for decades.21
In 1960 the California Department of Finance told Petaluma, a
city of less than 20,000 people, that it was projected to grow and
continue growing reaching 75,000 people by 1985.22 The city
did the
responsible thing, it gathered citizen input and came up with a General
Plan to deal with all of this growth it was supposed to have. The "1962
Petaluma Area General Plan" included such goals as focusing development
compactly near the city center, balancing growth to the west of
downtown away from highway 101, creating an airport, properly using the
Petaluma River as a resource, and designation of three square miles for
development of 18,500 dwellings to house the expected 55,800 additional
people for a grand total of 77,200 in 1985.23
The building boom in Petaluma began and quickly escalated.
Much of the boom occurred due to workers in nearby Marin County
building homes for themselves due to a rise in Marin's property values.
A large land investor conglomerate bought many of the former ranches
and farms on the eastern side of Petaluma.24 Large signs
were placed
along the highway stating plans to develop vast swaths of former
farmland thus urbanizing almost the entire Petaluma River valley.25
The
people of Petaluma began to feel the strain of rapid growth, and
general public animosity toward the growth began to swell.26
The
schools were in double to triple sessions and there weren't facilities
sufficient for all of the students.27
The schools weren't the only infrastructure being overtaxed. A
report from the Public Works Department in 1971 declared that one more
year of growth was all the sewage system could handle.28 The
mayor,
Helen Putnam, called a large public meeting to explain to residents
that the city was going to raise sewer rates to build a massive new
system for the future growth.29 The packed auditorium was
notably angry
about the rate of growth in Petaluma with its corresponding problems
and opposed to higher taxes and further loss of open space.30
This
public reaction came as something of a shock to the city government.
The response may have had something to do with the deplorable looking
tract housing rapidly built to the east of highway 101.31 Perhaps
it
was just all too much; development seemed to be spiraling out of
control.32 Even the newcomers to the city thought that the
growth was
too fast.33 In less than two years a city of 25,000 people
became a
city of 30,000 people.34 Growth that rapid is hard for
anyone to
handle.
A questionnaire was sent out in the utility bill asking if
residents wanted a limit on growth, proposing a 500-house limit per
year with 250 built on the east and 250 on the west sides of Highway
101.35 The public overwhelmingly responded that they wanted
something
like this.36 The city put the limits to residential growth
outlined in
the questionnaire into a ballot initiative that was passed by an 80%
majority vote on the ordinance in 1971.37 The city decided
that it
needed a five-year emergency plan for growth. This included an
emergency one-year moratorium on all residential construction in order
to allow the city to catch up. The public had clearly stated that it
wanted control over the growth.
Unfortunately popularly decided measures are sometimes not the
end of the story. Some people felt that Petaluma's growth was a
regional concern or perhaps even a state or national matter. The
Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County challenged the
city's plan in federal court in 1974. The original ruling stated that
Petaluma's actions were unlawful in deterring freedom of travel, and
interfering with interstate commerce. The plaintiff argued that
Petaluma was trying to "avoid the problems that accompany contemporary
trends in population growth in an urban area".38 In 1974 the
9th
Circuit Court of Appeals judge stated in the case of Construction
Industry Association of Sonoma County v. Petaluma that "Every city has
the right to set its own policy" concerning growth.39 The US
Supreme
Court upheld the decision without comment in 1977. 40 That
was pretty
much the end of that. However, by 1977 Petaluma was already making
great progress with growth controls.
This Supreme Court case was landmark in that it upheld city's
rights to intentionally determine their rate of population growth in
order to preserve the qualities about the city that the residents
desired. Many cities further away from the Bay Area's commercial
centers have grown much more rapidly than Petaluma, both in population
and in land area annexed. Despite the costliness Bay Area housing
market, Petaluma has resisted the push to grow into a tasteless suburb
of San Francisco, and retained its uniqueness. It was a popular
decision, no one person led the charge, but rather a whole city of
people stood together to change things. The current population of
Petaluma is around 55,000 (20,000 fewer than projected for 1985).41
In looking across this great land, sprawl and massive
residential development seems to be the fate of every town and city
within a hundred mile radius of an urban commercial center. Bedroom
communities are usually not centers of commerce and community in their
own right, and are often full of tasteless housing laid out in visually
unappealing manners. Such cities are often faced with immense projected
population growth that has little or nothing to do with their economic
function, with their fate tied to the economic ups and downs of nearby
commercial centers. Courts have traditionally granted local governments
a large amount of deference or "home rule" in regard to what they
choose to legislate. In Petaluma's case there was clear political will
among the public to limit growth. The public found out that growth is
something a community has an incredible amount of control over.
Tying growth down
What was the source of political will that led the people of
Petaluma to brazenly take on unruly growth? In other words, can we
duplicate this success? Petaluma is similar to many other American
cities. Historically, it had a thriving agricultural industry; a family
on 5 acres could make a great living. For its size, the city had more
larger bank deposits than any other in the nation, there were several
hardware stores downtown, and business was good. In some way this
history may have provided the civic pride necessary to fuel the general
will of the public, but most cities in the US have a rich history based
on an industry of some kind.
Some of what prompted the citizens to act was that the growth
in Petaluma was incredibly fast and unruly, the people of Petaluma
wanted control over it. By 1971 there were plenty of cities all around
the Bay Area full of terrible looking and cheaply built housing and the
people of Petaluma just didn't want to become another one.42
Cities
that were already full of this residential sprawl such as San Jose were
also electing to control growth at this point in time.
The major difference between Petaluma and other cities at the
time, and likely the difference that led to the case in federal court,
was Petaluma's "honest system of addressing growth" in the words of
then mayor Helen Putnam.43 The city openly stated its goals
of slowing
down its population growth instead of using roundabout tactics such as
zoning only large lots (estate housing) or refusing to extend utility
service to new developments. It was likely this direct and
"unprecedented but logical approach" that caused other cities all over
America to send requests to Petaluma for a copy of its plan so they
could use it as a model in the early 1970's.44 Previous to
this,
attempts to stop growth were carried out quietly with fear of waking
the housing development dragon. Of course developers will still file
suit to get their way, but more and more city governments are realizing
that they have a lot of power in regard to growth.
Across the nation the more successful attempts to control
growth often follow Petaluma's methodology in that they include the
combination of limiting the city area or service area (usually through
annexation reform), and slowing residential development (by changing
zoning or limiting building permits). The combination of an Urban
Growth Boundary or UGB (which came much later to Petaluma) with a
yearly housing unit limit is probably the most successful model
available for thwarting growth projections to the liking of the
community.
Interestingly enough the city manager at the time, Bob Meyers,
said that if the lawsuit hadn't been brought against the city, the 500
units per year limit probably would have only lasted a few years.45
In
1975 when the lawsuit reached the 9th Circuit court of appeals, dozens
of cities and individuals had written friends of the court briefs, and
the entire nation had its eye on the Petaluma case. Winning the case
lent the city national fame and when the Supreme Court refused to hear
an appeal in 1977 the city was poised to maintain its growth-limiting
stance even further. Both former Mayor Helen Putnam, and city manager
Bob Meyers were invited to speak all over the country in regard to the
growth control plan.
A few things stand out in the shining example of Petaluma's
limits on growth. It began with a freeze on new development to give the
city time to catch up with its water and sewage systems. The freeze was
followed by the creation of a five-year plan. Technically speaking the
plan was almost flawless. Limiting the number of new residential
permits was the easiest way to directly limit population growth.
Creating agreements with the county in regard to sewage, water
consumption, and land annexation was pivotal. The popular vote on the
ordinance helped clear up most legal tangles. Intentional open space
preservation, infill development, and a board to approve of all
development so it is befitting the city, were all essential parts of
the plan. Finally the city refined the system through regular updates
and reports.
The downtown business community wanted people to continue
being patrons; most of the people who lived in Petaluma actively wanted
the city to remain "a nice place to live". Commercial units pay more
taxes, and so there was a direct incentive for the city to want a
viable downtown business district. Development in the Bay Area slowed
in the late seventies due to an economic recession, but the citizens of
Petaluma remained undeterred in their no-growth stance even though
economic prospects were limited. For example, in 1982 a development
called "Frates Ranch" was approved by city council.46 It
included 600
homes and a 27-hole golf course. Local citizens rallied signatures, got
a ballot initiative, and defeated the development by a 56% majority
vote.47 Even though the development could have bolstered the
local tax
base, the people still didn't want that kind of development in their
city.48
Collaboration with Sonoma County throughout this endeavor was
essential.49 The county is able to generate revenues from
agricultural
activities, and water not used by city residents is available for
agriculture instead. It is usually in a county's interest to have a
city not annex from its jurisdiction.50 Cities across the
nation have
annexed land at an unprecedented rate in the last few decades, often
much faster than is justified by their population growth (a.k.a.
"sprawl").51 Generally speaking, counties that are looking
after their
own interests should support cities in making decisions not to grow.
Counties are apt to allow commercial development in order to generate
more revenue, but an agreement to disallow it in exchange for the
city's agreement not to annex can be a winning combination. Sonoma
County should be lauded for its pro-farming stance; historically many
county governments have accepted any and all growth within their
boundaries, even though it eventually costs them area of jurisdiction
and therefore revenue. Farming seems to be a good middle ground and
many counties are becoming more interested in actively preserving
agriculture.
The city's urban limit line corresponds with the "sphere of
influence" determined by a county agency.52 Within this line
the city
created an urban growth boundary through popular initiative in 1998.
The city has since declared that no annexation beyond the line will
occur, thus allowing the possibility of a build-out. Petaluma asked the
county to help make sure development did not occur beyond this line.53
In the 1980's Sonoma County had made a law against annexation of land
in a "community separator area".54 The county has a policy
of keeping
the area open for agriculture and other non-residential uses, and has
excluded further development from the separator area by request of
Petaluma.55 Both the housing unit cap and urban growth
boundaries (UGB)
are now widely used growth management tools for local governments.
Petaluma was the first city in the US to use housing unit caps to
manage growth in its jurisdiction.56
The primary retort by detractors to any kind of growth control
is that it drives up housing prices. This has not been proven to be the
case and there are many scholars who explore the issue regularly.57
There are other scholars who say that growth controls don't work anyway
and are a waste of time.58 Generally speaking, in order to
have
affordable housing in an area with good jobs someone has to rig the
market. Most states and major cities have legislated affordable housing
programs to do just that. California has affordable housing quotas
cities must meet, and specific methodologies for meeting them. With a
limit on residential permits, and especially a specific system of
allocating permits, one can be sure to have affordable housing because
you can demand it or reward for it in many ways. If you instead simply
trust the market, you might or might not get affordable housing. The
best policy is probably a job to housing tie-in to be sure incomes
match housing prices. If there are jobs, people will come and someone
will build or sell them a place to live. The terms of this arrangement
are up to local governments. It is important to straighten an
often-skewed perspective on growth: Growth does not provide jobs
(outside of homebuilding); rather jobs usually cause growth somewhere
in their vicinity.
Despite the fact that homebuilding around the Bay Area is
still an incredibly lucrative business, Petaluma has maintained its
size and character through multiple waves of area growth, a series of
city councils, and semi-constant pressures toward development. There
are still a number of undecided issues within the community concerning
growth. The question of a train going to San Francisco is still
undecided. This would include Marin and Sonoma counties in the Bay Area
Transit system might cause a new housing boom of people building
residences along the rail line and commuting to the city to work,
however highway traffic on the 101 is regularly congested and fewer
drivers would cut down on global warming and sprawl development in the
North Bay. The possibility of a high-speed ferry to the city from the
port outside of Petaluma also exists.
Currently a number of business parks are being built in
Petaluma, this has again allowed the city to have a good amount of
economic activity and a good source of revenue for the city.59
The
Petaluma River is still used for shipping by several businesses north
of Petaluma.60 There is still an obvious influence from the
nearby
cities of the Bay Area on Petaluma's growth. There is also, however,
still a large contingency of the town's population that wants the city
to preserve its historic structures and maintain its charm. The city
also still has a positive working relationship with Sonoma County,
which recently purchased 1500 acres of farmland just south of the city
that will be turned into a county park.61
Petaluma currently has a water shortage and a series of water
contamination problems as well as problems of sewage system replacement
that are largely forcing the city to limit new development until they
are sorted out.62 Development may actually be limited in the
future due
to the prohibitive costs of bringing more potable water into the area.
In that sense Petaluma would have only ever have gotten so big anyway,
but the fact that development was slowed allowed the town to grow
carefully and intentionally (commonly referred to as "smartly"). There
is a current trend in downtown Petaluma to remove the facades put over
the older buildings in the 1950s and restore the original
turn-of-the-twentieth-century exterior.63 As time passes
Petaluma's
historic buildings, which have withstood many of the earthquakes that
destroyed other cities in the area, are becoming more and more valuable
as historic California landmarks.
A walk down Petaluma's pleasant downtown streets on any day of
the week gives one a real sense of the city's unique character. It is
only unusual if you are unused to places where business has been simply
happening for well over a hundred years. The buildings located downtown
weren't preserved for nothing; they are still being used just like they
always were for commerce and housing. The farmland seen from the road
on your way into and out of town is still being farmed. Petaluma has a
long history that it can be proud of, and the work done by its citizens
over the years has often been left standing. The city is wonderful due
in part to what was preserved. Petaluma is still clipping away though,
growing at its own pace, and taking care of its own business. Feel free
to drop by and visit, it's a great little city.
An overview of Petaluma's Growth Control methodology
1971 - residential growth in Petaluma was halted completely with
a moratorium. The purpose of this was to "give the city time to analyze
the course it had been following, to investigate forces affecting its
development trends, and to search out the basic dissatisfaction of many
citizens with recent developments".64
1972 - the city adopted the 1973-1977 Petaluma Plan. The
creation of this plan was pivotal due to a 1971 California state law
that made a city's plan something of a legal document to which zoning
must conform.65 The Plan included Environmental Design
Plans and Maps,
a Residential Development System, the Petaluma Housing Element, a limit
of 2,500 units for the years 1973-1977, and the rules and regulations
for the newly created Residential Development Evaluation Board
(RDEB).66 This was a board made up of 17 people who oversaw
all permit
distribution. The board included council members, business owners,
school board personnel, and local citizens.
William C. McGivern was the chief planner hired by the city.67
He led a process that included such activity as "Studies of the tax
base, sewer system, and schools: a moratorium on rezoning, particular
annexation, and development approvals; a planning conference, public
meetings, formation of committees, and an exhaustive public opinion
poll".68
The plan specifically intended to "limit Petaluma's
demographic and market growth role in housing and in the immigration of
new residents"; in other words the city stated that it intended to not
meet its projected growth.69
The Environmental Design Plan portion included a Residential
Development Control System (RDCS) limiting new housing units to
one-third to one-half of that built in 1970-1971 and a goal of no more
than 55,000 people living in the city in 1985.70 This RDCS
was the most
contentious portion of the five-year plan. The RDCS was created by city
ordinance in August of 1972.
1973 - In June Petaluma's citizens gave the plan approval by a 4
to 1 margin. It directly affected residential development, and it also
curtailed where it would occur. This gave the RDCS the backing of the
general public and a good deal of legitimacy. In short it determined
that no more than 500 units would be built per year and only 250 of
them would be on the west side of the highway toward downtown, and that
each proposal would be reviewed by the city.
The permits for building new residences were given to people
based on a point system overseen by the RDEB to guarantee that new
construction met some of the guidelines drawn up by the general
public.71 In this way developers had to come before the
board and
compete for the ability to build in the city.72 The plan
also put a
moratorium on land the city was to annex over the next fifteen
years.73
The city limited its water use through an agreement with the county to
9.8 million gallons per day.74 The city worked with the
county and the
local agency formation commission (LAFCO) to created a buffer zone of
open land around the city.75 Developments of 4 or fewer
houses were
always exempt, as was low-income housing and housing for senior
citizens.76 The plan was aimed controlling large housing
projects.
1977 - the plan was renewed. The city commissioned a study of
the 1971 Petaluma Plan and specifically the RDCS by Williams, Platzek,
and Mocine, made several recommendations. The group duly noted, "At any
level of environmental quality the holding capacity of an area of land
is limited". The study gave recommendations to help Petaluma maintain
its environmental quality in the face of the 500 to 800 thousand people
then projected to be moving into the Bay Area between 1975 and 1990.
These suggestions include: further engagement in county and regional
cooperation, creation of a wastewater agreement with Sonoma County,
infill development, limiting agricultural land to 20 acres per housing
unit, limiting mountainous land to the East to 40-60 acres per unit,
the creation of an official greenbelt, and inclusion of high-speed
transit to San Francisco.77
The report stated that the RDCS has failed to produce low to
moderate cost housing. This is often a challenge to growth controls
although there is little if any evidence to back up the claim that such
caps drive up housing prices, at the time it was a popular
suggestion.78Based on this report, The Environmental Design
Plan for
1978-1985 included some changes. An optimum population size was
declared to be 70,000 to 90,000 people.79 Open space within
the city
was distinctly set aside for agriculture.80 Finally a
greenbelt was
proposed to create an urban separator from Rohnert Park to the north.81
1985 - the Plan was again renewed as the 1985 to 2005 General
plan. It laid out a few distinct goals for residential development. The
plan stated that Petaluma should remain distinct and separate from
other cities. The plan stated that growth was a threat to the local
economy. It projected that at build out the city would have around
67,644 citizens (a number relatively close to the projection in the
draft of the 2025 general plan).
The plan included a transfer of development rights program to
maintain agricultural lands within the city limits, and allowed housing
for low-income residents to exceed the 500-unit cap. The point system
for gaining priority to develop under the RDEB was apparently too
cumbersome and complicated.82 The RDEB was replaced by the
Technical
Rating Committee (TRC), a small body of around 12 people representing
the various interests who were charged with allocating developments
based on the yearly Development Objectives of City Council. In 1985 the
population of Petaluma was 37,300 people, a far cry from the projection
of 1960 (75,000).83
1988 - the 500 units per year limit was agreed upon as a
constant until the urban area of Petaluma is completely built out.84
The current plan retains the goals of the former plans and keeps the
city within the urban limit line. The methodology used to meet the
city's original goals of slowing the growth rate and organizing future
development has changed over time.
1998 - the city adopted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) within
it's county declared. This UGB strongly limits outward expansion until
2018. It is only capable of being circumvented by a popular vote, and
only in certain areas.
2007 - A Draft of Petaluma's 2025 General Plan is available
online. It states that the number of permits granted per year may need
to decrease from 500 to be sure that there is some development each
year until 2025. Petaluma still maintains that properties at the edge
of the boundary should be low density, and that the pace of growth
should be centered in the city.
