City of Rohnert Park
General Plan Analysis
Prepared by
Erick S. Pena
Environmental Planning Student
ENSP 310
Wayne Goldberg
Introduction to Planning
Fall, 2006
Rohnert Park
was founded as a master-planned community on the former site of the Rohnert Seed Farm, located along the Northwestern Pacific railroad right-of-way. The original 1954 master plan was based on the "neighborhood unit" concept of clustering single-family homes around local schools and parks. The master plan featured eight neighborhoods, each with 200 to 250 homes, a 10-acre school, and a five-acre park.
A city's general plan has been described as its "constitution" for development – the framework within which decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment must be made. California's tradition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that the State's cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans.
The Plan I analyzed was adopted in July 2000, it gives a fine capsule of Rohnert Parks History then, it summarizes the purpose of the plan in easily understood every day language, then it goes on to list the objectives of the general plan. I think this approach is good and comprehensible, unlike the previous plan from 1990, which is done in a more classic format, which is not a simple for the average citizen to follow. In any case, this General Plan of Rohnert Park is an revised and updated version of the 1990 Plan, therefore it is not quite clear to me if the new horizon year of the plan is for 10 more years or 20. It is clear in this Plan that General Plans typically look out 20 years in the future, what is not certain to me is if that is what is meant by Horizon Year of the Plan.
The most important elements in the plan, Just by looking at the Table of Contents I would think it to be "hosing", simply because it has more sections on this theme. Nevertheless, It is not very far from "health and safety"; "open space, parks and public facilities" and "land use and growth management". Giving "transportation"; "community design" and "noise" issues a lesser value of importance.
But by looking at the "General Plans and Objective list" and assuming that they'd be listed in an importance manner, we have the first three listed relating to Growth:
- Establish a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary
- Keep the city's small-town feel
- Provide for slow, managed, and predictable growth
And by reading the first line in this Chapter 2: Land Use and Growth Management/2.1"Background and context":
"Land use and growth management represent the prime planning concerns of most Rohnert Park residents." I fall out of any doubt on that this is the most important element of the Plan. Therefore concluding that the community especially values the growth problem that Rohnert Park is going through and therefore have a comprehensive and consistent plan for a long term solution.
This chapter as well as the rest of them are not complicated to read nor to understand, as I mentioned earlier, It provides simple non-complex words, it is brief, and gives plenty of facts, data and charts without overdoing it, thus making it actually interesting and also being completely clear on what the community vision is.
Before opening it, I thought I would primarily address Growth issues, since that is the biggest issue in California in general, and the world, for that matter. But I was curios to find out if a little town Rohnert Park) that seemed to me (coming from Mexico City) very rural, comfortably sustained and surrounded by nature and farmlands, to have so extravagant issues that where particular to the area and not only particular, but regarded as most important, for example Increasing and fomenting bicycle use, since it is small and it's a town that has an enormous relationship with the university it hosts. Nevertheless, even though it does mention it as one of the plans objective, it is not primordial. I'd like to compare this plan objectives with any big city ones and see the difference in values. Since personally I am a very skeptical individual, and thus I have a feeling there I won't find much difference.
Although I can't say since I haven't done it yet, but I could imagine myself being the city council of SFO and taking this list of objectives, adding a few objectives that are current issues and characteristic of the city and disregarding the few issues that where only applicable to Rohnert Park, and with this having the community satisfied.
I acknowledge that every General Plan has a lot of technical work put into it. I give these fellow analysts and researchers the credit they deserve, I am not trying to disaccredit anybody, in fact I hope they got their pays worth, for a is a very tedious and at times monotones job, what they do. Nevertheless, given the opportunity to view the world from a students perspective, I am not concerned really for who probably put together about 80 to 90 percent of the pages inside these City General Plans, but for those who decide on what the plan objectives are and how they come up on deciding them.
I have been introduced to the term "Public Interest" and I am not convinced a simple and "subjective" term, like the latter, is convincing enough to me, to give "it" the trust and faith of the city or my city ,if it was the case. Also we have talked in class about how the community is the one that proposes its objectives based on its "wants and needs", nevertheless I quite often found things to not add up right….somewhere in the process of analyzing all this, my reasoning just blurs and the communities' interest become "what the city wants the communities' interests to be". Because this is only my hypothesis waiting for a few brave planners to explore, and because I am in this particular quest, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to try and suggest an improvement to the current Rohnert Park City General Plan or on any Plan, before I am certain that "Starting from Scratch" isn't the best step to make. After this --focusing on the most important environmental issues is primordial, but not how it affects the particular city, but how the city affects the whole World." Once this is established we can plan our cities based on our limitations.
Since our limitations are real, we have learned ways to hide or overlook them, even though growth is a limitation, and its most valued objective in the analyzed General Plan, what I am proposing is a plan that is not only comprehensive only in terms of "the entire incorporated area" and the "cities it connects" or even what effect it has on California, or the whole United States, but one that ---is geographically comprehensive with the whole world. Taking into account that all humans --even if they aren't Americans-- deserve the same right to have all the General Plans in the world working with each other, "interrelated", —in an equal manner. Therefore, before doing any kind of little community or big city plan –I need to come up with a World Plan.
Hopefully others will join.
No comments:
Post a Comment