Subjects:

• General Questions
• General Plan
• Focused Growth: Transit Corridors
• Density
• BART 
• Affordable Housing
• Design Quality
• Parking 

General Questions:   

What is “TOD”  

Transit oriented Development

What is Smart Growth?

Ted Droettboom: We are trying to wean ourselves away from the smart growth terminology as it tends to be overly simplified into absolutes by both its proponents and opponents.  However, in general it is growth designed to CONSERVE resources (land, energy, water, habitat, air and public dollars) and to provide CHOICE (in housing form, tenure and cost and in travel mode including walking, biking and transit).  Generally, it is COMPACT and CONNECTED, comprising a network of COMPLETE COMMUNITIES where land uses are mixed and access is easy and convenient.

Some Links:

Smart Growth: http://www.smartgrowth.org/Default.asp?res=1280

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_sg.htm

Greenbelt Alliance : http://www.greenbelt.org/whatwedo/index.html

General Plan Questions:

For Art Clark or Walter Miles. Having worked so hard on creating the general plan, how do you feel when residents of North Oakland neighborhoods attempt to downzone or keep zoning the same? What might you say to such residents?

Would you agree that the General Plan in Temescal was not participatory by a broad group of people and that publicity was inadequate?

For Art Clark or Walter Miles. Looking around the room at the faces here today, can you speak to the relative diversity of folks who participated in the general plan process – as compared to the appearance of diversity in this room?

Focused Growth: Transit Corridors:

Panelists discussed Focused Growth - or focusing growth around urban transit corridors, in existing communities, where the infrastructure already exists. This was presented as a viable way to curb urban sprawl and reduce automobile pollution and other forms of CO2 emission caused by sprawl. It was also noted that focusing growth around the Bay, where temperatures are more moderate, would significantly cut down on energy consumption because people living east of the Oakland Hills consume more energy heating and cooling their homes.

Doesn’t it make sense to fully develop EXISTING transit corridors, many of which suffer from disinvestment and urban blight FIRST?

Ted Droettboom: Our concept of Priority Development Areas emphasizes existing transit corridors.  Helping to revitalize existing communities is an important part of the regional vision.  As well, many of our existing areas make most sense in a time of global warming.  They tend to be in cooler parts of the Bay Area.  However, infill of existing corridors, respecting the needs and desires of existing residents can be much more difficult and time-consuming than smart growth in less developed areas.  If we are to intelligently accommodate the growth expected in the Bay Area over the next couple of decades we need both.

If increasing density and transportation corridors results in greater reductions of auto use and pollution, then shouldn’t we focus such development in places where car use is higher rather than here, where it is already lower?

Ted Droettboom: It's not an "either-or" proposition.  We need to build upon our strengths AND reshape development where car use is more dominant.

[If framing equality as the facilitator has in terms of “sharing the benefits as well as the burdens in a society”] Perhaps we should be tearing down many more houses all over the region and building more transit corridors. Build more transit corridors up to the hills. Shouldn’t the lower density suburban neighborhoods have more of the growth in residential development and jobs than the denser urban neighborhoods?

Ted Droettboom: I know of no significant intentions anywhere in the region to tear down houses to build transit corridors.  That growth model pretty much died sometime in the last century.  Similarly, there are no plans to redistribute growth based on some grand vision of social justice.  We don't think we could make that work even if we could figure out what the right and fair distribution would be.  We do believe that over time, most existing communities, whether they are urban or suburban will accept some increment growth--both because it helps the region function better and also because it will result in better, more interesting, and more convenient neighborhoods for both existing and present residents.  Pace and densities will, however, vary greatly...just as they do today.  There is no one size that fits all.

The red zones shown up north on the map would be prime candidates for a huge push for public transit. Couldn’t we build more transit there and restrict driving in those locations?

Ted Droettboom: There is more transit planned for the northern red zones.  That is one of the reasons they are colored red.  They will, however, require higher densities to make transit economic.

People often ask, "Why does the development have to go here?” Aside from the obvious cost effectiveness of building where the infrastructure already exists, isn’t it accurate that much of the automobile pollution caused by Urban Sprawl is due to commuter trips? In other words, the jobs are HERE in the major metropolitan area. So, even if we make suburban communities more pedestrian and transit friendly, there will still be the problem of people having to commute here for work. Can improving transit corridors in suburban areas and locating denser development there significantly curb the problems?

Ted Droettboom: Shortening work commutes will have a significant impact on emissions, both traditional pollutants and carbon.  However, we also need to be mindful of non-work trips--to schools, shops, restaurants and recreational activities.  These, too, play a big role and if we can get some of these out of automobiles or even combine trip purposes, we will also make a difference.  Compact is best near work concentrations, but it is also worth pursuing in new areas as well.  

For MTC Rep James Corless on Bay Area’s Green House Gas Emissions: Auto insurance that is paid for by the mile will reduce incentives to drive. Has MTC considering lobbying state legislature to change the way we pay for car insurance?

Ted Droettboom: James may have more information on this than I do, but I am unaware of any concerted effort to change the rate structure for insurance.  However, as part of global-warming considerations in the next regional transportation plan, we will be considering a variety of financial incentives and disincentives for changing driving behavior.

Pittsburgh is hot. Why was an example of transit-oriented development in Pittsburgh discussed? One speaker said transit-oriented development should all go here, where it’s cooler.

Ted Droettboom: Good point.  To date ambient temperature has not played a large role in distributing development in the Bay Area--or in all of California for that matter--particularly since the advent of modern air conditioning.  With global warming and energy shortages, we may see a return to the past where temperature mattered for location decisions.  However, even in hot climates, dense development is more energy- and water-efficient than less dense development.

Is development in Pittsburgh on railroad avenue transit oriented?

Ted Droettboom: It will be if the e-BART system serves the area.

MTC – isn’t much of the population growth projected to be in San Jose ?

Ted Droettboom: Yes, San Jose is projected to continue to grow.

Doesn’t it make sense to push for fair income and corporate taxes to regionally and nationally pay for transit as has usually been done in the last 40 years. Property taxes by small homeowners are not a fair way.

Ted Droettboom: James should respond to this one, but it is my understanding that property taxes may pay for some local roads (mostly maintenance) but most transit is financed from other sources, increasingly sales taxes as well as traditional transportation-related revenue like the gas tax. 

For the MacArthur Transit Village , the city/developer somehow failed to be able to bring a neighborhood market, the single most needed amenity. How can this be overcome?

Ted Droettboom: Retailers respond to aggregate community income (the number of people living in the area and the money they have to spend).  I suspect that the developers were unable to deliver a neighborhood market either because there were not enough people or they did not earn a high enough income or both.  Density and income-mix is critical to making complete communities work, with the amenities that people want.  It is also essential to have cities, not developers, drive the planning.  Sometimes residential developers can't deliver retail services because they only do residential and do not have expertise or interest in making retail function well.  Community-driven plans can overcome this myopia.

Ted, is there a policy or strategy to address “community resistance” – the 2^nd countervailing force to focused growth?

Ted Droettboom: The key to community resistance is community respect.  The only way I know to effectively address community resistance is to involve the existing community meaningfully in crafting a plan which serves both existing and new residents.

For those of us who want to try to make focused growth work in our community, is there funding we can access to help address problems related to such growth (like traffic, parking, pedestrian and bike safety, etc)?

Ted Droettboom: The regional agencies are putting together funding and other packages to assist local governments in tackling these problems.  We are unable to directly assist local communities.  However, organizations like the San Francisco Foundation or the East Bay Community Foundation sometimes assist local community organizations in addressing planning problems, either directly or through umbrella organizations like the Transit and Land Use Coalition (TALC).

Ted, you said the major impediment to focused growth is community resistance. It seems that communities across the country are having similar discussions and are facing many of the same fears, concerns and issues, related to urban infill development: parking, solar reduction, traffic congestion, air quality, need for open space, desire for effective transit, pedestrian and bike safety, etc.  MTC has big picture ideas, but we are left trying to figure out how to make it work in our communities. Wouldn’t it make sense for MTC to also be working on developing toolkits for citizens working to implement broader focused growth concepts in their specific communities? Is there any such resource or organization out there?

Ted Droettboom: Start with the Great Communities Collaborative which is being coordinated by the two foundations and TALC.  The City of Oakland should also be able to help, and we will be trying to get more resources to Oakland and other similar cities so they can work more effectively with local communities.

Density:

Ted, at what density would you say the quality of life would suffer?

Ted Droettboom: Generally at twenty units per acre or less where really good transit is not economic.  Seriously, "quality of life" as it relates to density is largely a matter of individual taste and values.  I know folks who live in the densest parts of New York city or Hong Kong who find the quality of life in less-dense downtown San Francisco unacceptable.  I also know people who find downtown Walnut Creek too urban.  Density is not the issue. Planning and management is the issue.  Well-planned and managed environments can be very livable at very high densities.

Measuring density: If we could shift the description of density away from simply households per square mile, how would you re-measure, rephrase it to focus on amenities? Amenities/household/square mile?

Ted Droettboom: That's a start.  In Vancouver , we maintained a strict park standard of 2.9 acres per 1000 residents, regardless of density.  That allowed us to keep our densest neighborhoods very livable.  We, of course, also planned for schools, child care facilities, libraries, recreation centers, and commercial services with similar ratios.  It's about building complete communities, not just about building dense housing. 

How do we resolve the conflict between the low density residential and the high-density development on the corridors?

Ted Droettboom: Variety is good.  Why can't you have both where appropriate?

A question from the East Bay Depot for Creative Reuse: Regarding the waste created by high-density housing – how shall we/can we address waste issues on a local neighborhood scale? We must build in to the new infrastructure warehouses or depot areas for supporting and redistributing goods. And, raw land for intense local composting and water catchment.

John Holtzclaw: You (East Bay Depot for Creative Reuse) are the experts on that. Bring your issues to Community Planning processes (charrettes) to work out these

issues with others there.

John (Holtzclaw) presented a correlation of higher density with higher property values. I see adding density in the form of condos to the Temescal neighborhood as a way to provide MORE housing at a price LESS than the single family homes in the neighborhood. Please discuss Temescal impact of added condos to property values.

John Holtzclaw: I'm not sure where Temescal is. The neighborhoods with the highest residential densities (and highest property values) are mixed income with much local shopping, so increasing densities with affordable housing should attract more commerce and raise property values.

“A certain rate of return is required to pass on” – I don’t understand this statement. Required by what?

What should the open space (parks and other) be as the “density” increases?

Ted Droettboom:  told you the standard we used in Vancouver (above).  Oakland may have a different standard, depending on context.   The important thing is to establish a standard and to apply it intelligently and not slavishly.  It may have to be higher in some areas in lower in others but should balance out to a workable, equitable community.

John Holtzclaw: I don't understand the question. But the most predictive density we found (households/residential acre, hh/ra) excludes parks and open space from the density measures -- so, more parks and OS don't decrease density. Use the Community Planning processes (charrettes) to incorporate parks, widened sidewalks with trees (narrowing the streets), bike lanes and other amenities to the plan. This was done in the Transbay Area plan in 

San Francisco

's SOMA.

John Holtzclaw: According to your graph, the cost per square foot is much higher in SF or Manhattan than in, say, Rockridge. Why then is high density considered desirable in terms of house price?

John Holtzclaw: Builders say the cheapest housing per unit to construct, requiring the least building materials, is 3 - 4 story walk-ups. Higher buildings require steel or other earthquake bracing and elevators, increasing their prices.

Lower density buildings require more foundation, roof, wall, pavement 

And utility materials for the same number of units, increasing their costs.

Land costs are higher at 100 hh/ra than at 3 (sprawl), but each unit 

Uses only 1/33 as much land, reducing the cost per unit. So, higher density

should be cheaper/unit!!! But, they are so popular that folk are willing to pay so much more for the neighborhood convenience that they drive prices up. Solution: build much more high density, multi-use, pedestrian-oriented housing around transit to bring prices down. Low income housing built in sprawl saddles low income households with $500 and up in monthly auto costs. Not a bargain.

John Holtzclaw’s Presentation:

Please discuss the possibility of a degradation of the housing experience as density increases – i.e., smaller lots, tight set backs, closer proximity.

John Holtzclaw: The beauty, attractiveness and popularity of 
Paris
, 
London
, 

Manhattan

 

And 

Shanghai

 suggest you're not referring to density of buildings or people,

but to density of noise into the units. Good building design and materials reduce noise from neighbors. Narrow streets with calmed slow traffic reduces traffic noise. My 120 hh/ra 4 story apartment building in SF's 

North
 
Beach

 is usually quiet (except after the 49ers or Giants win a series).

Is a residential acre different from any other acre?

John Holtzclaw: Residential acres excludes street (usually) acres, office acres,

commerce/shopping acres, industrial acres and park/OS acres. In sprawl,

which doesn't allow offices, commerce or industry, and seldom provides

parks, residential acres is often referred to as "net acres".

How do you measure “household”? How many people are in a “household”?

John Holtzclaw: The U.S. Census defines and measures it. We use their numbers.

Clarify bus use – in Rockridge, BART carries commuter traffic, buses carry more local patrons/trips.

John Holtzclaw:  True, and Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit fill in between BART/Caltrain and buses.

Muhammad Nadhiri: As a market-rate developer, what are current prices for your studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, etc.? How many stories are your buildings? What is the height of surrounding buildings?

Density – does SF have enough open space, nature, and parking?

Ted Droettboom: Ask a hundred people and get a hundred different answers.  This is an expression of community values and at best can only be arrived at through a rough consensus, and the values of San Francisco may be different than the values of Santa Rosa .  There are no absolutes.

John Holtzclaw: Depends upon who you ask. My answer is yes. The City requires major new office buildings to provide public open space. We used the Community Planning processes (charrettes) to identify needs for and secure new parks for the new housing in the Transbay Area.

High-density development seems to require huge sacrifices of the residents – increase of property taxes, actual loss of clean air. How can we get serious about restricting auto use in areas where this development is happening? (Alternating license plate days, etc.)

Ted Droettboom: It's not clear to me how higher-density necessarily translates into higher property taxes or loss of clean air.  At some point, given the climate imperative, restriction of auto use may be necessary, and probably the best way of doing this is to make it more expensive.  First, however, we should try to make the alternatives--particularly walking and transit--more attractive, and there are lots of ways of doing this. 

Is there any provision for nice old houses being preserved or moved to make room for high density?

As we increase density, can we not demand a corresponding increase in park space, public recreation, swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds?

Ted Droettboom: You sure can...and should.

John Holtzclaw: ditto

Affordable Housing:

What’s going on with inclusionary zoning in Oakland ?

Ian Winters of the Northern California Land Trust mentioned that cities and counties have subsidies to give out for affordable housing. Then why is there almost no really affordable housing (really – not 350,000 and up) being built in Temescal?

How do you keep buyers of affordable housing from losing out on equity from increasing property values?

What is the story behind “redevelopment areas”?  How do they work? I have heard that North Oakland residents fought having redevelopment zones in this area and that that is why we do not have more affordable housing here.

Design Quality:

I don’t believe in curbing the architectural style of proposed buildings, be they modern, craftsman, etc. However, I am concerned that we will wind up with buildings that look cheap and won’t last.  How can we learn what materials and features to demand from new buildings in our neighborhoods?  For example, what can we recommend in the zoning under “design criteria” that would ensure QUALITY.  Since I know nothing about architecture and building, I do not know how to effectively express my concerns about the look and feel of new buildings.

How can I have a say in the architecture chosen for the Temescal neighborhood?  

BART:

Parking:

Do city parking lots pay for themselves?

What is the cost of building a parking space in a parking structure in the Bay Area?

What is the lifetime cost of a space per year?

Why can’t we remove the parking space requirements for residential construction or substitute bike parking, using a much smaller footprint?

Do developers want to build more parking for their projects or do they prefer projects where they have a lower parking requirement (i.e. 1:1 or .75:1)? What is more saleable from a developer’s perspective? Are condominiums with fewer available parking spaces harder to sell?