Summary of the Forum

Sabrina began her facilitation by holding a story telling exercise about neighborhoods. Each of us was asked to list all the neighborhoods we had lived in over the course of our lives. She then asked us to pick one of these neighborhoods and focus on why this particular neighborhood was important in our life. She asked us to draw a map or picture of the neighborhood and list everything we could remember about it. She used the neighborhood in Phoenix where she grew up as an example of the process she wanted us to engage in.

We then broke up into groups of four. But we were asked to form groups of strangers rather than form groups of people who already knew each other. Then each person in each group told a story about why their particular neighborhood was important in their lives.

Each group of four then recorded what each person’s story had in common with the others (common vocabulary.) There were many commonalities (all the information recorded by all the breakout groups is posted to our website as a separate document.) There was a lot of information. The exercise did serve to reduce the differences between us. For example a vocal member of STAND told quite a touching story about her childhood and how she found comfort walking through a neighborhood of older homes across the freeway from her own neighborhood of tract houses.

Sabrina used what all the groups recorded to segue into “The Opportunity Agenda, What America’s Values Really Are.” What comes out of The Opportunity Agenda is that the idea of America as a Land of Opportunity is still very much alive and still quite powerful. These are the Key Concepts she listed —

VOICE: Everyone has a right to be heard.

SECURITY: Is more than personal safety but also involves access to healthcare, education and housing.

COMMUNITY:

MOBILITY: Access to the necessities of life.

EQUALITY: Benefits and burdens of a society to be shared equally by all.

REDEMPTION: Valuing second chances.

She asked that we focus on these six concepts as we listened to the various speakers and when we asked questions of them.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER TED DROETTBOOM – MTC/ABAG/AIR DISTRICT JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE

Focused Growth for the Bay Area

Planners are moving away from using the term “Smart Growth” because it is insulting. Instead they are now using the term “Focused Growth.”

Focused Growth for the Bay Area will be urban in-fill.

Here are the benefits he listed of in-fill —

• Compact

• Transit-oriented

• Supportive of existing communities

• Resource conserving

• Socially equitable

• More affordable

Why Focused Growth?

• Drive ‘til you qualify. The Bay Area phenomenon of having longer and longer commutes because families are moving further away to find housing they can afford.

• How all this driving contributes to greenhouse gasses. 85% of the Bay Area’s greenhouse gases are from on-road vehicles.

• Focused Growth and Electricity – focus growth near the Bay where you don’t need air conditioning. Temperature gradient 1-degree temperature increase per mile as you move away from the Bay.

The Joint Committee has a long-term vision they are calling “Network of Neighborhoods.” This vision cannot be realized without buy-in from local governments and local communities.

Priority Areas by Joint Committee standards are those that are existing communities that are near transit and are near jobs.

Building a Bigger Carrot – to encourage local governments and communities to adopt Focused Growth in their planning. According to the Joint Committee they estimate there could be as much as $274.5 million in bond money available to the Bay Area for Focused Growth from propositions 1C and 84 that were passed by California voters last year. The 2009 Regional Transportation Plan will also have Focused Growth incentives.

He closed with this statement; “Great regions are built from great communities.”

REBECCA KAPLAN – AC TRANSIT BOARD

Transit Corridors

Rebecca opened with the best joke of the day. Some attendees who are opposed to new development criticized Rebecca for supporting ULTRA by participating in our forum. She answered them with her opening joke; “I feel like I’m in a Monty Python movie and people are demanding to know whether I’m in the People’s Judean Front or in the People’s Front of Judea.” She says she does not advocate for one particular view of transit-oriented development.

She told a personal anecdote of how growing up in an Orthodox Jewish community precipitated the development of a walkable community. Orthodox Jews cannot do any work on the Sabbath, including driving cars so all the necessities of life need to be within walking distance. Three years ago she gave up her car.

She spoke about Portland , Oregon ’s, higher density zoning that allows for different heights depending upon the orientation of the building and how it will impact sunlight. She strongly believes the City needs clear policies in place. Such as mandating car-sharing onsite for new developments or have transit passes included as part of condo fees, or designate neighborhood streets as residential parking only and not allow condo projects to receive neighborhood parking passes.

She said there is no such thing as free parking. Somebody always has to pay whether individually in paid parking or in meters or collectively as residents who subsidize city lots through our taxes or as consumers who pay a hidden surcharge when we buy from stores with parking lots.

She strongly encourages marketing new projects as transit friendly. If a development is marketed as being near the freeway on-ramp or is marketed as being near public transit will effect who purchases condos in the project. She supports the latter marketing.

Telegraph Avenue is the next AC Transit corridor to be converted to Smart Bus Rapid Transit. This is already on San Pablo Avenue . The Smart Buses can turn the traffic lights to green and also have limited stops so they are more efficient than the old buses. After Telegraph is converted to Smart Buses, Broadway will be next.

JAMES CORLESS – METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Transit/Land-use Connection

James grew up in England where his grandfather started a bus service.

He said there is a renaissance in public transit in the Bay Area. And that most of California ’s population growth will come from births and not from immigration. There is also a demographic shift happening in California that is pushing demand for smaller housing near transit. This shift consists of young families, smaller families and more empty nesters.

The difference in miles driven and money spent on auto commutes between the longest Bay Area commute and the shortest Bay Area commute is 30,000 miles per year and $6000 per year! In the Bay Area 29% of people use public transit for their work commute and 24% walk or bike for their errand trips.

He closed with; “Density can work well, if well designed.”

JOHN HOLTZCLAW – SIERRA CLUB

What does density look like?

San Ramon = 3 households per residential acre.

Rockridge = 10 households per residential acre.

North Beach = 100 households per residential acre.

Manhattan = 200 households per residential acre.

The Sierra Club uses households per residential acre as the key figure in determining density. According to them higher density equals lower driving. Because higher density areas have more amenities within walking distance as well as more access to public transit and more frequent public transit. He compared access to public transit in San Ramon to access to public transit in Rockridge. For train access they measure ½ mile from homes, for bus access they measure ¼ mile from homes. In San Ramon there is no public transit access within walking distances of homes. In Rockridge there are 27 units of public transit access per hour within walking distance of homes. The 27 units consist of individual buses and individual BART cars not entire BART trains.

He introduced the phrase “Location Efficient Mortgages” but didn’t discuss what this means and how one applies for such a mortgage.

ART CLARK – ARCHITECT

A Citizen’s Perspective on the General Plan

Art grew up in East Oakland and as a child the under construction 580 freeway was his playground. He still lives in Oakland and also owns property in North Oakland (his Mom’s house.) He served on the General Plan Congress that wrote the City’s General Plan in the 1990’s. He became involved with zoning issues in the early 1990’s as an advocate to rezone MacArthur Boulevard in East Oakland .

The General Plan Congress was organized during the administration of Elihu Harris. It consisted of 30 residents. Each council district had representation. He said that; “extensive and exhaustive outreach,” was done over six years to solicit community input. The Congress itself lasted three years.

The overarching theme of the General Plan was to encourage growth along the transit corridors of Oakland . The goal was to drive growth to the corridors so as to preserve the residential areas.

The General Plan has recommendations for the interface between higher density and residential. “Urban Residential” under the General Plan is defined as 125 housing units per gross acre.

MUHAMMAD NADHIRI – AF EVANS DEVELOPMENT

Economics of Density

Muhammad is in charge of the “Downtown Revitalization Team” at AF Evans. His latest project is the downtown Pittsburg redevelopment plan: 3 blocks in downtown Pittsburg , 200 units of housing, 40,000 square feet of commercial, average of 30 units of housing per acre.

The questions AF Evans ask before embarking on a project are:

How does the project relate to its neighbors?

What density is the most efficient use of the land and space?

What are the economics of density? (The ability to spread the fixed costs of a project over a larger number of units.)

How a new project will not overwhelm but enhance the existing architecture of a community?

He believes that higher density will create a “higher level of shopping experience” and will “allow for more civic pride.”

Unfortunately he didn’t speak in any detail to the underlying economics of development. He mentioned in passing the investment community has their demands that a project must meet before they will invest in it. However he didn’t detail what these demands are and whether these demands support or conflict with the community’s desires.

IAN WINTERS – NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LAND TRUST

Affordability Through Land Management

He went into detail about how land trusts work. In short they own the land the house or condos are on but the residents on the actual buildings. NCLT helps subsidize the purchase price and also allows the owners to sell their homes but they cannot sell their homes at a speculative price but are still allowed a reasonable rate of return on their home sales.

He says that development (designing, planning, building) costs today are about $300 – 400 per square foot. Almost all their projects are partnerships with other community-based organizations. He and the NCLT strongly encourage communities to be involved in the process; that the community should focus on what they can do at the local level.

He said they have a six unit cohousing project in North Oakland that averages out to 25 units per acre. In their design process they try to reduce the size of their units to make them more efficient.

He closed with; “Everyone is deeply embedded in this system [real estate market.] There is no easy way [to create affordable housing.]”

ALEX SALAZAR – EBHO BOARD MEMBER

Density, Affordability, Environmental Concerns

His comments were short and sweet; “We need density to provide affordability.” In a response to a question about poor people being “forced out” of Oakland he said; “People of all income levels have moved out of Oakland .”

He said non-profit developers couldn’t afford to buy in neighborhoods where land values are rising quickly. He also said that non-profit groups need community and political support before they can even begin to buy and build. And sometimes the only way to make it work is higher density mixed-income developments.

SOME COMMENTS BY THE PANEL DURING THE Q&A

IAN: A family of four making $40,000 a year needs a subsidy of several $100,000 to buy a home in the Bay Area.

IAN: There is no way to say that higher density or any other single issue is causing price appreciation in the Bay Area real estate market. Changing the underlying entitlements of properties is changing the land value but the community can benefit from these entitlement changes.

ALEX: Even if no development were to take place in Temescal, prices will continue to rise in Temescal. “Nice” development could drive up prices and renters could be pushed out but this is a market failure and one way to address this is through mixed-income projects are affordable units in projects.

MUHAMMAD: There is no benefit to his firm to push his design with no input from the community.

ART: The way to ensure good quality design is by asking what is the character of the neighborhood and how will the new project enhance the neighborhood character. Also that community input is critical.

TED: At what densities would the quality of life of the community start to suffer?

No easy answer he said. He worked in Vancouver , a city that people point to as an example of density that works, and the key there was to be very sensitive to the amenities of the community. In Vancouver the downtown core doubled in population in 10 years. Communities need to establish standards on how many parks, what kind of library services, nature of retail corridors, etc. they want. He says; “You plan for community not just density.” And also you need to focus on the amenities because the community must be a “complete place.”

SABRINA’S VALUES WORKSHOP

She had the remaining attendees of the Forum divide into six groups to discuss in greater detail the six core values from the end of the neighborhood exercise and what these values mean to our community. Each group discussed only one of the values. All the information that came out of these breakout sessions is posted to the ULTRA as a separate document.

www.ultraoakland.org

info@ultraoakland.org