Q & A from the ULTRA Forum, Saturday, March 17^th 2007

  – answers will be updated as they come in!  

Subjects:

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

General Questions:  

What is “TOD”  

Transit oriented Development

What is Smart Growth?

Visit these links for answers. Meanwhile, we’ll try to get an abbreviated response from our speakers.

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?

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?

[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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Is development in Pittsburgh on railroad avenue transit oriented?

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

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.

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

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, 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?

Density

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

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?

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

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) 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.

“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?

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’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.

Is a residential acre different from any other acre?

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

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

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?

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.)

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?

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?

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?