Fred Weis – July 9, 2023 – Issues with the Urban Field Studio – Gateway Test Site document

    By
    fredredwoods
    -
    0
    235

    Loading

     

     

    Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

    What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It may contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

     

    Issues with the Urban Field Studio – Gateway Test Site document
    Pages 76-86 in the July 11, 2023, Planning Commission Packet
     
    from:   Fred Weis   July 9, 2023
     
    Commissioners:  The following includes a Summary, major general points, and a discussion on each of the four sites chosen for the Urban Field Studio studies.
    I’ve used highlights and bold red so you can skim.
    ———————————

    Summary:

    I found this study to be disappointing. Yes, the study does conclude that the Gateway Plan will “facilitate high-density residential development” — but we already knew that. What does this study tell us?
     
    (The quotes shown in this Summary are from the study’s “Conclusions” section.)  The study’s Conclusion further states that there will be “development that is human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly, and sensitive to existing lower-intensity uses.” But there is nothing in this study to back that up.
     
    The study’s conclusion states: “The Gateway Code also contains upper story step back requirements to reduce the appearance of tall buildings at the street, reduce shadow impacts, and provide context-sensitive massing adjacent to lower-intensity residential uses” — and then proceeds to argue for the elimination or strong reduction of the upper story step-back requirements.
     
    “The public benefits achieved with these standards should be weighed against their associated costs.” As Commissioner Lehman pointed out, we don’t know the costs. We know it costs more to have step-backs than it would to not have them. But how much more? We don’t know. And — to put this bluntly — everything that we ask for has a cost associated with it. Do we give up necessary community needs because they cost money? Enclosed bike storage, bike and car electric charging stations, passive solar design, higher-quality materials…. Do we give that up?
     
    The study proposes: “Allow up to 5 stories with no step backs” as a means of reducing costs. Here in Arcata, we need as much of a view of the sky as we can get. Step-backs reduce the “canyon feeling” of being on a street with taller buildings. On the one hand we want pedestrian foot-traffic and extensive walking and biking. But a sheer vertical wall of five stories from the sidewalk does not help that. Go to Sorrel Place on 7th Street, and see if anyone walks on the south side of the street, the sidewalk that is on the north side of the building. Even in July that sidewalk is in shade.
     
    “Consider eliminating the requirement for ground floor active frontages (retail uses) except in well-established retail districts.” I think the authors of this study are missing a major point of what we’re trying to achieve here. We want this to be a walkable, bikeable high-density closed-in section of Arcata, with mini-neighborhoods anchored by restaurants, food shops, retail stores, places to meet and gather, offices and workplaces — a clustered tiny-urban environment. Removing a portion of ground-floor commercial designation substantially changes that.  
     
    We have the examples of Sorrel Place (on 7th Street) versus Plaza Pointe (on 8th). Not an entirely fair comparison, as Plaza Pointe is across the street from the Co-op and is one block from the Plaza. But Sorrel Place will never be a location that offers an enlivened sense of community. A building with a storefront, such as where the Dead Reckoning Tavern is, behind the Co-op at 8th & J, brings people to the neighborhood. Sorrel Place, with no reason to go there except to visit a resident, repels people.
     
    The study does tell us that we’ll be able to achieve higher-density housing with the Gateway Plan, but, as I said, we knew that. In the four Opportunity Sites that are part of this study, many of the ideas proposed come with large caveats. The Tomas site shows a two-story parking structure. As we know, a multi-story parking structure is almost certainly financially infeasible. The car wash site shows Jolly Giant Creek as being half-daylighted. A proper study would show it completely daylighted — because that’s what we’ll be doing, should that parcel be developed.
     
    But most upsetting of all:  The study shows what could happen, if a developer is, as the City is promoting, seeking a higher density. But what if a developer designs a project that is cost-effective (for the developer) at a far lower density? Are we willing to accept a block or two of the Gateway Area built up with the type of housing that we now see on the Foster Avenue Extension, or, worse, similar to the recently-approved Arcata Garden Apartments? 
     
    This study did not have the intention of addressing this lower-end density and it was not tasked with that. I know this. But, to me, it should have. To me, the question is not “Can we achieve a high density?” The answer to that is easy:  Sure we can. The question should be:  What can we do to ensure that we do not have too low of a density.
     
    As it stands, the code allows apartment buildings that are two stories. That can even partially be one level for parking and one level of residential use, as much of Arcata Garden Apartments is. The Kramer “Sunset Terrace” apartments on Foster Avenue are 142 units on 3.55 acres. (It is 2.10 acres of development, and 1.14 acres of “open space” including the space between the buildings, the emergency vehicle turnaround space, those piles of rocks along Foster that can’t be walked on, and so forth.) Those 142 apartments on 3.55 acres makes for a 40 unit per acre density. It also has 142 parking spaces, a rate of one per apartment.
     
    A block-size development of that medium density is not enough to create a neighborhood. How would you like it if the 1.42 acres of the AmeriGas site was covered with rows of two-story apartments, a total of 50 or 60, for a density of 35 or 42 units per acre. Would that be in keeping with the aims and goals of the Gateway Area Plan? No, it would not.
     
    From my point of view, if that were to occur, we would have failed. That is the opposite of what we want to create. And yet the current Form-Based Code and Gateway Area Plan would allow it.
     
    The people at Urban Field Studio are architects. I am not an architect. It does seem that they did not give much time or thought to this study. Or, possibly, not have much thought to what makes Arcata special, and to what we’re trying to achieve.
     
    — Fred Weis
     
    ———————————–
     
    General Discussion
     
    1. The document as shown has no title, no author’s name, no date, no version number.
    It could say “Study conducted by Jane Lin of Urban Field Studio for the Gateway Area Plan, City of Arcata, July 1, 2023.” Instead, there is nothing.
     
    2. The purpose of the study is to “to confirm that the proposed Gateway Code standards can physically accommodate the type and intensity of development envisioned by the Gateway Plan.”  That’s all? That the Form-Based Code will accommodate high-density development? I think we already knew that. 
     
    The study has nothing to do with the “human” aspects of the architecture and urban planning of the Gateway Code. The study shows nothing about what it would be to have a 7-story building on the south (blocking the sun) side of the Creamery building, or to have a five-story building on the south side (again, blocking the sun), across the street from the historic Devlin Cottages on 7th Street. Those factors were not a part of the concerns of this study.
     
    I am extremely disappointed by the very limited scope of this study — and by the simplistic outcomes that it portrays. And by the multiple caveats that would affect actual density. Such as:
     
    “This site is large enough for an efficient structured parking solution [i.e. a two-story parking structure].  However, this still may not be financially feasible. With smaller setbacks it may be possible to create enough surface parking to support a three story apartment structure. [That is, three stories versus a seven story apartment, which is what the study shows].
     
    3.  I expected far more. I want to know: How much did this study cost?
     
    4. When you read this message to you in full, you may object to my quibbling about architectural design. After all, this is a feasibility study about possible housing density in the Gateway Area. But I do this for a very simple reason:  If it’s not feasible, then it won’t get built. If it’s not going to get built, it is a poor choice to use as an example of what we can do in the Gateway Area.  If, as an example given as part of this study, it takes a two-story garage structure in order to have enough parking and site space to build a seven-story building, and if a two-story garage structure is not likely to be built because of the cost, then what is this study telling us? That the seven-story building will not get built. In other words, that study — one of four offered here — is of no value to us. 
     
    Similarly, the design calculations for the car wash site are based on half of Jolly Giant Creek being daylighted, and the achieved density is based on that. If instead we daylight the full creek on that block, what good is the density calculation in this study?
     
    5. The density is shown in terms of dwelling units per acre. While this is indeed an industry standard, dwelling units per acre is a poor way to quantitatively illustrate just what we’d be getting. You can see my articles on Arcata1.com on this subject:  Dwelling Units per Acre” – Another terrible way of measuring housing and  “Housing Units” and “Housing Density” – Why these are terrible ways to measure housing success.
    A far better way to measure density is by number of bedrooms per acre — often called “doors.” That has its limits also, as a studio, a 1-bedroom, and one bedroom in a family home are all considered as “1 bedroom.”
     
    All four of the studies shown have on-site parking, and they show an average apartment unit size of 946 to 973 square feet. The images show lots of two-bedroom units (they are just for illustrative purposed), and we can take that 946 to 973 sq.ft. average as coming from a blend of studios, 1, 2, 3 bedroom units in some proportion. As a means of comparison, the “Sorrel Place” 44-unit apartment has 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units, with an average size of 824 sq.ft., and a density of 64 units per acre.
     
    Here’s a very simple way this study could have given us any number we want to see. 
        1. Make the parking in each plan be zero. That will give more land to build on.
        2. Make the setbacks from the property line be zero.
        3. Eliminate all upper-story step-backs for buildings that are five stories or under.
        4. Since step-backs aren’t required on the full perimeter of the building, the building’s design can have a sheer five-story wall on the property line, even when next to a single-family home. That will also give more land to build on.
        5. Have all the units be under-400 sq.ft. one-bedrooms. That will about double the number of “units per acre.” Or, make all the units in an entire building be under-300 sq.ft. studio units. That will almost triple the number of units per acre.
    Clearly I am being silly on this. The point is:  It is very easy to manipulate these “units per acre” figures. You can almost pick what you want, and then establish a way to theoretically achieve it.
     
    That said, I can direct the Commissioners to the article “Visualizing Compatible Density” where you can see a building of 41 units, averaging 430 sq.ft., built on a site that is 1/5th of an acre, 8700 sq. ft. (two residential lots put together). It has only 8 parking spaces, as it is walking distance from light-rail transit, and it has a roof garden for open space. It achieves a density of 205 units per acre.
     
     
     
    6. “Site tests were prepared for Gateway Plan opportunity sites G, I, L N as shown in the figure below.”
    Since we live here in Arcata, let’s call these Test Sites by what they are, rather than “G, I, L, N.”
    • G is the car wash site at 10th and K Streets that has Jolly Giant Creek, expected to be fully daylighted. (Although the Gateway Plan, as written, only “encourages” daylighting.) One city block, 1.44 acres minus the open space for daylighting.  Gateway Corridor District.  Shown as 1.42 acres.
    • I is the Tomas site at 8th & L Streets, directly behind (south of) the Creamery block.  Gateway Barrel District. In the Coastal Zone.  Owned by Tom Perrett. This site has an architect-designed office/light-manufacturing building (incorrectly described in the draft Gateway Plan as “a one‐story metal industrial building”) and a large (about 1/2 acre) permanent garden space. This study does not show this, but it is two APN parcels, of 0.71 acres (30,800 sq.ft.) and 1.97 acres (85,800 sq.ft.), in total 2.68 acres. Shown as 2.65 acres.
    • L is the current AmeriGas site, between K & L Streets, between 6th & 7th Streets. Actually two APN parcels of 1.30 acres and 0.23 acres.  Gateway Corridor District. In the Coastal Zone.
    • N is the old St. Vinnie’s thrift store site at 5th and K Streets. Gateway Corridor District. Incorrectly shown in this study as being in the Neighborhood District. In the Coastal Zone. 0.43 acres, 18,750 sq.ft. 
    7. Glossary
    • “Structured Parking” means a multi-story structure designed for automobile parking with multiple levels for parking vehicles. Includes parking garages, parking ramps, and parking decks. As opposed to a single level of parking, typically at grade or slightly below grade, and with residential or commercial occupied space above it.

    8. General Notes

    Three of the four selected sites border on L Street. If the Gateway FBC Code were to accommodate and plan for a linear park on L Street, rather than a major arterial road there, then building heights would be lowered and densities would by necessity be lessened.

    If Jolly Giant Creek were to be fully daylighted, Site G, the car wash, would see a reduction in the density. Shown in the study as 61 dwelling units per acre, that is based on about half of the creek being daylighted. If the entire creek flowing through that parcel were daylighted, the density would be lower. (With the design shown. There can be better designs, also.)

    9. Notes on specific sites

    1. Site I, the Tomas site.

    The study shows the existing Tomas building as being entirely torn down, and the beautiful garden run by the Montessori School as being bulldozed. Clearly only Tom Perrett can speak for Tom Perrett, but I will venture to say that there is a very, very small chance that Tom would tear down the existing Tomas building so he can build a 7-story commercial / residential tower. I would put the chance of this happening to be Zero.

    So why do a study on a site that is unlikely to see this development? Isn’t there another Opportunity Zone site that would make more sense to do a study on?

    The site is over 116,000 square feet (2.67 acres). The building design in this study shows no publicly accessible open space. Per the Publicly Accessible Open Space Requirement table on page 54 of the Form-Based Code section (Page 71 in the July 11 agenda packet), a 7-story building on a site area of greater than 30,000 sq.ft. requires 15% of publicly accessible open space in order to be a part of the community benefits program, or pay an in lieu fee of 1.5% of construction costs. That’s a requirement of 0.40 acres of public open space (over 17,500 sq.ft.) — close to 30% of an Arcata city block. I don’t see that happening in this study. An in-lieu fee might be in the neighborhood of $500-800,000. The result would be a better city park somewhere else, and no public open space here.

    The study shows 300 dwelling units and 7,800 sq.ft. of ground floor commercial space. The study says: “The existing commercial uses along 8th street in this particular area are more industrial in nature and may not generate the rent to cover the expense of vertical mixed-use retail. This retail requires expensive mechanical, electrical and plumbing and fire separation systems to be provided creating very high construction costs.”
    This is the case with every potential Gateway project. The issue is not specific to this site. It is a major question with regard to the feasibility of the Gateway Plan.

    The driveway for the 2-story 150-space parking structure goes out to L Street and crosses the L Street Pathway.

    The study says: “This site is large enough for an efficient structured parking solution. However, this still may not be financially feasible. With smaller setbacks it may be possible to create enough surface parking to support a three story apartment structure.”

    In other words, this building as shown is not economically feasible. In theory, a 7-story building with a separate 2-story parking garage is “possible.” In practical terms, it is not possible. Rather than the 113 dwelling units per acre as the study shows, in practical terms this site would 40% to 50% of that, or 45 to 55 dwelling units per acre.

    Or: Theoretically there could be Zero parking for the 300 apartment unit and the 7,800 sq.ft. of retail or restaurant space. Of course, when considering that there will likely be lessened parking on 7th Street and 8th Street, and possibly no parking at all on K Street and, if L Street indeed becomes a Linear Park then no parking on the L Street Corridor… then no parking for 300 apartments becomes a problem. Or, to put it another way, it becomes a problem for everyone else.

     
    The study comments on step-backs:  “Step-backs require that units at upper levels are custom and few in number. This presents a substantial premium in the cost per unit, negatively impacting the return and potentially leading to cost-cutting on the quality of construction to offset the costs or financial feasibility. These step-backs are especially difficult if they do not occur at the building type height limits set by the building code.”
     
    In this design, yes. The step-backs could lead to an increase in the cost of construction. With a different architectural design, this problem may not be an issue. As to whether a possible increase in cost or complexity could lead to “cost-cutting on the quality of construction” — well, that depends on the developer and the contractor, now, doesn’t it.  This is mere speculation on the part of the authors of the study. And — a different architect might have a more creative and more cost-efficient design.

     

    2. Site G, the car wash site. 10th & K Streets.

    As noted above, if Jolly Giant Creek were to be fully daylighted — which is what we are expecting at this site, and what has been previously shown in Julian Berg’s design (see: arcata1.com/3d-images-and-aerial-views ), then Site G, the car wash, would see a reduction in the density. It is shown in the study as 61 dwelling units per acre, based on about half of the creek being daylighted.

    If all the creek was daylighted, that 61 dwelling units per acre would drop. But this, again, is based on the design shown. Julian Berg’s design shows more units per acre, with full creek daylighting (although with zero parking).

    3. Site L, the AmeriGas site.

    The block between K and L Streets, between 6th & 7th Streets.

    Perhaps has publicly accessible open space. The 72 parking-place lot has its driveway on L Street.

     

    Site N: The former St. Vinnie’s thrift store, at 5th and K Streets

    As previously noted, this site is shown as being in the Gateway Neighborhood district. The study is incorrect — it is in the Gateway Corridor District. The study has a design of four stories. Based on the district, it could be five stories, and the rear of the building could be a sheer vertical wall with no step-back whatsoever, even though the parcel is adjacent to two-story and one-story residences.

    The study: “Conclusions”

    The Urban Field Studio study ends with a page under the heading of “Conclusions.”
    See the opening Summary section of this message for my comments on these conclusions.
    =====================================