Avenue Project Strikes me as a good one
Written by Jeff on April 24th, 2008They’re at it again. The organized opposition that made headlines and delayed the Henry Mayo Newhall Hostpial expansion project is now using its resources to fight the “mega developmnet” called the Avenue at Santa Clarita, a 37 acre mixed use development planned for a vacant ranch in Newhall.
But this time their concerns aren’t resonating with me. Step inside to find out why.
The Avenue isn’t being touted as a “smart growth” project the way the terrible Las Lomas proposal was, but it nevertheless has some interesting aspects to it that may deserve the title.
For one, the project is highly compact and, as a result, dense. Opponents are quite right to call it a “mini-city” built on a vacant piece of land. I’ll grant that the idea of placing 12 story office and hotel towers in Wiley Canyon is quite shocking, repulsive even. But here at SCVTalk, we like density if it’s done right.
And, on the surface, The Avenue looks like its done right.
Consider the times we live in. Gas is now over $4 a gallon, our resident’s number one complaint is constantly traffic, and most of us have concerns about smog, global warming, and the environment.
On the surface it would appear that The Avenue addresses that and then some. From the admittedly little literature we have on it, The Avenue project promises “high-end office, retail, hotel, entertainment nad residential opportunities in a highly walkable, dynamic urban environment.” Boosters say that The Avenue will feature “pedestriann-focused urban village setting” with “water-themed pedestrian walkway and multi-purpose trails.”
What’s more, the project is dense. There will be no single family homes here. Instead, home owners will live in some 550 condos and town homes “above retail” with all the plusses that entails.
Where will the potentially thousands of people who live in this new community dine, entertain and shop at? Well the project promises thousands of square feet of retail shops, anchor stores, restaurants etc, virtually all of it within that walking distance.
All of this will be built within city boundaries and will supposedly create some 4,000 jobs and provide an estimated $2 million in income to city coffers.
For this, we’re only being asked to give up 37 acres of open space land, land that wouldn’t even make a good park given its proximity to the freeway. This project is so compact that you could almost fit two Avenue projects into the Old Orchard 1 Housing tract.
So what do the opponents say? Their number complaint appears to be that it doesn’t fit into the older Wiley Canyon Neighborhood.It’s essentially a “square peg in a round hole.” They’re singing the same tune they’ve sung with the hospital expansion plan, hoping to equate that business/office situation with a development that will provide homes for people.
I’ll grant that it doesn’t fit. But this isn’t the hospital plan. This development is for people. People who would like a shot at living close to where they work, close to where they shop. This is a community that might attract people who don’t want to be slaves to their cars.
And looking over Santa Clarita, there’s really no place this type of development would fit. Everywhere you look, Santa Clarita is low density, single family homes. This is a model that’s proving to cost everyone more and more each year. It appears that the opponents would be happy with just that; more low density single family homes, more of the same.
If we’re going to make a stab at reducing car trips, reducing pollution, and reducing traffic, then we have to look at projects like this. Density, walkability, ease of transit etc are the only way to address these problems, so I’m not going to oppose a project just because it doesn’t fit. Progress, after all, can be painful but will be rewarding in the end.
Loading ...
24
AM
Jeff, you must be kidding, or is this another one of your attempts to stimulate hateful comments! The answer to your post is simple; there is no need to grow, single family or otherwise! We are fine thank you. Build it and they will come, don’t build it and they won’t!
24
AM
I love hearing the same old “live close to where you work” argument. Great, let me know when a record company moves into The Avenue. I’ll buy the first town home. And those movie theater usher / waiter / retail clerk jobs must pay much higher than I thought for them to be able to afford said town homes.
24
AM
I guess we could become a New York City. That would make life right for Jeff!
24
AM
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff! Are you actually Jeff Lambert!? I’d like to know how the heck any developer can guarantee that each new resident has a job in SCV! Brotzman/Pulskamp’s “One Valley, One Vision” is a crock. What we don’t need is more high density dwellings.
24
AM
It is going to be tough for Kellar to oppose this project because he is a party to a similar project along the River at Sand Canyon. May be the Sand Canyon residents will wake up once that plan is out in the open and begin to challenge City Staff. Though Kellar may have some chips with the Sand Canyon folks, because he lives there and has been very good to the area. Planning Commissioner Ostrum (sp) leaves in the Canyon as well, but will he vote is conscience?
24
AM
Jeff, you forgot to put “humor” as one of your article categories.
Good try, that was funny though. Don’t stay in Mr. Rogers “land of make believe” to long. We need you here at scvTalk.
24
AM
This may or may not be a joke, but I’m also taking a wait and see approach with this project. At first glance, this all seems a bit too massive and its juxtaposition on the edge of both the city and the valley’s inhabited area negates a lot of it’s attraction to me. But I do prefer density to sprawl. For the moment, I’m with Jeff.
24
AM
Vince Hans on Apr 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I love hearing the same old “live close to where you work” argument. Great, let me know when a record company moves into The Avenue. I’ll buy the first town home. And those movie theater usher / waiter / retail clerk jobs must pay much higher than I thought for them to be able to afford said town homes.
When I was younger (teenager) I was an usher/concession worker and I bused/waited tables. They didn’t cover too much for gas and insurance back then, I wonder what those salaries can pay for now! But wait, the ‘hotel’ will need workers, so there you go; this project will provide PLENTY of jobs for us all!
24
PM
Why does everyone think this is a joke? I’ve been pro-density since I started this blog and I’m consistent in that I don’t like car trips or single family developments.
Anyway, for the record, all humor pieces are labeled as such.
24
PM
“Why does everyone think this is a joke? I’ve been pro-density since I started this blog and I’m consistent in that I don’t like car trips or single family developments.”
Than perhaps you should consider moving to the intercity!
24
PM
Jeff, What jobs are being created out here that will provide the income needed to live here? I’m sorry, but retail business’s (unless you work at 2 or 3 ) will not pay the mortgage, car payments/gas/insurance, utilities, food, clothing, and everything else that is required to ’survive’ on a day-to-day basis. It would be great if we didn’t have to travel over the hill in order to make a living, but that’s the way it is for most. I feel a project like the Avenue won’t do it, sorry
24
PM
There’s quite a bit of office space here. Managers at these stores and restaurants could afford to live here independently and could waiters and waitresses. They’d probably live a little condo within walking distance to work.
24
PM
Jeff:
Buck up. Most people don’t realize that “smart growth” means “dense growth” to reduce the human footprint and car trips.
There also seems a wish to criminalize legal commerce, like the hospital.
24
PM
Okay, so office workers, retailer’s/clerks, waiters/waitreses, hotel workers all live and work in that area……what’s in it for us? Those of us that have to commute, will still have to commute in order to continue to live and ’survive’ here in Santa Clarita. If you are a single, or perhaps even married (but NO children), then yes you could pay ‘rent’ or even a small mortgage on one of those condo’s. I still don’t see the benefit, except maybe bringing in more people. I thought about our grown children now attending college,perhaps living and working in that area.However, they’re going to college to have the kind of career that will afford them a certain amount of freedom/security from the ‘pay-check-to-pay-check’ anxiety so many people feel these days.
24
PM
“There also seems a wish to criminalize legal commerce, like the hospital.”
No one has even suggested this. You are way of base! Managed growth yes, criminalize no. Are you OK with developers walking away with their profit and leaving the mess with the rest of us to pay?
“Buck up. Most people don’t realize that “smart growth” means “dense growth” to reduce the human footprint and car trips”.
Smart growth can also mean no growth, nice try at spin.
24
PM
Kudos, Jeff, for posting your opinion knowing that those who post here would not necessarily agree. I would venture to say the majority of the population would agree with you.
No growth? Seriously? This is California. This is Southern California. No growth is a pipe dream.
As for moving to the “inner-city”, I would say there is plenty of land waiting for you and yours in Acton/Agua Dulce/Lancaster. Shoot, even Rosamond or Tehachapi might appeal to your senses…
24
PM
Would you be happy living in Hong Kong. Not a pipe dream. The Avenue project is unrealistic. Something will surely be built, but not as it is currently proposed. The “Inner City is waiting you and your dogs. I doubt anyone with Kids would want to live in a place like the Avenue. The failure of the Madison is a good example of how your way of thinking is received. Lennar is almost having to give the Madison units away to unload them. Here is an idea Jeff, move to the Madison! You can’t get much closer to all the good stuff you want! You would not even need a bicycle.
24
PM
4,000 jobs!!! Where the heck are they all going to park?
24
PM
I have an idea: lets place “Avenue of Santa Clarita” in Timmy’s backyard! Dense Growth! How ’bout “DENSE THINKING!”
24
PM
Carrie on Apr 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
4,000 jobs!!! Where the heck are they all going to park?
Park? Oh no parking, because they won’t have cars. See, everyone that works and lives at the Avenue, will walk! That’s the whole point, right? I mean, it’ll be just ideal for those that never want to travel to any other area. Oh, and just a thought…..where will all those connecting paseos go that were part of the whole ‘vision’? Going across the freeway? I know, I know, bad humor!
24
PM
I’ve been traveling a bit and slow to post the last few days but if you’ll humor me, I’d like to comment on the “Avenues” article - and the hospital.
Smart Growth SCV is opposed to reckless growth. We are NOT –and never have been— an “organized opposition… to the Henry Mayo Newhall Hostpial expansion.” I know this was not the point of your article but frankly I expected a more accurate desciption of our efforts, Jeff.
Unfortunately, I do expect snippy and trite remarks from Tim. For the record, we have NEVER opposed the hospital and we’ve never “criminalized” commerce either. Good at math and pissing people off, Tim’s slow to understand facts on this issue. Or maybe he just doesn’t want to tell the truth. Whatever the case, he seems lonely.
Smart Growth SCV has two fundamental issues: (1) we oppose the city’s okay to rape our General Plan using the recently passed “Master Plan” entitlement and (2) we think there is a fundamental problem with transparency and due process at City Hall on these and MANY other issues.
First off, our “master planned community” exists only because of a document called a “General Plan”. California state law requires that our city protect neighborhoods and communities by only approving development consistent with its zoning guidelines and its General Plan. It cannot vote against its own General Plan unless there is a substantial and clear public benefit that outweighs the violation(s). This protects all of us.
So, when G&L proposed its 1.75 million sqft project on 30 acres in a Residential Zone, it knew it could never legally be approved – ever. Thankfully, hospital-CEO-turned-spokesman Seaver advocated a co-applicant agreement for a grand “hospital expansion”: a 25-year contract that would provide numerous benefits including 240 new beds and “Centers of Excellence” like cancer centers, heart specialists, NICU, etc. The only problem is that –READ THIS TIM— literally none of these things have ever existed in any real substance. First, they hemmed and hawed that there were errors in the documents but, in the end, after 3 years, there may be 20 beds guaranteed and literally –READ THIS TIM— not one square foot of new services promised. It took awhile for the black eye to show but now the new OFFICIAL name for the project is the “Henry Mayo CAMPUS expansion plan.” This more accurate –and decidedly more vague- project includes 1.2 million sqft of space, no guarantees to build anything, and only 12K sqft of the 200K proposed MOB space committed to Centers of Excellence… “or other hospital related uses.” That’s either 6% or, if you’re picky, potentially ZERO. The “clear public benefit” is anything but.
The fact is that by not being truthful to begin with, the G&L partners sort of criminalized themselves. Yet rather than really come to the table, the naked emperor responds with vehement anger, threats of lost business to those who oppose, and myriad attempts to marginalize people who genuinely care about the hospital, including the Newhall’s whose family donated the land to it! Even with no guarantee on the hospital, we still support a helipad and 160K MOB space, just in the hope that it will be built! Is this type of risk really characteristic of unreasonable, selfish, lying NIMBYs?
Instead, city staffers have worked overtime to bury many facts. Not only has no effort been made to seriously engage competing health care providers, city-paid consultants misled our council by claiming that calls made to other hospitals yielded no interest in plans to locate facilities here. Then, of course, neighboring Providence Holy Cross CEO showed up and claimed that no such call was ever received and that they were indeed interested in doing so. Yet no comprehensive medical plan has ever been put in the works. Pulskamp is busy welcoming retailers, putting on bike races, and posting his picture everywhere but remains absent on this. Why? Perhaps because he’s on Henry Mayo’s Governance Committee? I don’t know but I have no other explanation.
I DO HAVE A SURPRISE FOR YOU… I too support higher density, live/work development! But I also realize that there are endless square miles already zoned commercially for this all over the SFV and beyond – where all the people already live! It’s ready to build ad nauseum but developers don’t like the cost of razing buildings. It’s cheaper to bulldoze new and vacant land and quite a few people are getting really rich doing it. Now SCV, next the 126, etc.
I have to ask: why here? We have a General Plan more consistent with areas like Calabasas, Agora Hills, or Santa Barbara. There are many more examples in NorCal like Walnut Creek, Danville, or Los Altos. You may say people there are rich but I will tell you that they have solid, consistent leadership that says no to the hyper-development, pro-density mirage Lambert is selling. Populations grow there too and those cities are the envy of cities everywhere. Imagine property that is always desirable, where density is consistent with the roadways. Developers in those areas respect the community and the citizens who live there – civic leaders demand it. Instead of hiding facts from the public, they demand accountability from builders. Don’t get me wrong, we have developers like that in this town who pursue “business friendly” opportunities with community interest rather than self-interest. We certainly can decide right now to never allow traffic-clogged urban centers. It’s already the law, we just have to follow it.
The Avenues is a disaster because it violates every wise planning principal. It’s 400% larger than zoning allows and, like the hospital, has one primary access. Lambert’s plan will probably offer the owners a similar multi-decade Development Agreement that will run with the land. The boilerplate language will prevent the city from stopping the development. Mark my words, once this begins happening we will lose the ability to capture what should have been. Then, when it’s unbearable here, we’ll all move down the 126. Do we really save any trees/traffic in doing so?
Neither I nor Smart Growth SCV are anti-growth. My livelihood depends on growth and I promise you that I have a very good grasp on economics. Rather, I have a very clear and simple vision for our city to be GREAT; well-planned, protected, and always desirable. When I hear arguments that this can never be, all I think is what an old, fat, and tired excuse to do nothing.
Why don’t we continue to work on annexing the I-5/126 area and plan continue to build out the industrial/commercial centers there. This could include a MRF and a real regional medical facility that’s accessible to all areas via the cross-valley connector. It’s called planning.
Read and consider what I’m saying here and please don’t take my words out of context. Stop calling me a NIMBY and stop settling for a sellout of our city - this is way beyond a hospital in my backyard and it always has been. No one should be surprised that we’re stepping out on another issue now. This is our city and it will only be great if we demand it.
24
PM
If I were one to take positions, I’d be with D.G. on this one.
Absurdly-high-density is not in the character of Santa Clarita. The whole point of a suburb–well, a suburb trying to become its own, more self-contained City–is to offer a refuge from cramped urban conditions. If we begin down a path of high density, we compel current resident to sprawl out elsewhere. People don’t magically learn to love high density development when it’s forced down their throats. In fact, many live in SCV because that’s precisely what they don’t want.
And I have no idea where this business of the project reducing car trips is coming from. The Avenues project would be built to gain revenue and would thus be dependent on increased traffic to the area. Developers want Claritans to get in their cars and drive to visit whatever grotesque parade of chain restaurants they fill the place with. It’s the whole point.
Finally, I would shy away from using the word “progress” to describe the Avenues. Perhaps “change”, “devestation”, or “embracing the obscene” would be more accurate ways to describe what’s going on.
25
AM
Our Country was created on a set of LAWS; The City of Santa Clarita was created on a set of LAWS. We have zoning LAWS for a reason so stop violating them, SCV City Officials!
25
AM
David Gauny:
Thanks for your input. I didn’t call you a NIMBY or cast aspersions on your group. I just said the claims weren’t resonating with me like they did with the hospital.
I Heart:
Absurdly-high-density is not in the character of Santa Clarita. The whole point of a suburb–well, a suburb trying to become its own, more self-contained City–is to offer a refuge from cramped urban conditions. If we begin down a path of high density, we compel current resident to sprawl out elsewhere. People don’t magically learn to love high density development when it’s forced down their throats. In fact, many live in SCV because that’s precisely what they don’t want.
I may be accused of being a chicken-little, but that’s okay. There’s a lot of people with more knowledge than me who think the “suburban” life is on its way out. That it’s going to be obsolete soon given high transportation costs, traffic etc.
In other words, they may not have a choice on whether they like high density or not. And so it’s reasonable to consider building projects where future jobs could be very close to homes.
Santa Clarita may have up to 500,000 people in the valley in the next 50 years. We can either grow up or grow out. I favor up.
25
AM
Santa Clarita may have up to 500,000 people in the valley in the next 50 years. We can either grow up or grow out. I favor
up.
There is no law that indicates there must be this kind of growth. If we are dumb enough to allow such growth, then we deserve it.
The groups that are pushing such growth are those that stand to profit from the growth. Build it and they will come, don’t build it and they can’t! A simple theory!
25
AM
Iheartscv and Bob, SO very well stated, bravo for understanding this issue so clearly! David Gauny, brilliant as usual. And as long as that clause remains in the Development Agreement that clearly states that G&L does not have to build an actual hospital expansion, that project should be called what it is, the G&L MOB Project.
25
AM
Jeff,
Let me assure you, Smart Growth SCV was NOT the instigator for opposing The Avenue of Santa Clarita.
Calgrove Corridor Coalition was and is!
CCC is just another group striving to make the SCV officals open, honest & transparent in their development process.
Take a look at the total project. It is a disaster that will not only ruin nearby homes (many built in the 1960’s) but the entire flavor of the Santa Clarita Valley!
We are very thankful to Smart Growth SCV and many other groups that have lead the way for us and to support smart growth in our valley.
Santa Clarita a great place to call home, let’s keep it that way!
25
AM
The flavor of the SCV is one that has gone sour. I’d suggest that Newhall and Valencia residents drive to the north and east parts of the Valley and see how brilliantly suburbanization was panned out. There is hardly an instance of smart planning at any density north of Newhall Ranch road.
I’m inclined to believe that this project in particular is a matter of greed that’s trying to ride the wave of “smart growth” and high density. The more I think about it, the more this project resembles some of the worst aspects of suburban development, because instead of making old neighborhoods new, it’s just creating a new one at the expense of the already suffering older neighborhoods. This isn’t revitalizing the area, because hardly anyone lives there now and half of them will be or have been displaced by property acquisition.
But generally speaking, suburbanization is a failed concept. The San Fernando Valley, despite its municipal designation, is a suburb. No core, no planning, no character. If one neighborhood falls out of style, just build a new one in an open field. We’ve done slightly better than that, but thanks to the county approving so many mid-density unbalanced projects, we are well on our way and our MO over the last 15 years is to blame. The medium density, wide setbacks and massive parking lots that people demand are part of the problem.
For the record, I’m 100% with the SCVtalk crowd on the G&L issue. I know a scam when I see it.
28
AM
One thing this project ain’t is smart. I am cool with higher density living. But this goes far beyond. Also, where is the transportation to and from the Avenues? Are they really planning on putting all these cars down a residential street past Wiley elementary school?
The reality is, Jeff, that this will not produce the bycicle trips you dream of. No, this will put more cars in an area that is just not suitable for them.
DGauny has the right of it. The plan is to so far over proposed that the City Council will feel like heros when it is only 200% beyond zoning.
Finally, as we continue to grow at a breakneck pace, one wonders where all the water will come from? But I guess we will worry about that when our showers are limited to once per week.