Changing American Shopping Mall into Mixed-Use Developments Rachel Doyne MCRP Exit Project: Spring 2020 Introduction 3 History of Malls 4 Smart Growth 8 Mall-to-Mixed-Use Redevelopment Case Studies 9 Case Study Analytical Framework 14 Case Study Profiles 17-32 Northbrook Court 18 Cedar Hills 21 Mizner Park 24 West End District 27 Hills at Vallco 30 Case Study Findings 33 Conclusions and Recommendations 38 APPENDICES Case Studies: Detailed Write-Ups 47 Smart Growth Principles Chart 91 References 97 2 INTRODUCTION In the US, the enclosed shopping mall represents a bygone era; a time when community planning perpetuated sprawling cities, and Euclidean-style zoning reigned supreme. From the 1950’s through the 1970’s the popularity of malls grew in tandem with new federal and state transportation plans that emphasized auto-centric convenience and accessibility. The promise of a new shopping mall was a catalyst for economic growth, often a driver of suburban housing development and a symbol of modernity. Regional and super-regional enclosed shopping malls surrounded by surface parking and located off newly built highways and parkways, became ubiquitous in growing suburban communities where large lots of undeveloped land were available, and residents clamored for retail destinations that didn’t require trips downtown. Today, consumer habits have changed. The suburban location and traditional retail tenants that defined shopping malls are less desirable. Shifts in retail behavior, accompanied by a resurgence of downtown districts and an increased demand for urban housing, has led to community planning strategies that emphasize compact development and mixes of retail and residential land-uses. The convergence of these changes and ideas is represented by mall-to-mixed-use developments. These part-mall, part-community projects are being proposed by private developers and approved by public officials as the way to breathe new life into dying malls, reactivate a valuable geographic location and introduce new benefits and revenues to the community. In communities that have limited buildable lands, a large parcel of centrally located real estate is a valuable asset and has the potential to be a lucrative investment, as well as an opportunity to address housing objectives. Private developers who are ready to invest in major redevelopments are buying underperforming mall properties with intentions of tearing-down the existing structures and starting-over, often proposing a mixed-use development to diversify the profit potential. What comes next for these properties depends on the owner/developer’s level of investment and the public sector’s role in planning and approving development. Communities that have enforceable standards and processes for constructive public input play an active role in redevelopment planning. Still, the public sector will likely approve a project that does not meet all standards or include all desired community benefits in order to reactivate an economically defunct property. Additionally, the public sector is seldom the property owner or in a position to finance redevelopment projects. As such, developers of privately-owned malls are leading mall redevelopment efforts in the US, turning commercial-only properties into mixed- use, and foraying into the public realms of community planning and neighborhood development. 3 The questions become how to balance the community’s objectives with the developer’s need to earn a profit, and what public planning mechanisms contribute to this ideal outcome? Research Questions What are the common features of mall-to-mixed-use developments? What role can (does) the public sector play to influence mall redevelopment projects? To answer the research questions I will first introduce the history of malls in the United States, the implications of a declining shopping mall market and explore contemporary strategies for redevelopment discussed in scholarly journals and popular publications. I will then review the Smart Growth principles that are prevalent in mixed-use developments and informing community planning strategies in the US. Next, I present five mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment case studies and identify aspects of the project or the approval process that made significant impacts on the final product or decision. In the last section, I summarize key findings from the case-studies and expose common themes that are relevant for mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment planning. Detailed Case Study materials and supplemental information is consolidated in the Appendix. HISTORY OF MALLS The Rise of the Mall The International Council of Shopping Centers defines a shopping center as “A group of retail and other commercial establishments that is planned, developed, and owned and managed as a single property with on-site parking provided” (ICSC, 2018). Shopping Centers offered consumers the convenience of shopping at multiple stores in a single location, and more parking than storefronts in the central business district. Until the 1950’s shopping centers were small, auto- oriented commercial strips, but as people started moving further from the central business district and suburban communities grew, shopping centers expanded in size and form. “All the world’s a mall” (Jackson, 1996), reflects on the environment that influenced the location and purpose of shopping centers in the United States. Shopping patterns began to shift in the post war era as a reflection of broad societal changes. The abundance of low-cost land; availability of low, federal mortgage rates; spread of the interstate highway system; growing use of the automobile; and mounting racial tensions impelled the middle- class to move their families to the suburbs. In the suburbs, malls became autonomous retail destinations, isolated from other commercial districts, built where large lots of undeveloped land could be easily accessed from a highway or interstate. The atrium mall, described as a “retail island surrounded by acres of parking” 4 (Southworth, 2005) became the standard for mall development. The first atrium mall was designed by Victor Gruen in 1956 in Edina, Minnesota. Gruen’s design for the Southdale Shopping Center was meant to replicate the public squares in European cities. The mall incorporates outdoor elements, and park-like features situated between major “anchor” department stores at either end of the property. Smaller boutiques, cafes and retailers lined the indoor corridors between the anchors, so that people could stroll from end-to-end of the mall. Gruen set the standard for shopping malls, including air-conditioning, natural light, a wide- selection of plant-life, and an abundance of parking space (the Southdale Shopping Center had parking for more than 5,000 cars). The formula worked, and Gruen’s design became the blueprint for malls in America (Jackson, 1996). By the 1970’s malls transformed the way Americans lived. In 1975, there were more than 30,000 malls accounting for approximately 50% of the retail dollars spent. Articles from the time noted that the typical American was spending more time at the mall than at any other place other and declared that the mall had become, along with the tract house, the freeway, and the backyard barbecue, the most distinctive product of the American postwar years (Kowinski 1978). The Decline Starting in the late 1990’s suburban malls struggled to compete in markets where they once thrived. Downtowns are making a comeback, housing trends suggest people want to live closer to central business districts and not in traditional suburbs, and popular city planning strategies emphasize walkability and mixed-use development. Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson have written extensively about the changing mall landscapes and the impacts on the surrounding communities. By their estimation, one-third of [nearly 1500] enclosed malls in the US “have died or are dying, covering 32,120 acres of land” (Dunham-Jones & Williamson, 2017). Credit Suisse projects that up to 25% of malls will close by 2022, and Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., the largest retail real estate company in North America, which owns more than 200 income producing properties, including 106 malls, announced, "We're not building new regional enclosed malls from the ground up now. Nobody is" (“The shopping center’s future,” n.d.). The swift decline of the mall is often attributed to e-commerce and changes in consumerism that favor local, boutiques and big-box stores over smaller national retailers (Ortiz & Arnold, 2018). In a white paper about mall redevelopment, the Bonner Advisory Group explains the recent aversion to malls (Bonner, 2005). However, since its peak in the 1970s, the American mall has been dying a slow and steady death. Today’s millennials have reembraced city living. Americans’ preferences have shifted from traditional malls towards “lifestyle centers,” or places that incorporate live, work, and play elements…According to mall tenants and customers alike, traditional malls are too large, the temperature-controlled environments are too artificial, department stores are not the draws they once were, 5 mall parking lots are too sprawling, and mall parking garages are too arduous to navigate. To attract and retain customers, mall retailers are using “experiential shopping” strategies to offer customers shopping experiences that are memorable and more customized. In a competitive, changing consumer landscape that blends retail with entertainment, mall owners are being advised to rethink mall tenants and incorporate “Instagram-worthy” spaces. Converting vacant department store anchors into entertainment complexes, replacing food courts with food halls, and adding sit-down restaurants, spas and fitness centers on the property as detached buildings in the surrounding parking lot, are proving popular strategies to repurpose the existing site plan and mall structure. Mall redevelopment plans that require major structural renovations are less common because it is ultimately more cost-effective to demolish the structure and rebuild from the ground-up. New Life for Old Malls A primary advantage of redeveloping shopping malls is the location. In many communities the shopping center site is the largest available land parcel in the area for development, and while expensive to redevelop, the site likely offers benefits such as prime location, existing public infrastructure, and good transportation access – an attractive combination for communities and developers. Adaptive reuse describes the process of adapting an existing building for a non- traditional use, and can be categorized as one or more of the four “Rs”, rehabilitation, retrofitting, redevelopment or revitalization (Bernhard, n.d.). The differences between each “R” is described in the table below. Table 1.1 Four “Rs” of Adaptive Reuse Rehabilitate Make current structure habitable, livable, safe Retrofit Add new technology and/or features to current structure Redevelop Reusing the structure or land to make the property economically viable Revitalize Changing the structure to activate the space and stimulate local interest Adaptive reuse has been widely applauded as a way to preserve existing structures, but is more difficult to apply to shopping malls that are not often well-fabricated or worth preserving, like historic buildings with character. Shopping malls were built to have attractive interiors, but non- descript exteriors, and are surrounded by asphalt parking lots that have feeder lanes to circulation routes, and exits to the public roadways. Reconfiguring these layouts presents challenges and expensive engineering solutions. Projects that propose mixed-use development are likely to demolish the existing mall structures entirely to (re)establish a traditional street-grid across the site. Ultimately, the original shopping mall cannot be reused and is erased from the site altogether in the majority of redevelopment projects. 6 Image 1.2 Former Kmart site, proposed redevelopment. 2019. In the United States, there are five common mall redevelopment strategies, listed in the table below (Ortiz and Arnold, 2018). Table 1.3 Five Common Mall Redevelopment Strategies (FitzGerald & Ziobro, 2014) 1. Mixed-use Town Center or Urban District 2. Single-use development 3. Adaptive Reuse 4. Mall Plus 5. Reinvested Mall • Single-use development involves demolishing the existing mall structure and replacing it with another single-use facility, often different retail (big box stores), an office park, entertainment complex or condominiums. • Adaptive reuse is listed as a third-strategy, and involves retaining the existing mall structure but re-tenanting, often with a single occupant. • Mall Plus is a combination of strategies that maintain the existing structure but with substantial upgrades, and supplementing the retail tenants with entertainment and hospitality features that attract more visitors. • Reinvested Mall means that the existing structure is renovated with more modern aesthetics and the mix of tenants is refreshed to meet consumer demands The most prevalent model, and most celebrated by planning professionals, is changing malls into mixed-use town centers / urban districts by incorporating a mix of retail and residential units, public spaces, offices and civic space. The ambition and design of these projects varies, and while not formulaic, there are common characteristics being applied. 7 SMART GROWTH The declining popularity of malls coincided with shifts in commercial and residential development from the suburbs back to city centers, as more people gravitated towards urban lifestyles. In contrast to the sprawling and auto-centric planning that dominated the 20th century, in the 1990’s, growth management methods for community planning gained momentum. The precise origins of the phrase “Smart Growth” are not credited to one agency or author, but through various documents and toolkits published by the APA (American Planning Association) in association with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) the term “Smart Growth” became synonymous with land-use strategies that promote compact development, mass transit, and land preservation (Goetz, 2011). In 1996 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined with non-profit organizations to establish the Smart Growth Network (SGN), a consortium of different interests that impact the built environment. The interest groups associated with the SGN include environmentalists, historic preservations, real estate developers, transportation planners and partners, and public advocates. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained a list of principles that outline how smart growth can be achieved in community planning. Over the last 20 years, the principles have been refined and used to write model policies for states and local governments to utilize when drafting new land use legislation. The Smart Growth principles continue to inform community planning broadly, and are well represented in mixed-use-developments that promote compact development and infill strategies. The table below lists the ten Smart Growth principle. Table 2.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Smart Growth Principles (2011) Mix land uses Compact building design Range of housing choices Walkable neighborhoods Distinctive and attractive places Preserve open space and farmland Direct development toward existing communities Variety of transportation choices Predictable, fair, and cost-effective decision-making Community and stakeholder participation Smart Growth strategies are used to address the sprawl that resulted from the land-use patterns that were adopted during the heyday of the shopping mall. The land-use patterns associated with sprawl include single-family houses on large lots, the separation of where people live from where they work (often reinforced by zoning regulations), elaborate networks of roads and auto- 8 centric services, and expansive shopping malls and office parks. (Daniels, 2001 ) Mixed-use development solves for sprawl by promoting more density in residential housing, closer proximity between where people live and work, options for transportation including non- motorized alternatives and clusters of retail and dining for residents and visitors. Planning professionals, in alignment with APA recommendations, are implementing zoning regulations that allow for mixed land-uses and compact development and land-use policies that promote development around transportation hubs and mobility networks. The Smart Growth planning strategies aim to transform cities into more walkable, livable, and vibrant communities, and mixed-use developments are a common manifestation of these tenets. MALL-TO-MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES I used content analysis to compare five case studies of mall-to-mixed-use development. For each case, I read local planning documents, building and development standards that pertained to the site’s location, as well as staff reports and exhibits related to the (re)development applications. I identified if the planning documents included Smart Growth principles and how prominent the principles were in the language. I then evaluated if the proposed site plans were compatible with the official planning documents, and whether zoning maps, code variances and/or comprehensive plan modifications were requested for the project’s approval. I supplemented content analysis by reading and watching public testimonies at Planning Commission and City Council meetings and read published articles and commentary to gauge public sentiment towards the proposed projects. Research of archival and current day maps and photographs helped bring these sites to life and provided geographical context. The cases that are highlighted in this research were chosen to represent a sample of the mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment projects that are popular in the US, and are not a comprehensive inventory of what’s happening or what is possible. Table 3.1 Mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment case studies used for research (2020) CASE TYPE DEVELOPER STATE STATUS Brookfield Northbrook Court Partial Mall Redevelopment Properties Illinois In-Development Urban Form Cedar Hills Strip Mall Redevelopment Development Oregon Proposed Downtown Mall Brookfield Mizner Park Redevelopment Properties Florida Complete Urban Form Pre- West End District Big-box Mall Redevelopment Development Oregon Construction Master Planned Community Delayed by Hills at Vallco Mall Redevelopment Sand Hill Co. California Litigation 9 The cases represent different types of malls that are being redeveloped into mixed-use properties. The variety of malls offered some insights into characteristics that are common in mixed-use developments, regardless of lot size. Of the five cases, two redevelopment projects were located in Beaverton, Oregon, and proposed by the same regional developer, UrbanForm Development. Two of the other cases are being redeveloped by Brookfield Properties, a global real-estate investment firm. These two developers operate at different scales and in the cases I examined, I observed dissimilar investment strategies and relationships with the public sector. While not conclusive, the cases speak to an omnipresent tension between the developer’s objectives and the community’s expectations in mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment. Case Study Themes Across the five cases, themes emerged related to housing and community collaboration. In all cases, the public advocated for the inclusion of below-market residential units and sought the opportunity to be consulted for feedback. In some cases, the public sector leveraged policy, planning documents and incentives to influence the final site plan and ensure the development would align with community objectives. In other case studies, the public sector harnessed fewer planning tools and had less capacity to deny development applications if desired community objectives were not included in the final site plan. The following sections describe how policies and incentives can influence housing and community collaboration in mall-to-mixed-use developments, as exemplified in the case studies. Underscoring these themes is a fundamental query about the role of the public sector in private development. Housing, in particular, can be influenced by regulations and policies generated at multiple levels of government. The public sector can require community input on plans for mall- to-mixed-use redevelopments when there is a defined process and prescribed community engagement standards. Or, rather than waiting until a site plan is proposed, and asking for the community to react, the public sector can lead community engagement efforts to establish design standards and articulate long-term community aspirations. Theme 1 Housing Where housing is in demand, there are different motives to build residential units, especially in transit-oriented locations. Developers are seeking profits and prefer building market-rate, or premium units. Community members and city officials are more likely to champion a mix of units and price-points, including below-market-rate (BMR) options. The level of influence that the public sector has on private development is controlled by the local planning framework, available tax-incentive funds, and whether community benefits are codified in building and development requirements. Housing: Using Policy 10 Comprehensive plans and policies that are written with limited governance around affordable housing have two important impacts on redevelopment. First, developers prefer flexible regulations that provide options for fulfilling any housing requirements. Communities that have transparent policies and flexible building codes and design standards are more developer- friendly. Second, policies and planning documents that are less prescriptive about housing requirements limit a community’s capacity to ensure that affordable units are included in redevelopments. States can pass legislation to ensure new inventory will include below-market units or to encourage more private investment in projects that incorporate affordable housing. • Beaverton, Oregon West End District, Cedar Hills The City of Beaverton’s Community Development Department works with developers to design redevelopment agreements that are mutually beneficial. The community has earned a reputation for being development-friendly, and has adopted land-use regulations that allow for a variety of uses in multiple zoning designations. Regulatory flexibility and dedicated planning resources are valuable assets for communities that want to recruit partnerships with private developers. Central to Beaverton’s Comprehensive Plans, the Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals are the Smart Growth principles for land- management and compact, transit-oriented development. The City of Beaverton adopted the voter-approved Central Beaverton Urban Renewal Plan, and appointed the Beaverton Urban Redevelopment Areas (BURA) Agency Board to guide the plan’s implementation. Proposed mixed-use developments are designed to meet these plans. Emphasis is placed on transit-oriented development in Beaverton land-use plans, and investments are made accordingly. Should the city focus on affordable housing, they may have similar success. • Northbrook, Illinois Northbrook Court The Comprehensive plan used by the City of Northbrook is high-level narrative of community objectives. The City is managed by a Board of Trustees who are guided by the regulatory framework and the Northbrook Industrial & Commercial Development Commission (ICDC) when deciding on redevelopment projects. In review of redevelopment proposals, emphasis is placed on potential tax revenues and employment opportunities. The adopted Affordable Housing Policy is flexible and does apply to every proposal. Vague comprehensive plans and the policies they contain pertaining to housing are not enforceable, and flexible policies allow developers to refuse to incorporate affordable housing in redevelopment projects. Despite public concerns for more affordable housing, the Board of Trustees were unable to force the developer to include below-market-rate units. When Northbrook Court received final approval, the Village Board President Sandy Frum was quoted as saying, "However we look at affordable housing today, there is no policy and there is no definition. It is wrong to expect these developers to include something when we don't even know what we are talking about." • Cupertino, California The Hills at Vallco 11 The approved plans for The Hills at Vallco include a variety of housing types, comprising of rental units at market-rate and premium prices, as well as dedicated units for different levels of affordability, seniors, and disabled peoples. The plans were designed to meet the state of California’s Senate Bill 35 which mandates an expedited development approval process for proposals that meet housing standards. The developers intentionally prepared an application that would satisfy the SB 35 requirements and bypass a lengthier and controversy-causing review process. Eventual approval of the massive redevelopment project relied on the SB 35 housing provisions. Housing: Using Incentives Developers seek a variety of incentives to finance these costly mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment projects. Projects that include below-market residential units (BMR) will usually rely on tax-based incentives to offset the costs. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) are federally distributed, complex instruments that can be awarded to developers who meet BMR minimums. Projects that incorporate LIHTC involve private investors and partners spanning all levels of government, real estate finance specialists, and legal and tax experts. Developers are less compelled to work under complex regulatory environments if a less complicated, and more profitable option is available. In addition to adopting housing policies, communities can use incentives to encourage development plans to include below-market-rate housing. • Boca Raton, Florida Mizner Park When the plans for Downtown Boca Raton were drafted in 1986, voters approved a special tax increment on properties within the downtown district. The funds were used for community-interest projects and public-investments. Eventually, monies from the Redevelopment Trust Fund were used to subsidize housing units in new developments and contribute to the costs of new construction. This voter-approved source of revenues signals an ongoing investment in the public-private development of downtown Boca Raton. • Northbrook, Illinois Northbrook Court Northbrook voters approved a $27 million public investment to secure, and subsidize, the partial redevelopment of the Northbrook Court Mall. The financial incentives included infrastructure upgrades and sales-tax rebates. The public-private partnership is further exhibited by the Northbrook TIF district, and amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations to permit the project. Board Members raised concerns about the local rental market and need for affordable units at public hearings but approved the site plan that only included market-rate and luxury units. Despite the cooperative public- private partnership that was formed to finance the development, the housing types were not negotiated. Mounting public pressure eventually led to the developer making a one- time, “no strings attached” payment of $750,000 to the City. The fee was meant to appease the calls for affordable units and possibly seed a community housing program. • Beaverton, Oregon Cedar Hills 12 Real estate investors and developers are incentivized to build in locations that have been primed for development. Infill strategies encourage existing vacant properties to be redeveloped, usually with greater density or land-use intensity. When infill strategies are combined with infrastructure investments, communities can target where redevelopment is most beneficial. Overlay zones can be used to designate boundaries for targeted investment. Communities can invest in public infrastructure and transportation networks to identify where growth is anticipated and welcome, while also saving developers the cost and time by addressing potential impact fees. Leading up to the redevelopment of Cedar Hills, the City of Beaverton made massive public investments in the Sunset Transit Center and surrounding roads and utilities in anticipation of, and to spur, greater private development. Additionally, the City of Beaverton allows a public benefit bonus when developments achieve a community benefit or goal, such as increased housing options, public space, or affordable housing. Approved projects are allowed increased density. • Cupertino, California The Hills at Vallco The old adage, “time is money”, is applicable to real estate development. The processes to submit and approve development applications and draft development agreements can take years, particularly for large master-planned communities. The state of California passed SB 35, requiring communities to expedite the review and approval processes for development projects that meet affordable housing minimums. An expedited approval is valuable to a developer, and is not a financial expenditure for the community, making this a cost-effective incentive to recruit more affordable housing development. Theme 2 Placemaking & Community Input Just as Victor Gruen’s design became the prevailing style for enclosed shopping malls, a standard set of characteristics are prominent in mall-to-mixed-used redevelopments. If today’s dying malls are replaced with cookie-cutter mixed-use redevelopments, there may be issues with longevity as a consequence of over standardization. Community input is one way to develop localized plans for redevelopment. Design charrettes and workshops can be used to help identify the materials, layout and amenities that best align with the community’s long-term goals. Site plans can also be influenced by the public sector if regulatory flexibility is exchanged for public space or other community benefits. Community Input: Using Policy and Public Engagement Developing a community vision and formally recognizing the community’s objectives before a developer submits an application can put the public sector in a better position to ensure redevelopment plans will align with what the community desires. This can be difficult to achieve if the public sector adopts comprehensive plans that are more general, include less prescriptive standards for development, and have limited or vague guidance on community outreach. In these cases, redevelopment proposals include fewer characteristics that meet community objectives. 13 • Boca Raton, Florida Mizner Park The plans for Mizner Park were developed from a series of city-facilitated workshops with local residents and business owners that envisioned a new downtown neighborhood. Workshops, design charrettes, and listening sessions were hosted over years of planning, and the resulting documents provided a clear vision for the redevelopment and the longer-term goals for the neighborhood. The planning processes and timing enabled the public sector to influence the outcome. • Beaverton, Oregon Cedar Hills, West End District Within the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan land-use chapter, five policies are listed under Goal 3.4.1, to “Provide effective and inclusive planning and development review services”, including outreach to under-represented populations and intentional efforts to increase community participation. In addition, the Beaverton Comprehensive plan lays out the need for localized Community Plans (3.5.1) that “recognize the unique needs of different parts of the city” by addressing “place-specific issues and opportunities”, with tailored development regulations and policies. Community Plans need to be informed by “an inclusive public process” and consider the “needs of Beaverton’s diverse cultural communities”. Community Input: Using Incentives In the five case studies, there were no examples of using financial or processing incentives to encourage or acknowledge community engagement. The incentive for developers to engage in community outreach and make efforts to collect feedback from community members is ultimately self-serving. By proactively coordinating with the community and refining the proposed site plan in response to feedback, the development application is less likely to be delayed by public scrutiny or contentious public hearings. Communities that define the requirements for community outreach will have more predictable outcomes. Consistent processes will also clarify the public’s expectations and help streamline application approvals. • Beaverton, Oregon Cedar Hills, West End District The City of Beaverton uses a public benefit bonus for developments that achieve a community benefit or goal, such as increased housing options, public space, or affordable housing. Approved projects are allowed increased density. CASE STUDY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK The selected cases revealed a set of characteristics that are common in mall-to-mixed-use redevelopments. Similarities were found in the amenities and design choices, the local development atmospheres, and generally, the expected financial outcomes. The characteristics are central to meeting the Community (C) or Developer (D) objectives, or satisfy both parties. The table below organizes the characteristics under four headings noting whether the 14 Community (C) or Developer (D) is likely to champion the inclusion in a redevelopment project. Highlighted rows identify characteristics that are of shared interest. There are characteristics, like “Community engagement and public input informs the project”, and, “well designed, attractive finishes” that are applicable to more than one category, and appear on Table 4.1 more than once. These characteristics impact the redevelopment project overall, and can be using a variety of different planning tools. Table 4.1 Characteristics of mall-to-mixed-use development projects C D Land Use Characteristics x x Transit-oriented development x x Compact development x Services (dentist, shoe repair, hair salon) and local small businesses on-site x Grocery store on-site x Space for local cultural events x On-site recycling or waste reduction programs (compost, water filtration) x Civic space (museums, post office, schools) x x Easy access to major roads and mass transit x x Communities that have invested in public infrastructure C D Locale Characteristics x x Transit-oriented development (multi-modal) x x Easy access to major roads x Communities that have tax-incentive policies x Communities with a highly-skilled workforce x x Site locations that are surrounded by other points of interest x x Communities that are projected to grow in population x x Communities with major employers and a vibrant economy x x Communities that can sustain high-quality retail tenants C D Housing Characteristics x Community engagement and public input informs the project x x Well designed, attractive finishes x Affordable housing x Sustainable design and energy saving building techniques x x Mix of housing unit sizes and styles x Communal maker spaces, incubators, workshops, kitchens x Market-rate (only) housing units x Premium housing units x x Communities with major employers and a vibrant economy C D Design Characteristics x Community engagement and public input informs the project x x Well designed, attractive finishes x Sustainable design and energy saving building techniques 15 x x Public open space and dedicated green spaces for recreation x x Mix of housing unit sizes and styles x x Compact development x Urban forms that integrate with the surroundings x Communal maker spaces, incubators, workshops, kitchens Using the above table’s data, I created a spectrum of characteristics, and evaluated each case- study on this scale. The cases that incorporated characteristics to meet Community objectives are plotted on the left-side of the scale. Cases that incorporated characteristics to satisfy the Developer’s objectives are plotted on the right-side of the scale. In the middle, the neutral zone lists the characteristics that meet shared objectives. A majority of the case-studies include the neutral zone characteristics which may indicate that these characteristics have become standard in mixed-use development. The prominence of neutral zone characteristics also suggests that privately-funded redevelopments are not meeting community objectives. Scale position is based on the characteristics that were included in the Development Agreement, conditional approvals that directly addressed absent characteristics, and the timeline to reach final Development Agreement approval. Image 4.2 Characteristics of mall-to-mixed-use developments, in relation to objectives (2020) Community Objectives Shared Objectives / Neutral Developer Objectives Vision Driven Profit Driven Community engagement and Well designed, attractive finishes Market-rate (only) housing units public input informs the project Public open space and dedicated Affordable housing Premium housing units green spaces for recreation Sustainable design and energy saving building techniques Mix of housing unit sizes and styles Tax-based financing incentives Services (dentist, shoe repair, Communities with a highly- hair salon) and local small Transit-oriented development businesses on-site skilled workforce Grocery store on-site Compact development Urban forms that integrate with Easy access to major roads and the surroundings mass transit Communal maker spaces, High-quality retail tenants incubators, workshops, kitchens Site locations that are surrounded Space for local & cultural events by other points of interest 16 On-site recycling or waste reduction programs (compost, Communities that are projected to grow in population water filtration) Civic space (museums, post Communities with major office, schools) employers and a vibrant economy Communities that have invested in public infrastructure CASE STUDY PROFILES In each case study profile, the site is briefly described, and a table indicates the public-sector tools that were utilized, or that contributed to the project’s outcome. On the Characteristics table, the objectives that are present in the case study are bolded. Notable planning policies and processes that influenced whether objectives were included, or absent, are described in the following section. The third section in each profile highlights aspects of the site plan that were tailored to meet community standards or that required code modification approvals. When relevant, planning documents that directly address mixed-use-development or the redevelopment property, are referenced. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 CASE STUDY FINDINGS The five case studies demonstrate redevelopment strategies used on different sized properties, by regional and global developers, under four state and local planning frameworks. Despite the dissimilar attributes of these projects, the research revealed some consistencies. First, that mall- to-mixed-use redevelopments can achieve a set of benefits that serve both the community and the developer. Also, that these redevelopments are well-suited to incorporate Smart Growth principles and model the benefits of compact, transit-oriented, development. The case studies also exemplify how communities are influencing the outcomes of these projects using policy and incentives. The image below compares the five cases on the Community-Developer Objective scale. Excluding The Hills at Vallco, because that development is pending an on-going legal dispute, the other four cases range from close alignment with Community Objectives to close alignment with Developer Objectives suggesting that there are host of potential outcomes associated with these projects. Image 4.3 Characteristics of Case Studies, in relationship to objectives (2020) After evaluating the role of the public sector in the selected cases, and plotting each along this spectrum, trends are revealed. First, there are a common set of characteristics that are mutually beneficial for the community and for the developer. These neutral characteristics are not only common in mall-to-mixed-use development, but also well aligned with the Smart Growth principles. As observed from the case studies, the characteristics that are less common in redevelopments, and also integral to a Smart Growth strategy are notable. Community objectives for housing variety and community input are less likely to be addressed in mall-to- mixed-use redevelopments than other characteristics that meet community objectives. 33 Table 4.4 Characteristics and Smart Growth Principles related to Community Objectives Mall-to-Mixed-Use Characteristic EPA Smart Growth Principle Community engagement and public input Community and stakeholder participation informs the project Affordable housing Range of housing choices Mall-to-mixed-use developments can present opportunities to showcase the benefits of the Smart Growth principles in practice. Shopping mall properties, however, are usually privately owned, and redeveloped as sites that are accessible, but independent from the surrounding community. As a result, the benefits of implementing Smart Growth principles can be confined within site boundaries. In order to fully realize the value in Smart Growth, each of the ten principles are integral, not the least, “Community and stakeholder participation”. In summary, characteristics of mall-to-mixed-used developments align with the EPA’s Smart Growth principles, but mall-to-mixed-use developments are not necessarily successful models of Smart Growth. The table below lists characteristics that are common in mall-to-mixed-use developments (in yellow) and the EPA’s principles of Smart Growth (in blue). Characteristics that align with principles are highlighted in green. Notably, four revenue-related characteristics that are present in mall-to-mixed-use redevelopments have no association with Smart Growth principles. • Market-rate (only) housing units • Premium housing units • Communities that can sustain high-quality retail tenants • Communities with a highly-skilled workforce These four characteristics signal greater profits for the developer, which makes the project more financially viable. These characteristics are a motivating factor for developers, but have no relevance for achieving a Smart Growth strategy, highlighting a fundamental gap between the Smart Growth principles that aim to meet the public’s interest and the characteristics that align with the developer’s intentions of using mall-to-mixed-use development for profit. Whereas Smart Growth strategies are long-range community and regional planning tools, applicable in broad contexts, mall-to-mixed-use redevelopments may only be deployed where financially beneficial for the private sector. The subsequent table (Table 4.6) compares the five mall-to-mixed-use case studies to the Smart growth Principles. Cedar Hills, Mizner Park, and The Hills at Vallco incorporate eight out of the ten Smart Growth principles. Each of these cases is distinct in size and location, but all had higher degrees of public engagement. Northbrook Court, on the other hand, was approved under a 34 limited planning framework that did not require public engagement, and it meets the fewest Smart Growth principles. Where the mall was redeveloped as the result of a public-sector-led collaboration, the resulting mixed-use development aligns more closely with the Smart Growth principles. 35 Table 4.5 A Matrix of Mall-to-Mixed-Use development Characteristics under the EPA’s Smart Growth Principles EPA SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES Direct Predictable, Community Range of Distinctive and Preserve open development Variety of fair, and cost- Compact Walkable and Mix land uses housing attractive space and toward transportation effective building design neighborhoods stakeholder MALL-TO-MIXED-USE CHARACTERISTICS choices places farmland existing choices decision- participation communities making Community engagement and public input X X informs the project Affordable housing X X X Market-rate (only) housing units Premium housing units Mix of housing unit sizes and styles X X Civic space (museums, post office, schools) X X X X Communal maker spaces, incubators, X X X workshops, kitchens Communities that are projected to grow in X X X population Communities that can sustain high-quality retail tenants Communities that have invested in public X X X X infrastructure Communities that have tax-incentive policies X X Communities with a highly-skilled workforce Communities with major employers and a X vibrant economy Services (dentist, shoe repair, hair salon) and X X X X X local small businesses on-site Compact development X X X X X X Well designed, attractive finishes X X Grocery store on-site X X X X Public open space and dedicated green X X X X X spaces for recreation Space for local cultural events X X X X X On-site recycling or waste reduction X programs (compost, water filtration) Sustainable design and energy saving X building techniques Transit-oriented development X X X X X Easy access to major roads and mass transit X X X X X Site locations that are surrounded by other X X X X X points of interest Table 4.6 Case Studies of Mall-to-Mixed-Use Developments and Alignment with the 10 Smart Growth Principles EPA SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES Direct Predictable, Community Range of Distinctive and Preserve open development Variety of fair, and cost- Compact Walkable and Mix land uses housing attractive space and toward transportation effective building design neighborhoods stakeholder CASE STUDIES choices places farmland existing choices decision- participation communities making Northbrook Court X X X X X Cedar Hills X X X X X X X X Mizner Park X X X X X X X X West End District X X X X X X Hills at Vallco X X X X X X X X 37 Conclusions and Recommendations Mall-to-mixed-use projects can be profitable assets for developers. When managed as an investment, as opposed to a community initiative, development proposals are less concerned with meeting community objectives, insomuch as delivering strong returns to shareholders. The costs for redeveloping a mall into a mixed-use development are prohibitive for smaller developers and community organizations who might otherwise participate in local development. Whereas a large real estate investment firm has the assets to cover development costs upfront, a smaller, local firm or affordable housing agency will typically require multiple sources of financing to cover costs. Planning costs associated with redeveloping a mall are also risky, as the project may ultimately not be approved or significantly delayed. Developers that rely on lenders have to contend with loan requirements that often stipulate quicker payback periods and higher rates of return. The costs and risks associated with mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment are more acceptable for large asset managers who maintain portfolios of properties and approach redevelopment as an investment for shareholders. Real Estate investment firms, like Brookfield Properties, take ownership of properties around the world and make calculated upgrades to maximize potential revenues. In 2018, Brookfield Properties purchased General Growth Properties (GGP), formally the second largest shopping mall operator in the United States for $9.25 billion, and acquired 125 shopping mall properties. Brookfield Properties announced plans to “densify” 100 of the 125 malls by adding hotels, residences, and retail, calling the plans “mini-cities”. The firm expects to spend $800 million- $1 billion dollars, each year, “over the next few years”, to makeover mall properties into the mixed- use mini-cities. Examples from Brookfield Properties extensive real estate portfolio illustrate common elements across the mini-cities, notably higher-quality and more expensive retailers, dining and entertainment options. The projects are marketed consistently as lifestyle communities, and are similarly designed, using materials that are not place specific to achieve a modern American aesthetic. On the company’s website, placemaking is spotlighted as an expertise of the company and priority for redevelopment. Brookfield Properties.com “We bring redevelopment opportunities to life by leveraging our unparalleled placemaking expertise to create lasting urban destinations. As city populations across the globe expand rapidly, community wants and needs are changing quickly – and constantly. At Brookfield Properties, we develop unique community destinations which create exciting places to live, work, shop and play, in vibrant urban settings.” In his Keynote address at an Investors Relationship meeting, the CEO and Managing Director of Brookfield Properties, Brian Kingston, discussed the profitability of mall redevelopment, by plotting different types of properties on a matrix of mall productivity and barriers to market. Kingston proposed that almost any mall can be upgraded and more productive, unless the mall is underperforming and located in a less-desirable geography, saying “There are certainly some shopping centers that you should avoid, but they're really those ones that are low productivity malls in low-land value markets.” The investment strategy for Brookfield Properties is to make changes that will achieve positive returns over time. As described by Kingston, the Brookfield Properties approach to redeveloping malls is formulaic and promises to be a reliable model. For real estate investment firms, the incentive is strictly financial, and impersonal. “And so, 2012, we acquired an under-performing Sears box back from them. We redeveloped it into about 660 thousand square feet of luxury in-line retail. We then redeveloped in phase two, we redeveloped in Nordstrom's and built 220 residential condo apartments. And so, on the first phase of that it was almost a 10% yield on our cost, the second phase which was a little smaller was seven. We then sold a 40% interest in this mall and a 3% cap rate. And so, those transactions alone, the gain on just those redevelopments was over a billion dollars on this one asset.” Expand the retail offering and continue to make this a dominant retail center – Combination of expanding the retail lifestyle and entertainment complexes, offering as well as adding additional uses food halls. (hotels, residential, office) onto the site Redevelopment or actually shrinking retail square footage, and bringing other uses AVOID onto, what are generally well-located sites in supply-constrained markets. Barrier to Market (High = Costly Land Values / Limited Land Low Availability) High 39 Mall Productivity High (Sales Per Square Foot) Mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment projects blur the lines between commercial and residential developments, public and private properties, and for-profit and for-the-public-good outcomes. Mixed-used developments are being branded as a new type of American Town Square or Main Street, echoing Victor Gruen’s original intention for enclosed shopping malls. And, these projects, like the shopping malls that came before, are being marketed as a modern way of living, promoting convenience and comforts that make for a desirable communities and a better future. A consistently used, and generic, vision for communities, “Live, Work, Play”, has come to mean compact neighborhoods where people can shop, dine, recreate, and use mass transit (to commute), within walking distance of where they live. Decisions to build structures that cannot be adapted, design places that are generic and/or culture-agnostic, and market amenities that may not always be in vogue are treating mall-to- mixed-use redevelopments more like a mall than a permanent neighborhood. In the same way that people have become disenchanted with shopping malls as entities void of charm, identical in makeup, and artificial, the new visions for mixed-used neighborhoods could risk the same fate. Recommendations • The public sector can proactively update zoning definitions, development standards and building codes where redevelopment is desired. Prescriptive planning documents can ensure that proposed projects will only be eligible for approval if they meet community objectives. Likewise, the public sector can establish approval processes that grant the City (or public) final approval of site design. • Form based code can be adopted at the property, neighborhood or city level to introduce more long-term flexibility, allow for more diverse architectural character, and greater opportunities for adaptive reuse. Cities can regulate the building type, streetscapes, layout, scale, parking and pedestrian standards and still allow building owners and occupants to determine how the buildings will be used. Uses can still be regulated by articulating the acceptable noise levels, hours of business and parking availability. • Create special improvement districts for focused investment. Create fixed boundaries around neighborhoods in which tax incentives, regulatory flexibility, or other financial benefits are made available to entice development activity. • City planning departments can form multi-project relationships with smaller, regional developers who are willing to collaborate with the public sector and who share objectives with the community Ambitious proposals can model the benefits of applying Smart Growth principles, and may have more lasting effects on the community. The redevelopments proposed for Mizner Park and The Hills at Vallco are the pinnacles of neighborhood revitalization plans. In these cases, the redeveloped properties are intended to spur long-term economic benefits for the community while being financially viable for the developer. Mizner Park was a first-phase landmark of a new downtown Boca Raton, and The Hills 40 at Vallco aims to define a downtown community in Cupertino. Both of these projects are ambitious and despite being developed thirty years apart, both exhibit Smart Growth principles. The concepts of Smart Growth, and plans for a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood were innovative at the time of Mizner Park, and continue to be desirable and at the heart of planning policies today. It has become generic for mall-to-mixed-use developments to incorporate some of the Smart Growth principles. Mizner Park and The Hills at Vallco are distinct from more modest plans in that the plans intentionally elevate the Smart Growth principles and aim to make long-lasting, community-wide impacts. Mall owners and developers are looking at experiential retail as the solution to a dwindling brick- and-mortar shopping habits, and infusing mall properties with more technology, recreation, and destination-retail (Apple stores, luxury designers, pop-up shops). The goal of experiential retail is to attract customers by providing a memorable and less-predictable shopping experience, and to give people reasons to engage with the space. Popular publications like Forbes and MSNBC have written articles that doubt the staying power of experiential retail. Where malls have used these strategies, and seen an uptick in foot traffic, the data suggests that new immersive and social- media-minded strategies for retail are not working to improve sales revenues over time. The long-term viability of mixed-use properties may depend less on the retail strategies that are deployed, and have more to do with how well the property integrates with the surrounding areas and serves as a catalyst for economic growth. Smaller mall-to-mixed-use developments may be less controversial than a massive proposal to revitalize a community, but it remains unclear how these properties will survive or perform over time. Recommendations • Right-size development proposals to achieve the desired outcomes. Big changes may require massive plans, so it is necessary for the public sector to proactively imagine, and plan for what is needed from underperforming properties. If the intention of the redeveloped mall is to spur long-term economic growth in the region, then the plans will need to be anchored by the community’s long-term objectives. Ambitious projects that incorporate civic space and an array of community benefits are more costly and have the potential to attract more controversy, but may prove to have greater longevity. • Integrate the redeveloped property with the surroundings by adopting measures to ensure that the built environment is not disjointed with new development. Use regulations and building codes to address connectivity and accessibility. The public sector can stipulate streetscape elements, and building scale, and incorporate design standards and zoning that creates stronger links between the street and the building, and how to address parking to limit interrupted mobility. • Use experiential retail – but make it local. Mall-to-mixed-use developments, like traditional shopping centers, are confronting a changing retail environment and are seeking new ways to attract customers. The latest trends to add experiential retail, entertainment complexes and replace food courts with more niche dining options, like food halls and local street food vendors, can be complimented by smaller, local businesses. Developers and communities can work together to find tenants that are homegrown examples of the national trends (i.e. locally-owned 41 food trucks, gaming arcades). Incorporating businesses that are owned by community-members helps to integrate these projects as part of the local landscape, and connects the developer’s objectives with the community’s objectives. For communities to have greater influence on the outcomes of mall-to- mixed-use developments, proactive and targeted public planning is imperative. The volume of underperforming and/or vacant mall properties has been anticipated for years. The land dedicated to malls has been occupied for decades, but now there is an opportunity to utilize these sites differently. In order for the community to have input on what these projects include and look like, the public-sector must actively engage with residents, business owners, developers, and adopt planning strategies that are aligned with the community’s objectives. In the five cases that were researched, two characteristics applied broadly to the redevelopment. “Community engagement and public input informs the project”, and, “well designed, attractive finishes” are applicable to more than one aspect of the proposed plan and interrelated. If community engagement and public input are present, then the site plans and design choices should meet expectations. However, it is more complicated to adopt community engagement processes that are meaningful, than it is for the public sector to regulate development through design and materiality standards. For this reason, it was more common in the case studies for the projects to be “well designed”, and less likely that the “public input informs the project”. Implementing a robust and activated community engagement program is more nuanced and time consuming, whereas drafting new building codes and modifying plan language tends to be more operationalized. The public sector should aim to implement a redevelopment strategy that is rooted in public engagement and that uses land-use policy tools to implement the community objectives. Communities that make proactive investments in transportation, infrastructure and technology, and that have a clear, long-term vision are in a position to collaborate with developers and strike an agreement that is mutually beneficial. Recommendations • Seek and use technical assistance to develop a public participation process. Technical assistance may be available from states, interest groups, nonprofit organizations, and private sector consultants to help counties, cities, and towns craft a strategy for stakeholder involvement. • Conduct community visioning exercises to determine how and where the neighborhood will grow, use simulations and present alternatives for feedback. Use more visuals in planning documents: Display zoning regulations and design goals in pictorial fashion to better illustrate development goals. • Bring developers and the development community into the visioning process. 42 • Consider a point-based performance evaluation system for development projects provides a way for communities to evaluate projects in terms of the smart growth benefits they provide. Communities can offer a wide range of incentives, such as reduction of development fees, support for infrastructure financing, or density bonuses to encourage the features they desire. Public-private partnerships and relationships are key for a cohesive, community-oriented development strategy. Unlike big-box store plazas and strip malls, the larger shopping mall properties are strong candidates for being redeveloped into master planned communities. The size and location of the property can contribute to the types of plans that are proposed. On larger properties, or in downtown districts, a mall-to-mixed use redevelopment has the potential to activate underused land, and (re)introduce an economic vibrancy that will impact the surrounding properties and broader neighborhood. The public sector has a fundamental interest in addressing dead and dying shopping malls and often target these sites in long-range and comprehensive planning. Since the Housing Act of 1954,cities have used a variety of urban renewal programs to identify areas of blight and funnel investments towards redevelopment of those areas. The term urban renewal became synonymous with destroying historically black neighborhoods and displacing vulnerable populations in the name of progress. In a 2013 article from the Journal of Urban History, “postwar urban renewal was a process in which private real estate interests enjoyed public sanction and subsidy in a campaign that destroyed working-class neighborhoods, uprooted and dislocated communities, reinforced racial segregation, spurred suburbanization, and furthered deindustrialization.” Though “urban renewal” is no longer a popular phrase with planning professionals, tools that are rooted in urban renewal programs are still used by communities to redevelop large, or well located, distressed properties To revitalize distressed neighborhoods, cities often elicit private investment by offering public subsidies from a range of local, state, and federal sources and regulatory relief (Fainstein, 2001). The term “public-private partnership” is used to describe a wide array of agreements between governments and private entities for the “provision or delivery of facilities or services to the public” (Kelsey Hogan, Protecting the Public in Public-Private Partnerships: Strategies for Ensuring Adaptability in Concession Contracts). Partnerships can take many forms, and may depend on the size and ambition of the proposed redevelopment plans. Properties like big-box plazas, strip malls, and partial mall redevelopments have less space for above-standard community benefits, and can be designed to meet the regulatory framework, or require minimal code amendments. Mall-to-mixed-use redevelopment projects that intend to revitalize a 43 neighborhood more broadly need to be planned in conjunction with the public sector and require a long-lasting public-private partnership. In Boca Raton, the visions for an activated downtown district were imagined before the redevelopment of the Boca Mall. The public sector’s leadership was pivotal and well-timed. The city’s 1982 plans for a multi-phase project to redevelop 344-acres, identified in the Downtown Boca Raton Redevelopment Plan, channeled public interests that had been documented in a series of workshops and planning sessions. A series of voter-approved measures funded the massive undertaking of the entire Downtown district, including the transformation of the Boca Mall to Mizner Park. The convergence of public support and financing with freshly drafted and adopted plans for a new downtown using Smart Growth principles presented an opportunity for the plans to be fully implemented. Communities may not have similar, complimentary circumstances to support massive redevelopment plans, but the public sector can lead public engagement and lay the foundation for redevelopment through prescriptive plans that represent local objectives. The Mizner Park case is a good example of a long-lasting strategic partnership between the public and private sectors, and shows why cooperation between a community and a developer is important. Tom Crocker, the original developer of Mizner Park, is locally based in Boca Raton, and began his firm at the same time that plans form Mizner Park were being finalized. As the firm’s first project, and a resident Boca Raton, the developer was motivated to see a successful outcome. The Community Redevelopment Agency lead the redevelopment planning efforts, and are the arm that governs downtown. The city owns the amphitheater and Center for Arts at Mizner Park and also maintains six leases on the property. Over the last 30 years, the property has exchanged owners, most recently Mizner Park was added to the Brookfield Properties portfolio, following the 2018 acquisition of GGP (General Growth Properties). As part of the original lease-agreement with Crocker Partners, Brookfield Properties has the option to buy the land beneath the buildings that they own, allowing greater redevelopment flexibility. Unlike the relationship between the CRA and Crocker Partners, which had been described as “collaborative and exciting” by the Urban Land Institute, the CRA and Brookfield Properties have filed a series of legal claims and counterclaims related to the potential land buy-out. In 2019, the Mayor of Boca Raton, Scott Singer said he favored “collaboration” with Brookfield Properties, and added that the future of Mizner Park would be largely up to the developer admitting, “We don’t have direct control”. Recommendations • Cities that have more than one dead and/or dying shopping mall should consider a cohesive strategy for redevelopment. Beyond the application of design standards and building codes, 44 communities need to reimagine how mixed-use developments will be used and connected to the surrounding environment over a 30-year period. • Communities may want to issue a moratorium on construction until a comprehensive, long- range plan is developed and adopted to prevent a disjointed development strategy. • Communities should be in the business of relationship-building. Cities that have dedicated teams and professional resources to recruit developers and work on planning solutions that are mutually beneficial are well positioned to attract private partners that understand and support the community’s objectives. 45 APPENDICES 1. Case Studies a. Northbrook Court b. Cedar Hills c. Mizner Park d. West End District e. The Hills at Vallco 2. Smart Growth Principles Chart 3. References 46 Northbrook Court Northbrook, Illinois Year Mall was Built 1976 Status of Mall In Operation Old Mall Name Northbrook Court Shopping Mall New Project Name Northbrook Court Developer Brookfield Properties and Ryan Year of Redevelopment Companies (or project proposal) 2018 Project Status Approved, undeveloped. Significance of this case for understanding mall redevelopment strategies: Northbrook Court highlights financial factors that are attractive for developers. • Tax-based Incentives (TIF District) • Flexible (or absent) affordable housing requirements • Affluent neighborhood that can support above market price points for goods, services and housing This case has three defining components: 1. This is a case where only a portion of the mall is being redeveloped. The Macy’s store would be demolished and replaced with a grocer, while other portions of the shopping mall would stay intact. The surrounding surface parking will be transformed into a mixed-use development with luxury apartments, boutique retail and dining. 2. The project is afforded through a public-private partnership with substantial economic incentives. The development agreement includes tax incentives and code variances. 3. The project does not include affordable housing because the state and local public policy does not stipulate that every residential project is required to include affordable units. The developer made a one-time payment to the Village of Northbrook, “no strings attached”, that was intended to address public pressure to include affordable units in the project. EPA Smart Growth Principles Northbrook Implementation of Smart Growth Court Principle Mix land uses x Residential, retail, dining, green space Approved maximum building height and FAR Compact building design x variances to accommodate 5-story residential structure Range of housing choices Walkable neighborhoods x Housing, dining, entertainment, shopping, recreation on-site Distinctive and attractive places 47 Preserve open space and farmland Infill strategies used to concentrate more Direct development toward existing x housing in central, well established location. communities No new infrastructure required to support the project. Variety of transportation choices x Primarily accessed by auto. Bus services available on existing routes. Few surprises for the developer to mitigate. Predictable, fair, and cost-effective Financial incentives approved by the public decision-making x attributed +10% of the redevelopment costs, and development agreement included minimal concessions from developer. Community and stakeholder participation The Place Northbrook, Illinois is a north shore suburb approximately 25 miles from Chicago. The community is home to several major employers and has experienced steady economic growth over the last several decades. The Village of Northbrook is approximately 13 square miles and accessible by 2 major highways, I-94 and I-294. It is a suburban community, mostly comprised of single-family residential neighborhoods. The Northbrook Court Shopping Center is a regional mall and the only property zoned as major retail (C-4) within the Village of Northbrook. The mall leases space to Neiman Marcus, luxury retailers (Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Tiffany & Co.), boutique dining options, and a movie theater, catering to the surrounding affluent neighborhoods and attracting shoppers from the region. The proposed redevelopment is described on the developer’s website as “a community center that will be a hub of energy and opportunity” and will include a high-end grocer, restaurants with outdoor dining, green space that is described as “the great lawn”, a boutique fitness center and “cutting-edge” food hall. The luxury apartments will rent between $986-3275 and will range from a studio to 3-bedroom. The apartment complex will have various on-site amenities include a pool, dog run, grilling patios, and indoor parking. History of Site Northbrook Court Shopping Center in Northbrook, Illinois was built in 1976 as an enclosed regional shopping mall and has been a retail attraction since. The original mall offered 72,000 square feet of retail space. Over the years, the mall has been renovated and expanded. Today, the Northbrook Court Shopping Center includes 178,000 square feet of retail space. The last major renovation was in 2009. Unlike many regional shopping centers, the Northbrook Court Shopping Center has remained profitable, and has kept up with the times by offering niche eateries and boutique retailers. Still, anchor tenants, typically national department stores, have struggled to maintain popularity over the last 40 years. When 48 the mall opened in 1976, one of the anchors was Sears, which was replaced by JC Penney, then Marshall- Field’s, and finally a Macy’s. In January 2018, Macy’s sold its space to the mall landlord (GGP) for $25 million, opting to lease the space instead of owning the building outright. Then, Macy’s announced store closures and layoffs that would include the Northbrook Court location. GGP was acquired by Brookfield Properties in August 2018 as part of a $15 billion acquisition of all 125 GGP properties. One month later, Brookfield Properties, a global real estate services company, submitted a preliminary plan for redeveloping the retail space and surrounding parking areas into a mixed-use development. The proposed redevelopment site will only change the western portion of the Northbrook Court Shopping Center, replacing a Macy’s department store and constructing new residential buildings on the surrounding surface parking areas. [Image 5.1] Image 5.1 Northbrook Court Shopping Center Development Area. September 2018. Plan Development Following the announcement that Macy’s would be closing the Northbrook location and laying off employees, the Village of Northbrook declared that portion of the property blighted, and eligible for redevelopment. By owning both the land the building the property owners have greater flexibility in redeveloping the site. Brookfield Properties has a massive portfolio of properties, including more than 170 regional shopping centers and numerous mixed-use developments. In September of 2018 Brookfield Properties and Ryan Companies presented a preliminary proposal to the Northbrook Village Board that described a major transformation of the Macy’s building and surrounding 49 parking areas. The department store would be replaced with a 60,000 square foot “high-end” grocer, attached to 500,000 square feet of residential development. In their presentation to the Board, the developers stressed that Northbrook Court needed to evolve to meet the “ever-changing retail landscape and shopping experience”, and said that the proposed redevelopment would create “a truly unique environment” and maintain the mall as a regional shopping center. To realize the proposed redevelopment, Brookfield Properties and Ryan Companies sought support from the Village through economic incentives, changes to the zoning code, modifications to the comprehensive plan, and building variances. Conditions/Incentives To Fund or Description Outcome Address: Comprehensive Plan Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate the Approved Amendment Designation Subject Property as Appropriate for Mixed Uses REVISED LANGUAGE: The C-4 Regional Shopping District is intended to provide a location for a major retail center mixed uses available to persons living in the metropolitan area surrounding the Village of Northbrook. The regulations are designed to encourage a broad range of dense multi-family residential, entertainment, recreational uses, fashionable retail and compatible service uses appropriate for such a center. Code Modifications Multi-Family Zoning Code Text Amendment to Section 5-102 to Approved Residential zoning allow Multi-Family Residential as a special permit use and other permitted and special permit uses in the C-4 District; Code Modifications Setbacks Zoning Code Text Amendment to modify Section 5- Approved 110 E concerning the Transitional Setback Requirements for the C-4 District; Variance Setbacks (rear) Variation to reduce the required rear setback from 150’ Approved to 100’ Code Modifications Maximum Building Zoning Code Text Amendment to Section 5-110 to Approved Height increase the maximum allowed Height in the C-4 District to 80’ Code Modifications Parking Stall Size Zoning Code Text Amendment to Section 9-104 C. 3 Approved (i) to allow for a reduction in parking stall dimensions for stalls located in a residential parking garage; Economic Incentives Sales Tax Rebate Sales taxes collected above the pre-established base sales tax collection amount of $4,425,000, would be split 50/50 between the Village and the Developer until the sales tax incentive amount is paid (or 20 years) Less $425,000 for future Village fire, EMS, and police services in the center) Economic Incentives Tax-Incentive TIF District for the Northbrook Court redevelopment Approved Financing area (April 2019) Special Permit Multi-Family MF Residential permit or structure with 315 units Approved Residentia l building Special Permit Special Permit for Multiple Buildings on a Single Approved Zoning Lot Subdivision Approval Subdivision Plat Tentative approval required to proceed Approved Plan Development Schools Developer will make the various school district Agreed Agreement Conditions payments that were recommended by the Joint Review Board (JRB): 50 1x Impact Fees: $95,000 to HS District 225, and $225,000 to Elementary District 28 Development Landscaping $15,000 set aside for private properties neighboring the Agreed Agreement Conditions site to add landscaping (as a result of the decreased set- back) The original plan was met with a mix of support and dissent. At issue were the requested variances for setbacks and maximum building heights, and that there were no units dedicated for affordable housing. Residents from the Glenbrook Countryside neighborhood sent letters of testimony to discourage the Board’s approval, claiming that the imposing height of the proposed building would result in a loss of privacy and home values. Ultimately, the developer revised the original site plans to terrace the fifth floor, and reposition the structure. In addition, the developer paid $15,000 towards additional landscaping for the homes closest to the site boundary. To address the concerns about building luxury housing, the developer made a one-time payment to the Village for $750,000. The Village accommodated the requested changes including $27 million in economic incentives to offset the cost of the $250 million project and the Village Board granted final approval (5-2) in June of 2019. As of May 2020, construction has not yet begun. Plans and Policies that Impact Redevelopment The Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Northbrook was last updated in 2010, and prior to that undertaking was revised in 1982. The current comprehensive plan has ten elements and is meant to serve as the Village “road map” (2) for the next ten to twenty years, guiding decisions around land use, transportation, housing, economic development, and public services. The prominent themes of the comprehensive plan are to preserve the single family character of Northbrook, and to expand the tax base and direct economic growth in business districts. Objectives and goals that are described within the Comprehensive Plan support redevelopment, broadly. Under the ninth element, “Land Use & Annexation”, the plan reads, “we expect to see an increasing amount of redevelopment activity, as new buildings and uses replace older structures and uses that are no longer suited for their location.”(25) The plan also supports mixed-use development in central locations. Under Element Four, Neighborhoods, Housing & Community Diversity Goals, the third goal is to “Encourage an increase in the supply of housing in the vicinity of shopping and mass transit opportunities.”. The comprehensive plan includes seven goals under the Economic Vitality Goals & Strategies section, that aim to position the Village as business-friendly. The first goal is to “maintain a regulatory and tax environment that is responsive to the needs of the business community”, the second goal is to “provide an environment that retains existing businesses and attracts sustainable new businesses to the Village.” (24). The Comprehensive Plan is aligned with a land use map, on which Northbrook Court is the only property zoned as a major-retail (C-4). The Comprehensive Plan does not address affordable housing directly, and refers to the Affordable Housing Plan as a supplemental document for ensuring that “the community has an appropriate mix of housing choices for its residents” (15). 51 In the Northbrook Affordable Housing Plan, there are four criteria for new construction or adaptation projects (Table 5.2). The plan also lists Goals for the Village to work towards. The first goal, increasing the stock of affordable housing, is presented with two options. One, that 15% of all new development or redevelopment will be affordable, or the alternative, that there will be a 3% increase off affordable housing units in the Village “over the number of affordable units calculated by IHDA pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Act.” (6) Table 5.2. Northbrook Affordable Housing Plan. 2003. Four criteria for new construction or adaptation of existing structures Provide compatibility with established land-use patterns, surrounding land uses and the Village's Comprehensive Plan If possible, be in mixed-use developments (for multi-unit structures) Not concentrate the affordable housing units; and Be Located in where there is adequate infrastructure to support such housing developments The Northbrook Court redevelopment project was reviewed by the Village Board based on the state and local policies and guidelines for redevelopment. The developer’s decision not to include affordable units was permittable by law, but drew negative attention from community members. Following the plan’s final approval, the Village Board President Sandy Frum was quoted as saying, "However we look at affordable housing today, there is no policy and there is no definition. It is wrong to expect these developers to include something when we don't even know what we are talking about." 52 Image 5.3 Northbrook Court boundary on existing mall site. 2018. Image 5.4 Northbrook Court Proposed Site Plan. 2018. 53 Image 5.5. Northbrook Court Rendering. 2018. 54 Cedar Hills Beaverton, Oregon Year Mall was Built 1955, renovated 2002 Status of Mall Open Old Mall Name Cedar Hills Shopping Center at Park Way New Project Name Cedar Hills (TBF) Developer Urban Form Development Year of Redevelopment (or project proposal) 2019 Project Status Approved Significance of this case for understanding mall redevelopment strategies: Propose projects that are tailored to meet the community’s planning goals. • Developers who have experience working with the City have a leg-up • Strip malls look dated and interrupt desired urban form. Redevelopment can address planning goals that prioritize transit connections, walkability and placemaking. • Redevelopment can require lengthy planning processes from multiple agencies. This case has two defining components: 1. The approved plans for the Cedar Hills Shopping Center redevelopment were accompanied by land annexation from the County to the City as well as changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. The actions taken by City Council not only allowed the redevelopment, but also worked to achieve transit-oriented planning goals that had been adopted years earlier. 2. Plans for the mall redevelopment met local, regional, and statewide planning goals. EPA Smart Growth Principles Cedar Hills Implementation of Smart Growth Principle Mix land uses x Residential, retail, dining, green space, entertainment Approved maximum building height and FAR Compact building design x variances to accommodate 5-story residential structure Range of housing choices Walkable neighborhoods x Housing, dining, entertainment, shopping, recreation on-site, accessible to mass-transit Distinctive and attractive places x Meets design standards, mix of materials and roof lines to bring visual interest Preserve open space and farmland 55 Direct development toward existing x Close proximity to major employer and mass communities transit Variety of transportation choices x Multi-modal and transit oriented site. Predictable, fair, and cost-effective Dedicated planning staff and comprehensive decision-making x Redevelopment Agency guide growth strategies and work directly with developers Community and stakeholder x State, regional, and local planning processes participation prioritize community engagement The Place The city of Beaverton is seven miles west of Portland, in Washington County, Oregon. The city attracts young professionals and families from the metro area population and grew nearly 6% between 2013- 2018, according the ACS 5-year estimates. A vast park and recreation system, lively downtown, and distinct neighborhood districts are integral to the community’s culture and emphasis on economic growth. Cedar Hills is a small neighborhood to the north of Beaverton (approximately 2.3 square miles), originally developed in 1946 as a single family suburban community in unincorporated Washington County, and governed by a home owners association. The Cedar Hills Shopping Center was built in 1954 to serve the neighborhood, described by the Oregonian as, “the most ambitious suburban housing development ever attempted in the Northwest". Once completed in 1961, Cedar Hills was the largest single housing tract development in the western United States. The TriMet transit agency opened a bus terminal in Cedar Hills in 1979, enhancing accessibility between the community and downtown Portland. In 1998, the original transit center was closed and replaced by the Sunset Transit Center, just opposite of the Cedar Hills Shopping Center. The Sunset Transit Center expanded transit options for the area when the Westside MAX line was opened the same year. The Cedar Hills Shopping Center remains an example of 1950’s design. The one-story, auto-centric, plaza has a mix of retail, dining, and civic tenants, including a DMV branch. The land, under Washington County jurisdiction, was designated as WACO TO:BUS (Washington County Transit-Oriented). Land surrounding the Shopping Center within Washington County is also designated as transit-oriented zones, which allows for a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. In 2019, the Shopping Center land was annexed by the City of Beaverton in preparation for redevelopment. 56 Image 6.1 Cedar Hills Shopping Center. 1955. Image 6.2. The tall neon sign at the Cedar Hills Shopping Center is a local landmark and will be preserved and incorporated in the new development. Image 6.3 Cedar Hills.2019. 57 Planning Implications for the Site The City of Beaverton Comprehensive Plan, the Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals each encourage the development of land- and energy-efficient land use that is focused around areas with plenty of transportation options. The location of the Cedar Hills Shopping Center, near major highways and the Sunset Transit Center, has been recognized in city and county plans as an opportunity for transit-oriented development since 1983. The Shopping Center, which until 2019, was outside of the Beaverton limits in unincorporated Washington County, is specifically targeted under Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill as Area of Special Concern No. 3, which states: “(Regarding the Shopping Center site) Should redevelopment occur, opportunities may arise to achieve a more transit-oriented development pattern that includes a mix of retail commercial, office, and higher density residential uses. Residential development is particularly anticipated to occur that will count towards meeting Washington County’s capacity targets for dwelling units in mixed-use areas.” Prior to the annexation, Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan recommended redevelopment in the site location and surrounding areas to accommodate more housing in areas that are adjacent to major transportation routes and shopping areas. At the request of the developer, the City of Beaverton annexed the Shopping Center land under Ordinance No. 476, and adopted Ordinance No. 4768 to apply the Station Community Multiple-Use District (SC-MU) zoning designation. The SC-MU District is generally located within one-half mile of light rail station platforms, and permit office, retail, and service uses, as well as multiple use and residential developments, with no maximum residential density. In accordance with the Annexation Agreement, a Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) was submitted to the City of Beaverton to ensure that development on the annexed property would “provide high quality pedestrian and bicycle connections and public open space that is well-coordinated with future development in the surrounding area and consistent with goals of the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan.” The CMP was initiated with a charrette held on May 14, 2019, facilitated by ZGF Architects and attended by members of City staff and representatives from the parks and recreation department, Kittelson & Associates (transportation engineering), Milbrandt Architects, UrbanForm Development, and Pacific Community Design. The charrette identified considerations and opportunities that redevelopment of the Cedar Hills Shopping Center creates for the neighborhood. The CMP plans incorporated feedback from the charrette and were submitted to the city on June 17, 2019. Once annexed into City limits, on July 12, 2019, the Shopping Center was located in the Central Beaverton Neighborhood and subject to the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan calls for the thoughtful and strategic infill and redevelopment of land within the City of Beaverton, as well as the support for pedestrian-oriented mixed-use areas. The SC-MU district encompasses areas of the city that would greatly benefit from both infill/redevelopment and the use of transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly design due to proximity to transit. Within the SC-MU zone, the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code identify a radial distance around the city’s transit hubs, marking areas for increased urbanization. Inside of the LRT station boundaries, the building density, maximum building height and FAR are greater than allowed in the SC-MU zones, and in other parts of Beaverton. The Cedar Hills Shopping Center was zoned as SC-MU, but was located outside of the LRT station boundary that surrounds Sunset Transit Station. As part of the application for the redevelopment project, 58 the developers, Urban Form Development, requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and associated Zoning Maps to enlarge the LRT station boundaries within the SC-MU zones. At a regional level, the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan points to the region’s housing concerns and calls for investment in areas that are the centers of the region’s communities and neighborhoods. The Regional Framework Plan identifies Centers, Corridors, Main Streets and Station Communities throughout the region and recognizes them as the principal centers of urban life in the region. And, at a state level, the opportunity to redevelop the Cedar Hills Shopping Center meets several statewide planning goals. According to the developer’s application, the project would satisfy Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Table 6.4 Oregon Statewide Planning Goals OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal 2 Land Use Planning Goal 3 Agricultural Lands Goal 4 Forest Lands Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 8 Recreational Needs Goal 9 Economic Development Goal 10 Housing Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services Goal 12 Transportation Goal 13 Energy Conservation Goal 14 Urbanization Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway Goal 16 Estuarine Resources Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes Goal 19 Ocean Resources 59 Image 6.5. Transit-oriented neighborhoods and the proposed LRT boundaries. 2019. Image 6.6 Proposed Site for redevelopment. Image 6.7 Illustrated site plan, as proposed. 2019 2019 60 Table 6.8 Plan changes approved in support of redeveloping the Cedar Hills Shopping Center What Changed? Type of Change Description Outcome Land-use Map Annexation Annexing the subject property into the Beaverton city limits Approved Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Increasing the opportunity for more housing and economic Approved and Zoning Map development in the SC-MU district by allowing for a Maximum Height of 100 feet and a Maximum FAR of 2.0 up to ¼ mile from an LRT Station. Development Code Text Amendments Increase maximum building height from 60 feet to 100 feet for Approved the SC-MU zones. Development Code Text Amendments Increase floor area ratio from 1 to 2 for the SC-MU zones. Approved Image 6.9. Changes made to the Development Standards, highlighted in red. 2019. 61 Alignment of Plans and Redevelopment Proposal The developer, Urban Form Development, has worked in the area on other mall-to-mixed-use developments, the River Terrace Town Center in Tigard and the West End District in Beaverton. Fred Gast, the president of Urban Form Development, is featured in a video promoting the City of Beaverton and the Community Development Department. In the video, developers give testimonials about positive experiences working with the city planning staff presenting and point to successful redevelopment projects as evidence of strong public/private partnerships. The City is described as a willing partner, working collaboratively with developers and community members to ensure that new projects are aligned with community priorities and planning goals. The proposed plan for the redevelopment of Cedar Hills Shopping Center was positioned to directly address goals for transit-oriented, urbanized neighborhoods, as outlined in City, regional and statewide planning documents. In the proposal, the project is described as “a lively mixed-use, high-density, transit-oriented development.” It will include 509 multi-family residential units and 56,388 square feet of commercial space. Central to the proposal are the transit-oriented characteristics of the site, namely the geographic proximity to mass transit, and intentional design choices for non-motorized mobility. The proposal describes that “Pedestrian and bicycle improvements will increase connectivity from the site to the adjacent neighborhood including the TriMet bus stop located on-site and the Sunset Transit Center located less than ¼ mile away” and that the “internal walkways will be designed to provide safe, direct and comfortable pedestrian circulation in a way that is separated from automobiles.” The planned development will have wider sidewalks (14 ft), clearly marked cross-walks and pedestrian routes, mid-block crossings, and bike lanes to “provide safe, comfortable and convenient access to multiple-modes of safe and reliable public transportation.” The site will also include public plazas, open space, trees and vegetation and street furnishings to complement the pedestrian experience and walkability of the site. Including these elements aligns the proposed redevelopment with the City’s standard for buildings to promote “a comfortable pedestrian scale and orientation” (Standard 60.05.15.1.B) [ORD 4531; April 2010]. The proposed project was developed to align with the City’s plans to create station communities with high-density and easy access to light rail platform. In review of the proposed redevelopment, Stacy Connery, a planner with the Pacific Community Design reflected that the “shopping center has been on the city's radar for approximately 20 years as an area ripe for eventual redevelopment”. In a series of unanimous votes, the Planning Commission and Beaverton City Council approved Urban Form Development’s proposed plan to redevelop the Cedar Hills Shopping Center. Construction is slated to begin at the end of 2020. 62 Image 6.10 Amenities at Cedar Hills, as proposed. 2019. Image 6.11 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Site Features, as proposed. 2019. 63 Mizner Park Boca Raton, Florida Year Mall was Built 1974 Status of Mall Redeveloped, Mixed-Use Old Mall Name Boca Mall New Project Name Mizner Park Developer Crocker & Company (originally), Year of Brookfield Properties and Ryan Redevelopment (or 1989 Companies as of 2018 project proposal) Project Status Complete Significance of this case for understanding mall redevelopment strategies: Mizner Park is 30 years old, the model can work. • Ongoing public support and private commitment to revitalize downtown Boca Raton • Public investment in transformative infrastructure and redevelopment projects • Design and material choices are integral to all project elements This case has two defining components: 1. Mizner Park was developed 30 years ago on the site of the former Boca Mall. The project is considered a successful model of Smart Growth concepts and credited with revitalizing downtown Boca Raton. However, accolades for the projects were not immediate, and the redevelopment strategy relied heavily on continued public investment and a framework of planning measures. Smart Growth concepts modeled by Mizner Park continue to be relevant planning strategies, and remain difficult to implement. Studying the economic impact of the Boca Mall redevelopment and the value of public investment for Mizner Park over a 30 year time period provides insights into long-term benefits of mall redevelopment. 2. Architectural and design elements were intentionally selected to promote the area as a desirable and stylish destination. Plans for the site were visionary, and eventually the design elements used at Mizner Park were adopted as city standards for new development. The design choices were intentionally specific to local architecture and culture. The distinctively Florida-Mediterranean style, popularized by Alfred Mizner, was associated with local historical landmarks and old-world luxury, drawing an immediate parallel between “old Florida” and the new development. EPA Smart Growth Principles Mizner Park Implementation of Smart Growth Principle Mix land uses x Residential, retail, dining, green space, commercial, entertainment Central to the plans for Mizner Park was the Compact building design x opportunity to use compact building and showcase Smart Growth Range of housing choices 64 Walkable neighborhoods x Housing, dining, entertainment, shopping, recreation, civic buildings, museums, on-site Florida-Mediterranean style architecture, Distinctive and attractive places x wrought-iron details, fountains, wide promenades Preserve open space and farmland Part of a massive downtown redevelopment Direct development toward existing x strategy. Public spending on infrastructure communities improvements to support more business and housing in central, well established location. Variety of transportation choices x Multi-modal and transit oriented site. Predictable, fair, and cost-effective Integrated planning strategies to enhance the decision-making x functionality of public services and goods at the time of redevelopment. Efforts to revitalize downtown Boca Raton Community and stakeholder were community-led Initiatives. CRA participation x workshops helped determine preferences for layout and amenities. The Place Boca Raton is in the southern part of Palm Beach county on the southeastern coast of Florida. Today, the city is renowned for golf, beaches, parks and a bustling retail and dining scene that caters to residents and visitors. The area is recognized by a distinct aesthetic that originated in Palm Beach, attributed to architect Addison Mizner which uses. His designs were described as “pink-walled, red-tiled, wrought iron- gated world of unreal luxury”. What became known as “Mizner style” was adopted in many new development projects because it gave the new construction an air of a more established, Old World elegance. The Mizner style is imitated in new developments up and down the Florida peninsula. In the 1980s, new commercial and residential development boomed west of the historical city center, and some eastern areas began to decay, including the downtown corridor. The City Council designated 344 acres as a community redevelopment area, and established the Boca Raton Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). The CRA was responsible for developing strategies that would revitalize the downtown corridor, which included the former Boca Mall site, that opened in 1974 closed in 1982. The vacant mall was occupied by IBM offices until 1985, then leased as a Levitz Furniture showroom. By 1986, the former mall was vacant and part of the Downtown Development Area newly designated by the Community Redevelopment Agency. Downtown Boca Raton struggled to attract businesses or residents despite efforts made by the Community Redevelopment Agency. In 1988, office rents were the lowest in Palm Beach County, averaging below $300 month (Image 7.1). 65 Image 7.1 Boca Raton News. October 2, 1988. History of Site The initial concepts for Mizner Park were introduced in the Beautification Plan, adopted by the CRA in 1986. In that plan, readers are invited to “Imagine walking through the downtown to City Hall under a canopy of shade trees or stopping to rest on a bench surrounded by a park area after visiting the public library.” The CRA encouraged the City Council to stimulate additional redevelopment in downtown Boca Raton by seeking state approval of a Downtown Development of Regional Impact (the "DDRI") for the entire Redevelopment Area. The approved application resulted in a Downtown Development Order (DDO) that permitted the construction of approximately 5,000,000 square feet of new development in the Redevelopment Area. The infrastructure improvements that would be necessary to support such vast new development would be partially funded by a $45,000,000 ten-year capital improvements program, approved by voters. The Mizner Park Project was subsequently approved by voters in 1989, allocating $68 million in municipal bonds towards the development costs. The construction of Mizner Park marked the first major redevelopment project in downtown Boca Raton. In the past 30 years, Mizner Park has become an anchor of the downtown scene, providing public spaces for annual cultural events and civic engagement. Image 7.2 Boca Mall. 1981. 66 Image 7.3 Downtown Redevelopment Area. Future Image 7.4. Mizner Park Site Plan Proposal. 1989. site of Mizner Park noted by blue boundary. 1982. Plans and Policies that Impacted Redevelopment Boca Raton’s redevelopment strategies are rooted in series of plans that were developed and approved in the 1980’s. Voters supported the CRA’s formal redevelopment strategy and subsequent expenditures for downtown Boca Raton and Mizner Park. The development strategies that were first implemented on the Mizner Park project, continue to inform downtown planning decisions. 67 In 1982, the CRA created the “Downtown Boca Raton Redevelopment Plan” which was adopted by the Boca Raton City Council and designated 344 acres for redevelopment. The purpose of the plan was to stimulate private development in the redevelopment area, but the city struggled with implementation. As part of that legislation, the City authorized the establishment of a Redevelopment Trust Fund financed through Tax Increment Revenues on downtown properties. In 1986, the CRA undertook a public initiative to stimulate additional redevelopment in the Downtown by seeking approval of a Downtown Development of Regional Impact (the "DDRI") for the entire Redevelopment Area. This “citizen-led initiative” was approved by the City Council in 1988, issuing a “Development Order” that would allow massive construction and infrastructure investments. The CRA also adopted a formal Beautification Plan in 1986 that defined a vision for a pedestrian oriented downtown with shaded, tree-lined, decorative walkways, and benches and streetlights that have character and charm. The vision for shaded, tree-lined, decorative walkways, benches and streetlights to 68 create a pedestrian oriented downtown eventually grew into a formal Beautification Plan adopted by the CRA in 1986. It was in this Beautification Plan that the Arts Park concept, which eventually became Mizner Park, was first introduced. The Beautification Plan provided an illustration of what Downtown would look like and it served as a Master Plan for the downtown area. The Downtown Development Order (DDO), adopted in 1988, is a result of the Florida Growth Management Act of 1985 which imposes considerable restraints on large-scale growth and development. Under the Growth Management Act, local governments are prohibited from issuing development permits unless adequate infrastructure exists to provide a safe and efficient level of service to the new growth and development. The DDO included land-use allocations and building codes specific to the Downtown Redevelopment Area, including increases in density, higher maximum building heights, and parking requirements. The DDO also specified detailed landscaping requirements and architectural elements that would need to be incorporated in every downtown development. The DDO specifies that the approved level of development be based on the resulting impact and demands on public services and facilities, and prohibits development from being planned in locations without sufficient infrastructure. The DDO also revised the application approval process for projects within the 344 acre redevelopment area, permitting the CRA Board of Commissioners to act as the Planning and Zoning Board, the Community Appearance Board, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the Environmental Advisory Board. Then, in 1989, the City and CRA approved an infrastructure and financing plan called Visions 90. Visions 90 provided a ten-year plan for planning and managing necessary infrastructure in downtown Boca Raton, with the objective of making the decaying downtown an attractive and competitive option for development. By investing in roads, landscape, drainage, streetlights and other improvements, Visions 90 aimed to redirect development and economic growth from the City’s west side to downtown. Visions 90 successfully ignited downtown development. Major infrastructure projects provided the downtown with efficient access to the regional road networks, expanded roads with improved intersections, upgraded water, sewer and drainage facilities and transformed the downtown streets into attractive tree-lined ways with distinctive sidewalks, street lights, traffic signals and outdoor furniture. The Visions 90 plan included a $45 million dollar capital improvements program that was funded and built by the cooperative efforts of Florida DOT, Palm Beach County, City of Boca Raton and downtown property owners. Following the opening of Mizner Park, the first major redevelopment in downtown Boca Raton, other construction and development projects were modeled after the architectural choices and pedestrian- friendly design. In 1992, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4035, and recognized Mizner Park as the model for all downtown redevelopment. The ordinance eliminated inconsistencies between the DDO and City Codes, removed duplicative conditions, and clarified guidelines and processes outlined in the DDO using knowledge gained from the process of developing Mizner Park. Results and Impacts 69 Mizner Park is one of the first mall-to-mixed-use developments, and is heralded as an example for other cities to follow. In nearly 30 years, Mizner Park has become a key neighborhood in Downtown Boca Raton, and a driver of economic growth. Before the redevelopment of the former Boca Mall, there were 73 housing units downtown, and office rents were the lowest in Palm Beach County. By 2002, there were 689 housing units downtown with another 900 under construction, and office rents were the highest in all of south Florida. The project has been recognized by the Sierra Club and the Urban Land Institute as an example of smart growth, and In 2010, Mizner Park’s Plaza Real was designated as one of the Great Public Spaces in the United States by the American Planning Association. Other mall-to-mixed-use development projects have been modeled after Mizner Park’s layout, amenities, and architecture, but few have emulated the public-private development partnership that ensured the project met the community’s and developer’s goals. The development of Mizner Park coincided with the City’s plans to revitalize the downtown, and this joint effort made it possible for new development standards to be defined and adopted. Mizner Park personified the plans that the CRA was drafting, showcasing the concepts of smart growth and new urbanism in application, and leading the way for downtown development. Today, Mizner Park is seen as a successful change agent that kickstarted development in downtown Boca Raton, and is cited as an example to follow. The history of Mizner Park is a cautionary tale, as much as model. The project was expensive to fund, and politically risky for public proponents. Public support for the concepts introduced by the CRA and applied to Mizner Park was fragile. Voters approved the formation of the Redevelopment Trust Fund, allowing the City to collect taxes from downtown property owners to fund the CRA, and approved $45 million for infrastructure and $68 million in bonds for Mizner Park. But, in 1991, public criticism of the CRA’s direction resulted in all seven members being replaced, the agency being reorganized. Only after a decade did data suggest that the project was an economic win for Boca Raton, and still, it was not until 2005 that Mizner Park started paying for itself. In addition to recognizing the positive outcomes of Mizner Park, it is necessary to recognize how this project is unlike many contemporary mall-to-mixed-use redevelopments, and also that the public investment in these types of projects is a long-game for returns. Mizner Park Today Mizner Park is destination for shopping, living, public events and civic engagement. The amphitheater hosts regular performances and is used for demonstrations and marches, and the Boca Raton Museum of Art and Mizner Park Cultural Arts Association maintain a full schedule of arts and music festivals. The neighborhood has become integral to Boca Raton’s marketing and placemaking strategy, highlighted in brochures as a visitor attraction. Discussing the 30 year anniversary in a 2019 Boca Magazine article, the CRA Chairman, Andrea O’Rourke described Mizner Park as, “the crown jewel of place-making and gathering in our downtown,” and added, “I see that continuing”. 70 Image 7.5 Mizner Park. 2015. The future of Mizner Park is not entirely clear. After nearly 30 years, Mizner Park is showing signs of aging. A September 2019 article in Boca Magazine describes “grimy” stairwells, dated signage, and long lasting vacancies, and suggests that the property may be ready for makeover. Continued success of Mizner Park will likely depend on the City’s coordination with the newest owners, Brookfield Properties. In 2018, Brookfield Property Partners, an entity of Brookfield Asset Management, took over portions of Mizner Park after acquiring General Growth Properties for $9 billion. The CRA owns all the Mizner Park land, except for the amphitheater, which is owned by the City. Brookfield Properties owns all of the retail, office, residential buildings and parking garages, and under the lease agreement, Brookfield Properties can exercise an option to buy the CRA owned land that is covered by commercial leases. The option excludes land leased to the museum, cultural arts organization, and a vacant lot east of the amphitheater. To exercise that option, Brookfield Properties and the CRA would need to go to arbitration and agree on the land’s fair market value. Brookfield Properties sued the CRA in November 2019, claiming that arbitration step was required. The case was ultimately dismissed, and the land has not yet been purchased. The Mayor of Boca Raton admitted that, “we don’t have direct control over Mizner Park’s future”, but that covenants in the leases protect the City from unwanted changes to the property, explaining that the CRA would have to approve any new project that Brookfield might propose. It is likely that Mizner Park’s future will include more residential units. Brookfield Properties seeks to maximize the potential profitability of their real estate investments, and look to incorporate multiple asset classes for the highest returns. After the acquisition of GGP, Brookfield Properties made public statements about making malls profitable again, stressing the benefits of retail and residential proximity. “We’re seeing sales uplift where we are putting in the condominiums or the residential. Second, the retail 71 infrastructure in the base of a building is increasing the sales value or the rental value of the residential projects.” (Sandeep Mathrani, Brookfield Retail Head), ecommission.com At Mizner Park the on-site apartments have been reliably occupied, to some surprise. CRA chairman, O’Rourke supports the possibility of new housing options to meet demand, “Those who drafted Boca’s downtown plan never anticipated so many people would want to live there.” As one of the first mall-to- mixed-use developments, Mizner Park exemplifies the benefits of smart growth strategies and the outcomes of a truly public-private partnership. The project was originally a vision in the City’s Beautification Plan (1986), and is now an established city neighborhood. After 30 years, Mizner Park is going to be reimagined, instead this time the plans will be drafted by a real estate investment firm and not the public sector. Image 7.6 Boca Mall. 1984. Image 7.7 Mizner Park, aerial photograph. 1993. 72 Image 7.8 Mizner Park. 1998. Image 7.9. Mizner Park. 1998. 73 Image 7.10 Mizner Park's main boulevard has shops on the first floor and apartments above. Storefronts have covered arcades to protect shoppers from the sun. Image 7.11 Mizner Park’s neighbors look on to these town homes, oriented wide and shallow to hide a parking garage. 74 West End District Beaverton, Oregon Year Mall was Built 1972 Status of Mall Demolished Old Mall Name Kmart Plaza New Project Name West End District Developer Urban Form Development Year of Redevelopment (or project proposal) 2019 Project Status Approved, Phase 1 Significance of this case for understanding mall redevelopment strategies: Big-box store locations can be less complicated and less costly to redevelop into mixed-use developments, but face integration challenges with surrounding areas. • Big-box stores (Kmart, Sears, JC Penney) that have gone bankrupt are sitting empty in many communities. • The size of big-box store sites presents a challenge for reuse. The buildings are difficult to rescale for multiple tenants, limiting the scope of business types that might occupy the space (see: fitness centers or churches). • Big-box store sites located in commercial districts are less likely to be in close proximity to parks and recreation This case has two defining components: 1. The proposal for redevelopment was easily approved by the planning commission and city council. 2. The project can be considered a “basic model” of mixed-use redevelopment – including some standard characteristics of smart growth, using materials that portray a modern traditional aesthetic, building only market-rate housing, and meeting, but not exceeding requirements for community engagement. EPA Smart Growth Principles West End Implementation of Smart Growth District Principle Mix land uses x Residential, retail, dining, commercial, green space Compact building design x Range of housing choices Sidewalk design to accommodate pedestrians Walkable neighborhoods x and outdoor dining, connections to mass transit routes 75 Distinctive and attractive places x Meets design standards, mix of materials and roof lines to bring visual interest Preserve open space and farmland Developed in an area of Beaverton that is Direct development toward existing x mostly commercial, with some multifamily communities residential. Close proximity to major employer. Variety of transportation choices x Accessible to mass transit and major roadways, Application was unanimously approved. No Predictable, fair, and cost-effective public testimony or questions from council decision-making x members poised at the City Council meeting December 5, 2019 Community and stakeholder participation The Place The city of Beaverton is seven miles west of Portland, in Washington County, Oregon. The city attracts young professionals and families from the metro area and has grown nearly 6% between 2013-2018 according the 5-year ACS estimates. A vast park and recreation system, lively downtown, and distinct neighborhood districts are integral to the community’s culture and emphasis on economic growth. Nike World Headquarters is located in Beaverton, attracting a talented workforce to the area and raising the demand for quality housing. There are eleven neighborhoods in Beaverton, the site of the Kmart redevelopment project is located in the Five Oaks/ Triple Creek neighborhood, and only 1.2 miles from the Nike World Headquarters. The 13-acre site is zoned GC (General Commercial), bordered by SC-MU (Station Community Mixed Use) to the east, OI (Office Industrial) to the north and west and R2 (Urban Density Residential) to the south. Surrounding the site are multi-lane county and state roadways, business parks, car dealerships, gas stations, schools, storage facilities, and multifamily residential housing. The Kmart closed in 2018 and was demolished in 2019. 76 VICINITY MAP Image 8.1 Kmart on Murray Blvd in Beaverton, Oregon. 2017. Legend Subject Site Selection Washington County Taxlots The information supplied in Image 8.2 VicinityW EMST END DISTRICT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT this application represents 10/18/2018DR2018-0149/LD20a18p-003.4 /2LD200181-00835/.L O 2018-0006/SDM2018- the best data available at Taxlot No: the time of publication. 0010 City of Beaverton GIS 1S108DD00300 makes no claims,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1S108DD00200 Application #representations, or warranties as to its 1S108DD00100 See Notice Planning Division accuracy or completeness. 77 Mixed-Use: Basic Model Features In October of 2018, Urban Form Development submitted an application to redevelop the former Kmart site into a mixed-use development that would consist of twelve buildings on the 13 acre site. The project includes 424 attached residential units and 30,978 total square feet of commercial space that will include retail, trade, service businesses/professional services, and dining. The plan features pedestrian walk ways, a public plaza, and connectivity to mass transit, meeting the City of Beaverton’s design standards and development codes. As mixed-use developments become prevalent, the plans are becoming more standardized. The West End District is good example of the cookie-cutter site plans that are now ubiquitous with mixed-use development. STREETS BASIC Grid Network Traffic Calming Measures Parking prioritized in layout BEYOND BASIC + Curb free streets Parking centralized, underground, or on perimeter of site LANDSCAPING BASIC Buffers Tree Coverage Street Furnishings Public Plaza BEYOND BASIC + Drought resistant landscaping Native vegetation Community Gardens PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MOBILITY BASIC Storage Pathways Sidewalk Design BEYOND BASIC + Docking stations for pay-per-use services MIXED USE BASIC Commercial on the first floor and multi-family above Market-Rate Housing (Studio, 1, , 2, 3 bedroom units) Vertical architectural elements for balconies and windows Variety of roof pitches BEYOND BASIC + Affordable housing options Makers spaces, incubators, shared commercial kitchen Civic buildings (post office, library, schools) PLACEMAKING BASIC Preservation of on-site landmarks Localized – street names, building names associated with geography or culture Children’s area, play site Fountains 78 BEYOND BASIC Collaboration with community organizations and local non-profits Public art and/or performance space Weekly events, market space LIVABILITY BASIC Residential community Center, pool, fitness center Connections to major pedestrian corridors Access to mass transit BEYOND BASIC Affordable housing Public art and/or performance space Recycling and compost programs onsite MATERIALITY BASIC Mix of finishes for aesthetic interest Energy efficient utility planning Energy efficient appliances BEYOND BASIC Locally sourced construction materials Adaptive reuse planning Passive solar building design Meeting the City’s Goals The development accomplishes the city’s goals to increase housing in urban, transit oriented areas of Beaverton and grow the local economy, while also replacing an underutilized site that was not serving the public. By meeting these criteria, the West End District was a welcome proposal. The plans for the West End District were unanimously approved in December 2019. At the City Council Meeting, there was no public testimony, and no questions for the applicant Fred Gast, from Urban Form Development. The developer has worked on other mixed-use and housing projects in the area, and prepared the proposal with the assistance of city staff to ensure that all code requirements were satisfied and solve for any standards that couldn’t be met. The site is located in the GC (general commercial) zone which permits all of the proposed uses, and was deemed to have sufficient infrastructure to support the added density. The application for the project was generally straightforward as a result. The proposed plan was submitted to the City for a Design Three Review, to receive approval for non-compliant aspects of the planned development, and to ODOT to identify transportation related requirements Table 8. 3 West End Application Components Requiring Design Three Approval (2018) Consolidate three lots, over 2 phases of Land Division development Placement of loading areas Loading Determination Curb-tight sidewalks on Street B Street Design Modification 79 Image 8.4 Compliance with the Development Standards, highlighted in red. 2019. A lack of public scrutiny can be attributed to the site’s location and historic occupancy. Surrounded by commercial, industrial office, and R2 residential meant that there were no objections from single family residential neighborhoods who might otherwise take issue with the building height or traffic patterns. The Kmart that was onsite had been in decline for years, and was not a treasured building in the community. Media coverage of the redevelopment is sparse, a public Facebook post about the proposed project was posted on a Community Participation Organization page on November 28, 2018 with only 2 comments, one which read, “It’s about time.” One public comment was sent to Beaverton’s Senior Planner to inquire about the inclusion of affordable housing and the extent of community engagement with the plan development. Image 8.5 Downtown Redevelopment Image 8.6 Mizner Park Site Plan Proposal. 1989. Area. Future site of Mizner Park noted by blue boundary. 1982. 80 Integration The West End District meets the city’s goals, but is not included in a comprehensive redevelopment strategy in Beaverton. The Beaverton Urban Redevelopment Areas (BURA) Agency Board is responsible for developing and implementing the voter approved Central Beaverton Urban Renewal Plan. Since 2011, there have been 43 Urban Redevelopment Area Projects, including 21 mixed-use developments. These projects are a mix of private developments, with public assistance, and private developments with no public assistance. How these projects will be integrated into surrounding neighborhoods is unclear, if planned. Today, the mixed-use projects in Beaverton are self-contained and noticeably different from the surrounding urban forms. The West End District is surrounded by commercial properties and at the corner of two major roadways. In the proposal, the developer states that “Despite being in a General Commercial district; the proposed development will be largely residential and will blend well with the surrounding residential districts.”, while explaining that, “A set of railroad tracks and Tualatin Valley Highway separates the subject site from the residential district across the street to the south.” This reality is telling for redeveloping big-box stores. That is, the sites of Kmart, Sears and the like are not typically found in traditional neighborhood settings. Building a mixed-use development on these sites will be difficult to immediately integrate into the surrounding community. Image 8.7 A West End District Site Location and Site Plan, as proposed. 2019. 81 Image 8.8 A Street (Main Street) in West End District, as proposed. 2019. Image 8.9 Housing styles, as proposed. 2019. 82 The Hills at Vallco Cupertino, California Year Mall was Built 1976, renovated 1991 Status of Mall Closed Old Mall Name Vallco Shopping Mall New Project Name Hills at Vallco Developer Sand Hills Property Co. Year of Redevelopment (or project proposal) 2015, resubmitted 2017 Project Status Delayed by Litigation Significance of this case for understanding mall redevelopment strategies: Massive redevelopments projects are opportunities for planning cities of the future. • Regional supercenter mall redevelopment has the potential to address community interests and planning objectives • Public-private alignment is essential • Larger sites can incorporate more “above-standard community benefits” • Public engagement should not, and cannot be avoided This case has two defining components: 1. The project has been delayed by a series of lawsuits. Recent court decision (May 4, 2020) marks one of the first legal decisions published based on challenges to SB 35, a California law adopted in 2018 meant to speed up housing development. 2. Site-plan and amenities distinguish this project from more standard mixed-use developments EPA Smart Growth Principles The Hills at Implementation of Smart Growth Vallco Principle Mix land uses x Residential, retail, dining, green space, commercial, entertainment, civic space Compact building design x Range of housing choices x BMR and Market Rate units. Units reserved for seniors and disabled people. 30-acres for town-square, community park, Walkable neighborhoods x nature preserves, paths , trails and rooftop garden Distinctive and attractive places x Mix of “town center” and city of the future. Sleek, modern, glass and steel. Preserve open space and farmland x 83 Direct development toward existing communities x Centrally located and underutilized property. Variety of transportation choices x Multi-modal and transit oriented site. Predictable, fair, and cost-effective decision-making Community and stakeholder Years of planning have not prevented a major participation x public effort to derail the project’s plans The Place Cupertino is located in Santa Clara county, in northern California’s Silicon Valley. Until the 1960’s, Cupertino was a small town, comprised of ranches and vineyards. In 1967 De Anza College was established, attracting 20,000 students, and contributing to Cupertino’s reputation for a growing technology industry. Apple, Inc. located in Cupertino in 1977, where founder Steve Jobs attending high school. Today, Cupertino is a mid-sized city with a population of 60,000 as of 2017 (ACS) and globally recognized as a center for research and development. The volume of high-tech companies in Cupertino attracts a highly-skilled workforce, and contributes to the local economy. The city market’s itself as a “progressive and diverse hometown”. More than 60 percent of residents aged 25 years or older hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, and more than 40 percent were born outside of the United States. The Vallco Shopping Mall was originally one of Cupertino’s first business properties. The VALLCO Business and Industrial Park was created by, and named after some of the City’s largest landowners (Varian Associates and the Leonard, Lester, Craft and Orlando families). The Vallco Shopping Mall, originally named the Vallco Fashion Park, opened in 1976 as the first major shopping mall in the region. Leading up to the ground breaking, the developers attended more than 180 meetings and hearings to address questions from civic groups, ecologists, city and county officials. Once approved, construction faced unanticipated delays due to labor strikes. The lengthy development process led to a highly anticipated grand opening. The mall was designed to include indoor parks, a skating rink, and a covered pedestrian bridgeway to connect two buildings on either side of Wolfe Road. A local promotion for the mall acknowledged the project’s bumpy path to completion. Under the headline, “Vallco Fashion Park A Dream Come True”, the grand opening is celebrated as an accomplishment, “… the Vallco Fashion Park dream becomes reality – and now, highly visible and tangible, Vallco presents all the magnificence which a goal, long and arduously sought, should provide its seekers.” It was anticipated that the regional mall would eventually contribute more than $1 million in tax revenues to the City’s $4 million annual budget, and be a reliable source of funding for capital improvements and increased residential services. The mall was completed in two phases, and cost a total of $46 million. 84 Image 9.1 Vallco Fashion Park Advertisement. Image 9.2 Vallco Fashion Park in the news. 1976. 1976. The Vision for The Hills at Vallco The Hills at Vallco reimagines the Vallco Shopping Mall property as the “new heart of Cupertino”, with a mix of shopping, dining, housing, office space and parks. Cupertino does not have an official downtown neighborhood or district but plans for the new mixed-use development are promising to create that sensibility for the City. The property is south of interstate 280, on the edge of the Main Street neighborhood (anchored on Stevens Creek Boulevard), situated between low-density residential neighborhoods to the west and commercial zoning to the east and south. The ambitious site plan is positioned in the shadows of the sprawling and hyper-manicured Apple campus, and incorporates amenities and design choices that complement the tech giant’s style. The proposed plans describe “above standard community benefits”, including 30-acres for town square, community park and nature preserve spaces, a sprawling rooftop garden, onsite vineyards and orchards, and an outdoor amphitheater. In the extensive marketing and public relations campaigns, colorful and interactive renderings invite people to imagine what living in Cupertino looks like in the future. 85 Multi-modal The plans include a new transit center to “synthesize the many modes of transportation”, as well as miles of trails, and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes. Community / Civic Needs The development agreement promises “up to 100,000 square feet of civic space for banquet facilities, educational uses, non-profit space, and a community and culture center”. Image 9.3 Office Space, The Hills at Vallco, as proposed. 2019 Mixed-Use 625,000 square feet of mixed-use space is proposed on the 50-acre (1.2 million square feet) property Office Space Two million square feet of office space was proposed in the plan, with 100,000 square feet dedicated for incubating emerging technologies. The amount of office space received public scrutiny, especially from affordable housing advocates who projected that there would be greater Image 9.4 Mobility Hub, The Hills at Vallco, as proposed. 2019 demand for housing as a result of an influx of tech-industry workers. Housing A mix of housing options will be built to offer market-rate, below market rate, and low-income units, including units that are dedicated for senior and disabled persons. Architectural styles and finishes vary, but with an emphasis on universal design and aging-in-place layouts to support multi-generational and senior Image 9.5 Community gardens and vineyards, The Hills at households. Vallco, as proposed. 2019 Timeline of Development & Litigation Plans to develop The Hills at Vallco, like the original plans for the Vallco Fashion Park, have been marked by a lengthy and complicated approval process. The timeline below is a snapshot of the five years that that predated the most recent court decision, which determined that the redevelopment can move forward. 86 Density Bonus and Community Benefits The Hills at Vallco was ultimately approved as a project eligible for the Community Benefits Density Bonus. With the Bonus, greater building density is allowed in exchange for a suite of amenities that will benefit the City and its residents. The Community Benefits that will be associated with the project are described as “above-standard” and are listed in the Development Agreement. Integral to the 87 Development Agreement is a defined housing plan that defines the number of market-rate and premium units, and a breakdown of below-market-rate (BMR) units that will be priced to accommodate a range of household incomes (moderate income, low income, very low income, extremely low income). The Agreement also specifies that units will be reserved for senior and disabled residents. 88 Image 9.6 The Hills at Vallco, over time (1976-2020) Current Site (2020) 1970’s Proposed Site 1970’s Image 9.7 The Hills at Vallco, as proposed. 2019. 90 Table 10.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Smart Growth Principles (2011) PRINCIPLE: Mixing land uses—commercial, residential, recreational, educational, and others—in neighborhoods. Places that offer a mix of Mix land uses land uses and that are accessible by bike and foot can create vibrant and diverse communities. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: Financiers view mixed-use development as complex and difficult. They are concerned that most developers do not have the knowledge base to be able • Adopt Smart Growth codes (modeled by APA) and form-based codes to manage mixed-use development properly, so they often fund only projects • PUD Ordinances can streamline approval processes that are suggested by large sophisticated developers. • Overlay zoning to direct mixed-use development in specific locations Compact communities help achieve the density of population needed to support viable transportation alternatives and are PRINCIPLE: more fiscally efficient to manage. Compact building results in fewer linear feet of utility lines—like water, sewer, electricity, Compact building phone service, making it cheaper for local governments to provide and maintain services. In addition, smaller building design footprints for new construction helps to keep undeveloped lands left to absorb and filter rainwater, which in turn reduces flooding and storm water drainage needs and lowers the amount of runoff pollution. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: • Incorporate design standards and zoning that creates stronger links Conventional zoning - minimum lot size requirements, prohibitions against multi-unit/family or attached housing. between the street and the building, require parking lots to be behind buildings NIMBY (Not in my Backyard) • State and regional governments can provide financial incentives to Local government officials and developers who propose compact encourage local governments to approve compact building development face opposition from a public that is unfamiliar with high- proposals with higher densities. quality compact development. • Use density bonuses to encourage developers to increase floor-to- area ratio (FAR). PRINCIPLE: Providing quality housing for people of all income levels is an integral component in any smart growth strategy. Housing Range of housing should be planned and constructed to accommodate better walkability, access to transit, proximity to publicly maintained parks and civic spaces. Building smaller housing units in established and familiar neighborhoods can help communities choices achieve smart growth and creates more options from which households can choose. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: Conventional zoning and regulations that restrict the number of units, lot size • Enact an inclusionary zoning ordinance for new housing standards, and building heights. developments. By requiring that some portion of every new housing development beyond a given threshold size (e.g. fifty units) is One-size-fits-all codes that are not flexible enough to accommodate historic offered at a price that will be affordable to low-income residents, buildings (modern standards for hallway width, door dimensions, rise and 91 elevations) may impose too many costly expenses for rehab projects to be inclusionary zoning helps to both increase the number of affordable profitable. units and create mixed-income communities. • Revise zoning and building codes to permit a wider variety of Lack of regional coordination that results in housing and job disconnects. housing types. Use flexible parking requirements, lot-size standards • Explore how Community Land Trusts (CLTs) can be instituted Limited (and diminishing) Federal funding. • Apply for HOME block grants, CDBGs and distribute LIHTC in mall-to- mixed-use projects Walkable communities are integral to achieving the goals of smart growth because they enhance mobility, reduce PRINCIPLE: negative environmental consequences, strengthen economies, and support stronger communities through improved Walkable neighborhoods social interaction. Dispersed development patterns and the separation of land uses have led to an increased reliance on personal automobiles and to an elimination of many characteristics that support walkable communities, like sidewalks, lighting, and safe barriers from motorized traffic. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: • State governments can play a powerful role by directing financial resources and technical support to aid local efforts. Targeted use of Conventional land-use regulation often prohibits the mixing of land uses, state and federal transportation funds can assist communities in thus lengthening trips and making walking a less viable alternative to driving. initiating or completing pilot retrofitting projects, thus The conventional design of residential developments also acts as a demonstrating the benefits of improved walkability and generating disincentive to pedestrian activity. Setback requirements, large minimum lot further support for expanded local financing of pedestrian-friendly requirements, and indirect street routes, including cul-de-sacs, retrofits. increase the distance between pedestrians and destinations. • Require building design that makes commercial areas more walkable - streetscape and scale, sidewalk design standards, zoning and street Maintenance costs - Periodic, ongoing repairs and maintenance are standards can be used to ensure that blocks are kept short, parking necessary to maintain streets and sidewalks in all seasons. between buildings and sidewalks is eliminated. Traffic calming techniques (curb cuts, landscaped islands, raised crosswalks) can be used to retrofit or for new streets. Retrofitting conventional street networks so that they have the connectivity exhibited by traditional street networks is challenging but possible 92 Communities that include well-designed buildings, attractive signage, well-maintained facades, and a positive orientation of buildings to the street are often the most distinctive. PRINCIPLE: Smart Growth supports the idea that development should also help create communities that are distinctive and unique, Distinctive and attractive with physical environments that create a sense of civic pride and a more cohesive community. places Pocket parks, playgrounds, plazas, squares, social gathering places, and other publicly accessible open spaces contribute to the aesthetic quality of the surrounding area and to the feeling of “community” that fosters a strong sense of place. In bustling commercial centers, plazas, parks, and public squares can serve as prominent visual cues for business districts, provide amenities for employees and shoppers, and add value to nearby buildings. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: • Enact clear design guidelines so that streets, buildings, and public spaces work together to create a sense of place. In the absence of specific, clear design requirements, few developers find it • Require developments to contribute to a community grant fund for in their financial best interest to invest in architectural detail or decorative tree planting. features, which would enhance the look of buildings and would contribute to • Offer property owners reduced zoning requirements in exchange for a more distinctive and appealing community preserving existing trees or planting new trees • Build schools at the community level to complement existing Building owners may not find it cost-effective to maintain or renovate these neighborhoods and provide improved walking or bicycle access to buildings in a way that preserves their unique features, while allowing for the school by students and community members. Most importantly, modern uses. these schools serve as critical civic anchors in a community, often acting as the center of districts or neighborhoods with which residents can identify. • Simplify and expedite permitting regulations to allow vendors to offer sidewalk service. Open space supports smart growth goals by bolstering local economies, preserving critical environmental areas, providing recreational opportunities, and guiding new growth into existing communities. Preservation of open space can have a profound impact on a community’s quality of life, and therefore a region’s economic prosperity. PRINCIPLE: Preserve open space and Networks of preserved open space and waterways can shape and direct urban form and at the same time prevent farmland haphazard conservation (conservation that is reactive and small scale). These networks, known as “green infrastructure,” help frame new growth by locating new development in the most cost-efficient places. Green infrastructure also ensures that the preserved areas are connected so as to create wildlife corridors, preserve water quality, and maintain economically viable working lands. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: 93 • Donated conservation easements, transfer of development rights (TDRs), and purchase of development rights (PDRs). These tools all can permanently protect land from development pressure by Transfer development rights, and related land-use programs remain illegal channeling financial incentives to the property owner. (or unpopular) in many localities in the United States. Therefore, if these • Coordinate and link local, state, and federal planning on land tools are to be effective, it is imperative that states provide the enabling conservation and development. legislation that is necessary to allow communities to preserve valuable open • Adopt a formal green infrastructure plan: A formal green space. infrastructure plan provides a framework for future growth by prioritizing what open space should be protected and what open space should be available to development. PRINCIPLE: Smart growth directs development towards communities already served by infrastructure, seeking to utilize the resources Direct development that existing neighborhoods offer and to maintain the value of public and private investment. By encouraging toward existing development in existing areas, communities benefit from a stronger tax base, closer proximity of jobs and services, increased efficiency of already developed land and infrastructure, reduced development pressure in fringe areas, and communities preservation of farmland and open space. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: • Brownfield programs and dedicated staff to coordinate remediation Zoning plans, government policies and regulations may support development efforts with state and local agencies. at the outer edges or in greenfield areas. Development associated with • "Fix-it-first" policy to address existing neighborhood improvements sprawl remains attractive to developers for its ease of access and before investing in new infrastructure. construction and lower land costs. • Communities can offer favorable lending terms through dedicated bond issues; direct grants or loans through tax-increment financing The fiscal concerns of individual jurisdictions can create an intense local or from special assessments; tax abatements, credits, or waivers; competition across regions to attract more retail, entertainment, and hotel density bonuses or other zoning waivers; expedited permitting development, and less housing development. treatment; or outright grants of publicly-owned land or property. Often these economic incentives can be the missing source of gap or The revenues generated by the property tax on housing usually fail to cover bridge financing that makes investment opportunities in existing the full costs of providing public services at all but the highest income levels. neighborhoods viable. PRINCIPLE: Smart growth requires a coordination between land use and transportation planning to achieve a multi-modal network of Variety of transportation services. Connectivity between pedestrian, bike, transit, and road facilities creates a wider range of mobility options for all choices community members. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: 94 • States can directly affect the mix of transportation modes available by planning and funding a balanced portfolio of pedestrian, auto, transit, and bike transportation facilities. States can improve the Limited coordination between transportation and land use plans, agencies, cost-effectiveness of their transportation investments by ensuring and funding. that transportation and development are coordinated. • Plan and permit road networks of neighborhood-scaled streets (generally two or four lanes) with high levels of connectivity and short blocks. • Connect transportation modes to one another. PRINCIPLE: Government investment and regulation shape the types of development that are being created today. For smart growth Predictable, fair, and cost- to flourish, state and local governments must try to make development decisions that support innovation in a more effective decision-making timely, cost-effective, and predictable way for developers. Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: • Implement a process to expedite plan and permit approval for smart Large mixed-use, infill projects are very complex and usually require growth projects. One-stop shops, developer liaisons, priority review, numerous approvals from a variety of regulatory agencies. and review deadlines are just a few ways communities can focus their review resources on projects they want to encourage. Building codes that mandate setbacks, parking requirements, and height or • Consider a point-based performance evaluation system for density restrictions often make illegal the very type of development that development projects provides a way for communities to evaluate would achieve smart growth. projects in terms of the smart growth benefits they provide. Communities can offer a wide range of incentives, such as reduction Conventional zoning regulations are often dense statistical documents, of development fees, support for infrastructure financing, or density difficult to understand, and sometimes vague. This can lead to confusion and bonuses to encourage the features they desire. The value of the misunderstanding during the permit process, the need for multiple public incentives may increase as the project scores increase, with a low hearings to resolve disputes, and finally the resubmission of plans and level of concessions being given for minimally acceptable scores and proposals—all of which constitute significant delays and additional costs for more valuable incentives given to higher-scoring projects. developers. Faced with this uncertainty, many developers will simply resort • Use more visuals in planning documents. Display zoning regulations to building what they know they can build right away. and design goals in pictorial fashion to better illustrate development goals. PRINCIPLE: A key component of smart growth is to ensure early and frequent involvement of all stakeholders to identify and address Community and specific needs and concerns. Ensuring a high level of public awareness is one of the most fundamental strategies to stakeholder participation guarantee that community needs and possible solutions are fully considered. 95 Challenges for including principle in mall-to-mixed-use development: How the public sector can encourage the principle: • Use technical assistance to develop a public participation process. Technical assistance may be available from states, interest groups, nonprofit organizations, and private sector consultants to help counties, cities, and towns craft a strategy for stakeholder involvement. Projects and plans developed without strong citizen involvement will lack the • Local governments should be creative in identifying and using new community buy-in necessary for success and make it more difficult to build methods for sharing information to reach all stakeholders. support when tough decisions need to be made. • Conduct community visioning exercises to determine how and where the neighborhood will grow, use simulations and present alternatives for feedback. • Bring developers and the development community into the visioning process. • Work with the media to disseminate planning and development information on a consistent basis 96 REFERENCES MALLS 4 Models Of The Shopping Mall Of The Future. https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2018/04/07/4-models-of-the-shopping-mall-of-the- future/#3c3ecec55c3b. Accessed 9 Feb. 2020. 48 Amazing Pics Show American Shopping Malls in the 1950s and 1960s. https://www.vintag.es/2019/05/1950s-and-1960s-american-shopping-malls.html. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020. Bogost, Ian. “When Malls Saved the Suburbs From Despair.” The Atlantic, 17 Feb. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/when-malls-saved-cities-from- capitalism/553610/. “Breathing New Life Into Three Outdated Shopping Centers.” Urban Land Magazine, 29 Oct. 2014, https://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/save-dying-shopping-mall/. “Case Studies In Reinventing Regional Malls.” M-Group, http://www.m-group.us/m- lab/blog/2015/12/7/case-studies-in-reinventing-regional-malls. Accessed 6 Dec. 2019. “Cushman & Wakefield MarketBeat Report Shows Strong Retail Industry Growth.” Directory of Major Malls | ShoppingCenters.Com, 15 Feb. 2018, https://shoppingcenters.com/article/report- shows-strong-retail-growth/. Epstein-Mervis, Marni. “How the Cold War Shaped the Design of American Malls.” Curbed, 11 June 2014, https://www.curbed.com/2014/6/11/10090762/how-the-cold-war-shaped-the-design- of-american-malls. Evans, Mariwyn. “Too Old to Be a Mall Any More?” Journal of Property Management, 1 Sept. 1997, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A20178810/AONE?sid=lms. Feinberg, Richard A., and Jennifer Meoli. “A Brief History of the Mall.” ACR North American Advances, vol. NA-18, 1991. www.acrwebsite.org, https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7196/volumes/v18/NA-18. FitzGerald, Drew, and Paul Ziobro. “This Used to Be a Shopping Mall --- Rows of Computer Servers Take Place Of Clothing Racks as Stores Vacate.” The Wall Street Journal, 4 Nov. 2014, p. B1. “Here’s What’s Becoming Of America’s Dead Shopping Malls.” NPR.Org, https://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347132924/heres-whats-becoming-of-americas-dead-shopping- malls. Accessed 16 Feb. 2020. 97 Hoffman, Jerry. Mixed-Use Center Conversions, Part II: Achieving Optimal Market Position. 2018, p. 4. Jackson, Kenneth T. “All the World’s a Mall: Reflections on the Social and Economic Consequences of the American...” American Historical Review, vol. 101, no. 4, Oct. 1996, pp. 1111–21. Mixed-Use Centers, Part I: The Economics of Place-Making. 2018, p. 4. ICSC-America-Marketplace.Pdf. https://www.icsc.com/uploads/t07-subpage/ICSC-America- Marketplace.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct. 2019. Northland, America’s First Shopping Mall, Opens Outside Detroit, MI. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3611000629/GPS?sid=lms. Accessed 18 Oct. 2019. Petro, Greg. “Shopping Malls Aren’t Dying - They’re Evolving.” Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregpetro/2019/04/05/shopping-malls-arent-dying-theyre- evolving/. Accessed 16 Feb. 2020. “Repurposed Mall Space Solves Multiple Challenges.” Health Facilities Management, vol. 22, no. 11, Nov. 2009, p. 4. “Resuscitating Dying Malls.” Urban Land Magazine, 1 June 2010, https://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/resuscitating-dying-malls/. Sicola, Maria, and Mark Stapp. Transforming Class B and C Retail Centers: An Overview. 2018, p. 4. The Future of the Shopping Mall | McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/business- functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-future-of-the-shopping-mall. Accessed 9 Feb. 2020. The Shopping Center’s Future. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A155615081/ITOF?sid=lms. Accessed 18 Oct. 2019. “The Top Five Shopping Center Trends Are….” Chain Store Age, https://chainstoreage.com/store-spaces/the-top-five-shopping-center-trends-are. Accessed 9 Feb. 2020. “The Unmalling of America.” LILP, https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2019-12- unmalling-america-municipalities-navigating-changing-retail-landscape. Accessed 31 Jan. 2020. Thomas, Lauren. “Mall Owner Brookfield Will Spend $5 Billion to Save Retailers.” CNBC, 7 May 2020. www.cnbc.com, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/07/mall-owner-brookfield-will- spend-5-billion-to-save-retailers.html. 98 Thomas, Lauren. “Over 50% of Department Stores in Malls Predicted to Close by 2021, Real Estate Services Firm Says.” CNBC, 29 Apr. 2020. www.cnbc.com, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/50percent-of-all-these-malls-forecast-to-close-by-2021- green-street-advisors-says.html. US-Shopping-Center-Definition-Standard.Pdf. https://www.icsc.com/uploads/t07-subpage/US- Shopping-Center-Definition-Standard.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct. 2019. Wang, Lauren Thomas, Christine. “Brookfield Property Partners to Buy US Mall Owner GGP.” CNBC, 26 Mar. 2018. www.cnbc.com, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/brookfield-property- partners-to-buy-ggp-for-23-point-50-in-cash.html. Webb, Michael. “Reviving Dead Malls: A Competition Seeks Ways to Regenerate Shopping Centers. (Adaptive Reuse).” Architecture, 1 Apr. 2003, https://link-galegroup- com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/apps/doc/A99754726/AONE?sid=lms. SMART GROWTH & MIXED USE Bengston, David N., tech. ed. Policies for Managing Urban Growth and Landscape Change: A Key to Conservation in the 21st Century. NC-GTR-265, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 2005, p. NC-GTR-265. Daniels, Tom. “Smart Growth: A New American Approach to Regional Planning.” Planning Practice and Research, vol. 16, no. 3–4, Aug. 2001, pp. 271–79. Hoffman, Jerry. Mixed-Use Center Conversions, Part II: Achieving Optimal Market Position. 2018, p. 4. Love, Jennifer S. Vey and Hanna. “Transformative Placemaking: A Framework to Create Connected, Vibrant, and Inclusive Communities.” Brookings, 18 Nov. 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/research/transformative-placemaking-a-framework-to-create- connected-vibrant-and-inclusive-communities/. Ortiz, Larisa, and Heather Arnold. “From Mall to Mixed Use.” Economic Development Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, Fall 2018, pp. 16–20. Tosh. “A Mall-To-Neighborhood Case Study.” (Pro(vo)Cation), 22 Feb. 2013, https://provocationutah.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/a-mall-to-neighborhood-case-study/. “Turning Dying Malls Into ‘Mini-Cities.’” ECommission, 27 Dec. 2018. www.ecommission.com, https://www.ecommission.com/turning-dying-malls-into-mini-cities/. Zipp, Samuel, and Michael Carriere. “Introduction: Thinking through Urban Renewal.” Journal of Urban History, vol. 39, no. 3, SAGE Publications Inc, May 2013, pp. 359–65. 99 CASE STUDIES Northbrook Court Kukulka, Alexandra. “Macy’s Sells Northbrook Court Space to Shopping Center, Will Continue to Operate.” Chicagotribune.Com. www.chicagotribune.com, https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/northbrook/ct-nbs-macys-northbrook-court-sale-0308- story.html. Accessed 8 May 2020. “Northbrook Court Redevelopment Gets Final Approval From Village.” Northbrook, IL Patch, 13 June 2019. patch.com, https://patch.com/illinois/northbrook/northbrook-court-redevelopment- gets-final-approval-village. “Proposed Northbrook Court Revamp Razes Macy’s, Adds Apartments.” Northbrook, IL Patch, 24 Sept. 2018. patch.com, https://patch.com/illinois/northbrook/proposed-northbrook-court- revamp-razes-macys-adds-apartments. Retail Space for Lease in Northbrook, IL | Northbrook Court. Village of Northbrook [Illinois]. Affordable Housing Plan, Board of Trustees. Northbrook, 2003. Village of Northbrook [Illinois]. Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Northbrook, Illinois, Board of Trustees. Northbrook, 2007. Village of Northbrook [Illinois]. PCD-18-16: Northbrook Court Redevelopment Summary, Board of Trustees. Northbrook, 2019. Village of Northbrook [Illinois]. Public Hearing Notice, Docket No. PCD-18-16: 1515, 1555, 1775 Lake Cook Road – Northbrook Court Shopping Center. Northbrook, 2019. https://www.brookfieldpropertiesretail.com/properties/property-details/northbrook-court.html. Accessed 8 March 2020. Cedar Hill Basalyga, Stephanie. “Mixed-Use Development Proposed in Cedar Hills Area.” Https://Joomlakave.Com. pamplinmedia.com, https://pamplinmedia.com/but/239-news/433454- 342892-mixed-use-development-proposed-in-cedar-hills-area. Accessed 5 April 2020. Beaverton Urban Renewal Area Projects. gis.beavertonoregon.gov, https://gis.beavertonoregon.gov/buraprojects/. Accessed 1 May 2020. City of Beaverton [Oregon]. Beaverton Comprehensive Plan. Beaverton, 2003. City of Beaverton [Oregon]. Staff Report for Cedar Hills Shopping Center at Park Way Redevelopment. Beaverton, 2019. City of Beaverton [Oregon]. Final Staff Presentation for Cedar Hills Shopping Center at Park Way Redevelopment. Beaverton, 2019. 100 City of Beaverton [Oregon]. Cedar Hills Text Amendment & Design Review III Application. Beaverton, 2019. City of Beaverton [Oregon]. Cedar Hills Applicant Presentation. Beaverton (UrbanForm), 2019. City of Beaverton [Oregon]. Ordinance No,. 4774. Beaverton, 2019. Pamplin Media Group - Planners OK Redevelopment of Cedar Hills Shopping Center. https://pamplinmedia.com/bvt/15-news/441817-355722-planners-ok-redevelopment-of-cedar- hills-shopping-center. Accessed 1 March 2020. Planning Commission - Oct 23rd, 2019. beaverton.granicus.com, https://beaverton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=2172&meta_id=119244. Accessed 8 March 2020. Mizner Park Barszewski, Larry. “Boca Raton¿s Visions 90 Finally Finished.” Nydailynews.Com. www.nydailynews.com, https://www.nydailynews.com/sfl-mtblog-2012-04- boca_ratons_vision_90_finally-story.html. Accessed 1 April 2020. BOCA OKS DOWNTOWN SPRUCING BEAUTIFICATION PLAN TO GET $300,000 - Sun Sentinel. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1987-10-15-8703190847-story.html. Accessed 9 April 2020. BOCA’S VISION OF DOWNTOWN UNDER REVISION - Sun Sentinel. https://www.sun- sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1990-03-18-9001300021-story.html. Accessed 21 Apr. 2020. Boulevard Embryo: Mizner Park. p. 3. City of Boca Raton [Florida]. Community Redevelopment Agency Downtown Plan. Boca Raton, 1995. City of Boca Raton [Florida]. Interim Design Guidelines. Boca Raton, 2008. City of Boca Raton [Florida]. Downtown Boca Raton Pattern Book. Boca Raton, 2010. CITYBR-LegislativeHistory-DDR-FINAL.Pdf. https://bocawatch.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/CITYBR-LegislativeHistory-DDR-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr. 2020. “Council Corner Transforming Downtown Boca Raton.” Boca Newspaper, 6 Sept. 2017. bocanewspaper.com, https://bocanewspaper.com/council-corner-transforming-downtown-boca- raton-24254. Accessed 8 Mar. 2020. 101 “Plaza Real: Boca Raton, Florida.” American Planning Association. www.planning.org, https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/2010/plazareal.htm. Accessed 8 Mar. 2020. Randy Schultz. “Mizner Park: 30 Years Later.” Boca Magazine, 16 Sept. 2019. www.bocamag.com, https://www.bocamag.com/mizner-park-30-years-later/. US EPA, OP. “Direct Development Towards Existing Communities: Mizner Park, Boca Raton, Florida.” US EPA, 14 Oct. 2014, https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/direct-development-towards- existing-communities-mizner-park-boca-raton-florida. West End District City of Beaverton [Oregon]. Beaverton Comprehensive Plan. Beaverton, 2003. NOTICE OF APPLICATION The West End District Mixed Use Development (DR2018-0149 / LD2018-0034 / LD2018-0035 LO2018-0006 / SDM2018-0010) – Public Notices. publicnotices.portlandtribune.com, http://publicnotices.portlandtribune.com/public_notice_post/3623302251246/. Accessed 4 March 2020. NOTICE OF APPLICATION The West End District Mixed Use Development (DR2018-0149 / LD2018-0034 / LD2018-0035 LO2018-0006 / SDM2018-0010) – Public Notices. publicnotices.portlandtribune.com, http://publicnotices.portlandtribune.com/public_notice_post/3623302251246/. Accessed 4 March 2020. Planning Commission - Dec 5th, 2018. beaverton.granicus.com, http://beaverton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=2019. Accessed 8 March 2020. Snapshot. https://urbanformdevco.com/our-portfolio/west-end-district/. Accessed 4 March 2020. “West End District.” Urban Form Development. urbanformdevco.com, https://urbanformdevco.com/our-portfolio/west-end-district/. Accessed 4 March 2020. “West End District.” Urban Form Development. urbanformdevco.com, https://urbanformdevco.com/our-portfolio/west-end-district/. Accessed 4 March 2020. The Hills at Vallco Bitters, Janice. “Controversial Vallco Project Can Continue under SB 35, Judge Rules.” San José Spotlight, 7 May 2020. sanjosespotlight.com, https://sanjosespotlight.com/controversial-vallco- project-can-continue-under-sb-35-judge-rules/. City of Cupertino [California]. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. Cupertino 2015. 102 City of Cupertino [California]. Vallco Mall Public Kick-off Meeting Notes. Cupertino 2018. City of Cupertino [California]. Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Cupertino 2018. “Sand Hill Sues Cupertino in Latest Skirmish over Vallco Plan.” The Mercury News, 27 Sept. 2019. www.mercurynews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/sand-hill-sues-city-in-latest- skirmish-over-vallco-plan. “State Threatens to Sue Cupertino over Housing Policy.” The Mercury News, 6 Aug. 2019. www.mercurynews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/05/state-threatens-to-sue- cupertino-over-housing-policy/. 103