Stop, Drop and Roll

29 November 2007 | Alameda Community, Alameda Community Development Forum, Measure A, Tranpsortation | John Knox White

Before the holidays, I risked carpal tunnel with an overly long post about the Action Alameda “Greening Alameda Point” proposal. Despite the length, I didn’t even get into two of the most incredible issues in the proposal: the acceptance of the issues surrounding transportation, something that many of us in Alameda have been talking about for years, the suggestion that most, if not all, the housing at the Point be low-income, and even more stunningly, the reliance on the California state density bonus law to achieve non-measure A compliant development.

First there was the surprise that many of us who have followed the core Action Alameda team (some of the most vociferous followers of the Keep Measure A faith) had when we saw an Action Alameda document come out specifically touting a proposal that was not measure A compliant. It was an interesting acknowledgment that many maligned people where actually correct when discussing the possible benefits of amending measure A in order to decrease the Alameda Point traffic impact. Because now, all of a sudden, their proposal is calling for densities higher than Measure A allows in order to support transit service at the Point.

To reaches these non-measure A compliant densities, Action Alameda relies on the California Density Bonus Law, which was summarized expertly for the Count Counsels’ Association of California by attorney Barbara Kautz. Essentially, this law allows any developer to increase the density of any given project above limits set by any city (Charter City or not).

This is one of the most anti-planning laws around. It exists because a lot of cities (even one’s that aren’t islands) have been passing laws that make building affordable housing difficult, so the state stepped in to ease the burden.

In order to get the bonus, a developer must meet one of seven different criteria (summarized here). What important to know is that if a developer says that they will be a certain amount of subsidized, affordable housing, the state requires cities to allow the developer to build housing at densities 35% higher than allowed by the city. All a developer has to do to get a 20% increase is build 35 market rate senior housing units. That’s it.

But that’s not all!

Once the developer has requested the density bonus, she can request (and is required to receive) three concessions and incentives. From Kautz’s write up:

• Reductions in site development standards and modifications of zoning and architectural design requirements, including reduced setbacks and parking standards,that result in “identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.”
• Mixed used zoning that will reduce the cost of the housing, if the non-residential uses are compatible with the housing development and other development in the Area.
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in “identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.

You’ve read that right, once the density bonus has been given, the developer can ask, and is required to receive, exemptions from a whole host of design and parking standards, and basically anything that can be shown to make the project less costly to build.

This is all part and parcel of the Action Alameda plan, throw out parking requirements, building setbacks, design guidelines that might cost extra construction money in order to avoid discussing the density issue and looking at meaningful amendments to Measure A.

This law isn’t what you would call a welcome edition in most cities. In fact, most municipalities, Alameda included, have not passed the required ordinances that specify how they will comply with this legislation. Certain past council people who will not be named, but who share initials with Burger King are said to have pushed extremely hard to not have the density bonus laws acknowledged.

I can’t say I disagree with her, these laws take away the power of localities to chart their own course. On the other hand, when every city tries to pass its share of regional housing needs on to the next city, one can see why a law like this would come to pass. Unfortunately, almost every city in California thinks it’s unique and therefore should not have to provide new housing. This includes many neighborhoods in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.

I can think of other carrot/stick methods for the state to encourage cities to do the right thing. This one is ham-fisted at best.

There are better ways to go about planning at the Point, but they involve difficult discussions. These will necessitate discussing the goals of measure A not the existing language and how the city can honor the intent, rather than the ballot measure.

Relying on, and encouraging, state mandated density bonuses is basically admitting that local planning has no role and we should just let Sacramento call the shots.