Denser than thou?
At last night’s canceled meeting, the Planning Board was set to discuss the density bonus law. Lost in the coverage of the issue (small as it was, and by the way what was up with the Sun’s article, are they just reposting David H’s blog posts at this point?), is the fact that the density bonus law is a method of enacting plans, not a plan.
The last time it came up for discussion, Barbara Kerr and friends killed the discussion, and so the city dropped it. The density bonus law is a sledgehammer that helps breakthrough local NIMBY planning laws.
If you think about it, the density bonus law is a big middle finger to insular planning. As too many communities have declared themselves “special” and opted out of the housing market, the creation of affordable housing has become difficult at best. (Alameda, with it’s inclusionary housing set aside in redevelopment areas is actually not in this camp). So as individual communities opt out, the state has created a bunch of rules to opt them back in. Those liking “local control” are not going to be happy about this.
It exists to make the creation of affordable housing easier to build, but that doesn’t mean that a good community planning process for large projects shouldn’t include community buy-off, in Alameda’s case, in the form of a vote, for plans that necessitate the changing of voter passed rules.
But that’s just me, I’m pro-community voice that way.
dave
November 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Your new nickname: John “I’m not against Measure A at all, I just constantly advocate for its reversal” Knox White.
Michael Krueger
November 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
So…wondering aloud whether the application of the density bonus law would be a good idea in Alameda counts as advocating for the reversal of Measure A. Does that mean that praising the density bonus law is the proper pro-Measure-A position? I’m confused.
dave
November 11th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
While I’m personally less than thrilled by the density bonus, rejecting it out of hand is a major error on the part of the anti MA crowd. It gives them a decent chunk of what they seek at the point without having to take MA to the voters. Maybe they’d win at the ballot box, but MA has a lot of support in this town — their chances are iffy at best.
The bonus gives the anti-A meddlers a partial victory without risking a total defeat. It lets the pro-A stalwarts look like even handed compromisers while preserving the Measure intact for the bulk of the city. It’s a win/win for all but the zealots.
Lauren Do
November 12th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I don’t really think that was the point of JKW’s post (eg. to reject the Density Bonus Ordinance “out of hand”). I think the point of the post was to say that while, yes, SunCal (and other developers) could manage a workaround to Measure A if they wanted to add more density to their projects via the density bonus ordinance, for a community that is insistent on controlling all aspects of the planning process one would think that the community would prefer the chance to vote yea or nay on an exemption to Measure A for a project of this scale.
DL Morrison
November 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The city is required to comply with the density bonus, because it’s a state law, just as the state has to comply with federal law. The recently signed AB 2280 says as much. I think the state has been enforcing compliance via approval of Housing Elements, but now they’re saying that communities must comply, with or without a local ordinance. State law determines the percent of the density bonus based on the type and extent of affordable housing that’s included in a development. So this is not a choice, and it doesn’t make sense to keep presenting it as such. It’s interesting how the density bonus has created such a reversal of roles, where the pro-MA folks are supporting it, and the anti-MA folks are opposing it, because it appears to weaken the pressure to amend Measure A. Whether the average voter would agree with that or not is anybody’s guess.
Lauren Do
November 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Who are these anti Measure A folks that are opposing it?
And other than David Howard who are these pro Measure A folks that are supporting it? Last I heard, Pat Bail who is the poster girl for the protect Measure A at all costs movement said that she was not pleased with the Density Bonus ordinance.
DL Morrison
November 12th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Opposing it? You for example.
Lauren Do
November 13th, 2008 at 8:29 am
DL: When did I ever say that I was against the density bonus?
Who else are these anti Measure A people opposing the density bonus?
AD
November 13th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Why would a “community that is insistent on controliing all aspects of the planning process” prefer the chance to lose all control at the Point? This statement makes no sense at all.
DL Morrison
November 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Here’s the relevant language from AB 2280 as chaptere] d:
Section 65915 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65915. (a) When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city .. [the city] shall provide the applicant with incentives or oncessions… as prescribed in this section. All cities… shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented. Failure to adopt an ordinance shall not relieve a city … from complying with this section. (see entire bill at http://tinyurl.com/AB2280-chaptered.)
Therefore, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with this law is essentially irrelevant since all cities are required to comply with it — with or WITHOUT an ordinance.
Furthermore, the argument that people would prefer a vote on MA is clearly anti-MA, since the pro-MA people have nothing to gain by putting it to a vote — it’s fine the way it is. I think this is a pretty heavy-handed effort at spin, and I figured you’d own up to that, but I guess not.
Lauren Do
November 13th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
DL: Not to be nitpicky here, but your contention was that I was against the density bonus ordinance, which I am not.
Since SunCal has decided that their best plan for Alameda Point is a non Measure A compliant one, I would hope that folks on all sides of the Measure A issue would prefer that SunCal take it to the people to decide if they would want an exemption to Measure A for Alameda Point. While I’m sure that planners could probably figure out a workaround simply using the density bonus — that would take the populace out of the equation, right? Which personally I would say is a bad thing.
What would pro-Measure A folks have to gain by a vote? Well there is reaffirmation that is what the majority of Alamedans still think is in the best interest of the city.
Jack B.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
>>> What would pro-Measure A folks have to gain by a vote? Well there is reaffirmation that is what the majority of Alamedans still think is in the best interest of the city.
While we are at it, should we have a re-vote to reaffirm that Americans really want Obama for president?
AD
November 13th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Since SunCal has decided that their ONLY plan for Alameda Point is a non Measure A compliant one, folks on the pro-measure A side at least would like to them to just go away before they do any more damage by putting the measure on the ballot, don’t you think?
DL Morrison
November 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Lauren: Fine, let me try another approach: You appear to be trying to promote the need for a vote on MA, in spite of the density bonus. Maybe you’re not “against” it, but you seem to be very much trying to deflect it, and I’m not sure why.
What’s the issue? It’s a state law, it is what it is, and ultimately, personal opinion doesn’t have much to do with whether we comply with it or not. We can choose some of the details, which is worth looking at, but the fundamental need to comply doesn’t change.
Also, as I’m sure you know, it doesn’t change SunCal’s position on the number of units at Alameda Point. In fact, it would require well more than a “100%” density bonus to get from 1800 units to 4000+. So evidently, they’ll still need to pursue a vote on MA.
I don’t know why you’re promoting the need for a vote when it clearly has to happen anyway.
DL Morrison
November 13th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
FYI: The maximum density bonus available is 35%.
Lauren Do
November 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Jack B.: The reaffirmation on a vote for Obama will come in 2012. The last time that voters reaffirmed that they were all aboard the Measure A wagon was 17 years ago.
DL: Fine, we’ll just agree to agree that we all love the density bonus.
AD
November 13th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Nice one Lauren. Somehow you were saying earlier though that EVERYONE should be happy to have Measure A on the ballot, to change it, reaffirm it, or just for the heck of it. I assure you, that’s not the case. If it was, our city council wouldn’t be so reluctant to touch it, letting Suncal do the “dirty” work instead.