City staff are presenting this important, and hopefully long-term, planning policy during an uncertain climate. Though many development projects are on hold, others are in progress, and downtown is seeing an uptick in retail businesses. Inclusionary Zoning, a controversial policy that has been a touchstone in Oakland’s development politics for a decade, is in legal limbo after a Los Angeles developer successfully challenged an affordability mandate as a violation of Costa-Hawkins, the state law that banned vacancy control and restricted rent control to pre-1980 buildings. With the State Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal of what is being called the Palmer decision, it seems like a major potential barrier to new development is no longer an option.

On Monday, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board will be discussing the citywide rezoning as well, but within their subject area. If you’re interested in how rezoning may impact historic preservation, check out the agenda and the staff report. There are three opportunities to attend meetings about rezoning, so a student of Oakland’s future has no excuse but to attend!

After I graduated high school in 1997, my father took me and my sister on a photo-tour of Oakland’s most endangered landmarks, as published by the Oakland Heritage Alliance. We photographed the moldering Cox Cadillac Building, the abandoned Floral Depot Building, and, of course, the hulking ruin of the Fox Theater. I expected every one of these structures to be torn down by the time I returned to Oakland from my out-of-state liberal-arts college, assuming the economy remained decent enough to employ a demolition crew in the DTO.

My first job out of college was working for Forest City Residential West. I cold-called every developer on Oakland’s Major Projects List in 2002, and during that economic downtown they were the only one interested in an intern. I spent most of my time compiling evidence of why a ballpark should not be shoe-horned into Uptown, and I mapped the project area. It was the first, and mercifully the last, time I would work in downtown San Francisco. I witnessed my first affordable-housing candlelight vigil, and met the stylish and infamous Lily Hu. Along the way I learned how the project would transform an enormous parking lot into urban transit-accessible housing, a critical need in the Bay Area. The project prospectus that I helped write included the then-fantastic vision of surrounding retail and entertainment venues spurred by this unprecedented investment. Unbelievers attacked everything about the proposal, from its demolition of historic warehouses to its public subsidy.

It’s true that the Forest City Uptown project is subsidized – or, more precisely, may be subsidized. Unlike Oak-To-Ninth, Uptown’s financial deal with Oakland’s Redevelopment Agency pays for more than environmental remediation and affordable housing. Forest City received a payment for executing its development agreement, and may not pay all their property taxes depending on their profit margins. This subsidy, which will disappear if the project is successful over 20 years, was ratified by then-Mayor Jerry Brown and the City Council (unanimously) in order to soak up acres of wasted central space and spur the revitalization of downtown. Many people don’t remember that the entire Uptown project area was surface parking dotted with a few auto-repair businesses. Some people quibble with the architectural style and the site plan, but it is inarguably an enormous improvement over what was there before.

I am happy to defend Uptown because Forest City’s project accomplished Jerry Brown’s stated goal: it revitalized an entire district. The Façade Improvement Program helped restore a handful of Art Deco buildings along Telegraph, and the RDA helped build a parking lot. Without unusual subsidy, businesses like Café Van Kleef, the Uptown nightclub, and EntreZ opened up. I worked for Brog Properties for two years, during which time the company converted the Cathedral Building to mixed-use, created the Marquee Lofts from a trashed commercial mid-rise, and purchased the Latham Square Building. Even though Thomas Berkley Square is going into foreclosure, it is still a completed building in the area. The Fox Theater could not have successfully acquired $70m in grant funds for its full restoration had there not been so much public and private redevelopment in the immediate area.

Jerry Brown announced he was abandoning long-held retail plans for Uptown in favor of a residential project almost immediately after he was elected in 1998. The Forest City Uptown Disposition and Development Agreement was signed in 2003. Leasing began in 2007. By then, investors and foundations had committed over $200m in the surrounding area’s residential and commercial developments and businesses.

Of course, everything is not turning up roses, beyond the economic downtown that is hurting local condo sales (though retail/entertainment is so far unaffected). While private foundations, developers, and businesses have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in Uptown, Oakland’s Redevelopment Agency has failed to deliver the streetscape plan it promised investors and the public in 2004. Telegraph Avenue is to be cut off at 16th St, recreating Latham Square, and narrowed to accommodate bike lanes and widened sidewalks. But three years after this plan was finalized, nothing but the Fox’s sidewalk has been completed.

Every one of the endangered buildings I photographed in 1997 is now restored: the Cox Cadillac building is Whole Foods, the Floral Depot is Flora, and the Fox is becoming the Bay Area’s premier music venue.

I often hear Oaklanders complain about developers and their supposed subsidies. I hear Oaklanders complain that historic buildings aren’t respected, and that developers make promises they can’t deliver. But in Uptown, a subsidized development that involved eminent domain has spurred a renaissance of historic proportions, in historic buildings, by encouraging hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment. I am so excited to celebrate the Fox’s grand opening tonight, a direct result of the Uptown strategy I had a small part in aiding, and the only sour note is the city’s failure to deliver decent sidewalks.

Tuesday January 20 2009 the Oakland City Council will vote on final environmental and legal approval of the showcase Oak-To-Ninth (O29) development on two peninsulas comprising 64 acres immediately east of the Jack London District straddling the Lake Merritt Channel. 170 boat slips in two marinas, 200,000 square feet of retail space, 32 acres of waterfront parkland and bike/ped trails, and 3100 homes (including 465 low-income family-sized apartments), will transform a long-abandoned break-bulk cargo facility. Despite the obvious benefits of such a landmark development, the small group of activists who waged a referendum and then a lawsuit attempting to halt the project are still objecting to its construction.

Yesterday, Joyce Roy published an op-ed in Berkeley’s NIMBY mouthpiece, the Planet. She rehashed many of the false and misleading claims of the anti-O29 referendum committee, who grossly oversimplified redevelopment agency financing and mischaracterized the open-space and transportation elements of the plan. A brief rebuttal: the city is not paying out-of-pocket for the affordable housing, the land price is discounted because of enormous environmental cleanup costs, living near a freeway is normal in Oakland, and AC Transit and Signature are committed to establishing new transit service once the area is developed. This blog documented these falsehoods during the referendum campaign, and using the same arguments City Attorney John Russo successfully defended the city against the referendum. With a few technicalities left for the city to clean up, opponents still haven’t given up.

Oakland’s neighborhood listserves have for about a month hosted a concerted campaign to stir up opposition to O29, seemingly to little success, perhaps because Oaklanders have other things on their minds. This week, some called for the delay of the Council’s vote, because their meeting on the 20th conflicts with Barack Obama’s inauguration as President and so would inconvenience those who want to speak on the item. But the City Council meeting Tuesday evening does not conflict with the inauguration, which is in the morning. One does not have a constitutional right to party. The vote was not rescheduled. In contrast, the sidewalk liability ordinance was delayed by Jane Brunner’s Rules Committee, presumably to provide more opportunity for public input.

Because there has been plenty of public input on the Oak-To-Ninth project. One the petitioners’ more outrageous claims was that there had not been adequate public involvement in planning the O29 area, invoking one of Oakland’s sacred cows. To the contrary, O29’s plan was developed with three years of public and private meetings between Signature Properties and community members and groups, in addition to the formal planning process which provided a dozen opportunities to plead one’s case to decision-makers. Not only did Signature carefully develop a landmark plan with extraordinary public involvement, but they struck a deal with a large coalition of special interest groups to provide community benefits in the form of apprenticeship and local hiring programs, and to ensure that the affordable housing truly serves community needs (unlike, say, BMR condos).

The real issue on the table is not whether O29 inappropriately demolishes a 1950s warehouse or should contain 540 housing units instead of 3100. The court did not void the approvals of the project or uphold many of the opponents’ claims. Basically, three parts of the Environmental Impact Report were found inadequate: analyses of cumulative impacts, of earthquake risk, and of traffic. After receiving further technical studies, the city found that cumulative impacts are insignificant and earthquake risks are mitigated by California’s strict building code. The city did, however, find that traffic delays at five intersections would be unacceptable in 2025. That means that drivers in the future (assuming that people don’t drive any less) may have to wait two minutes to pass through a green light. The Oakland City Council is asked Tuesday night to legally declare, “tough titties.” It’s time they did so.

The downtown zoning as currently proposed has two parts: a height and form map, and a use map. The two parts aren’t completely separated: the use map contains FAR maximums that interact somewhat confusingly with the different height areas allowed by the form map. Remaining topics of public controversy have to do with the height map: should tall buildings be further restricted from the lakefront, and should the height map be more specific to “protect” pockets of historic structures? Otherwise, there is broad agreement over the use map.

The use map does not strictly separate uses such as residential and commercial, and rightly accepts that uses downtown can and will be varied and intensive. The most restrictive element is the CBD-P (Pedestrian Retail) zone. It forces new construction on designated streets to meet design requirements for ground-floor space, and limits ground-floor uses to pedestrian-serving retail and restaurants. There is broad agreement among all parties in the zoning process that CBD-P zone is good to go (some say it should extend a bit deeper toward the Lake along and above 19th, and I think all signage should be permitted outright). Staff did an excellent job identifying the active and potential retail corridors, and the design requirements come straight from the Conley Report and the city’s new Broadway Retail Interim Zoning. Yet the use map is being held up along with the rest of zoning. Unfortunately, this is allowing undesirable uses to come into downtown.

While the downtown pedestrian zoning is strict in design and use, it only applies to specific streets. Currently, ground-floor commercial is required everywhere downtown, resulting in poorly-designed and isolated ground floors spaces that are unsuitable for retail and restaurants (Jack London Square and Old Oakland contain excellent examples of this). Focusing retail in specific areas, such as 14th St to the Lake or the core of Old Oakland, creates a destination that allows for transportation and marketing synergies. Yet without the zoning in effect, some developers are ignoring retail in potentially disastrous ways. A proposed senior housing project on the corner of 17th and Harrison contains no retail space. 17th Street, while fairly successful, is limited to the block between Franklin and Webster because of the surface parking lot at Harrison, to be replaced by this project, killing the pedestrian experience (also, that horrible American Cancer Society building at Webster). Building nice retail along 17th in the next block, combined with street trees, would allow the SOBO shopping district to expand by one block, increasing its potential by double or more. But because the developers’ application has already been submitted, the 17th St proposal is not required to contain retail spaces, just a “community space” with no design standards.

Construction is one part of retail zoning: use is another. In the CBD-P zone, not only would ground-floor spaces have to design for retail (high ceilings, high-quality materials, storefront windows, prominent entrances), but they would have to contain retail as well. Old Oakland’s main barrier to success is that most of the beautiful Victorian storefronts on 9th St are occupied by offices. The neighborhood is hoping, and the CBD-P zone is intending, to transition the street from office to retail. But in the absence of new zoning, a real estate office has moved into a Washington St space formerly occupied by a store that sold, among other things, discount designer sunglasses. Not only is the lack of updated zoning preventing the transition to retail, it has allowed a step backwards.

The entire proposed DTO use map, following the General Plan’s designation of downtown as a uniquely transit and pedestrian-oriented district, explicitly bans surface parking lots and auto-oriented uses from all of downtown (except gas stations, which are conditionally permitted). However, since it’s not yet in effect, someone just built a new surface parking lot on Franklin between 11th and 12th! Surface parking is exactly what we don’t want downtown, not only because it’s a terrible use of land but also because it creates pedestrian dangers by cars crossing the sidewalk, by killing the continuity of street frontage, and by creating dead zones that criminals can  hide in (Chauncey Bailey was assassinated in a downtown surface parking lot, where a friend of mine was mugged the year before). Because of the zoning update’s delay, we’ll have one more dangerous and deleterious downtown lot. Every day the zoning isn’t passed is one more day undesirable uses can come to the DTO: the retail-free 17th St project, the delay in bringing retail to Old Oakland, and the new surface parking lot may not be the last developments to undermine Downtown’s goals.

Before the clock runs out on election interest, this is the first of two blogs noting electoral trends.

Real estate development is a political football in many cities in California, with some battles reaching the ballot box. This November, NIMBY initiatives across the state were defeated. The three most radical anti-growth measures in California were Measure KK in Berkeley (anti-Bus Rapid Transit), Measures V and W in Redwood City (wetlands preservation), and Measure T in Santa Monica (cap on commercial construction). All lost, by substantial margins.

Regular readers of this and other blogs know that Bus Rapid Transit’s showdown in Berkeley was followed closely by transit activists. I was part of the No on KK campaign, which won with 77% of residents voting No. Measure KK received more attention than anything else on the Berkeley or even East Bay ballot. The media, from the blogs to the Daily Planet to the Chronicle, devoted far more space over the course of the year to Measure KK than to Berkeley mayor’s race, the wide-open City Council seat, or Oakland and regional measures. Now BRT opponents are arguing that people voted based on No on KK’s excellent mailer and not because they support BRT on Telegraph Avenue, but the overwhelming margin of defeat and the great deal of substantive public discussion shows that voters support changing car lanes to other uses.

Several years ago, Cargill Inc sold their pink-hued, salt-producing wetlands to the state in a large and complicated deal, while reserving two profitable portions to offset the cost of the land. In Redwood City, influential Oakland-based nonprofit Save The Bay placed a measure on the ballot to upend this deal and prevent development on a newly-created parcel by requiring a two-thirds vote to change its General Plan designation to open space. In response, the City Council placed a measure requiring only a simple majority vote. In the end, voters rejected both measures, Save the Bay’s W by 63%.

Arguably the most radically anti-growth local ballot measure was in Santa Monica. City Councilmember Bobby Shriver, working with a local NIMBY group, sponsored an initiative to cap commercial construction at 75,000 square feet. Not only would that entirely preclude office development, it would also prevent retail and urban mixed-use (housing over retail) projects. Much like Smart Growth links transportation and growth, so did Mr. Shriver and other supporters of Measure T attempt to convince voters that ending growth would somehow “fight traffic.” Also like KK, Measure T enjoyed a sympathetic media. Yet just as KK supporters failed to convince Berkeleyans that next-generation bus service would worsen traffic, Santa Monicans rejected T’s traffic argument by 56%.

There are other examples: Beverly Hills voters narrowly approved construction of three hotel / residential skyscrapers on the ugly white concrete high-rise Beverly Hilton, referended by NIMBYs; and Moraga’s restrictive Measure K was voted down by 56%. On the other hand, San Francisco voters approved NIMBY-in-chief Aaron Peskin’s powerful Landmarks Preservation Commission (Measure J), but there was no argument filed against it and it was lost in the confusing morass of San Francisco’s ballot questions, A-V. Without opposition, it earned only 57% of votes. The failure of anti-growth measures across California show that Smart Growth proponents can craft winning messages, and that electoral sympathy for NIMBYs and anti-transit activists is low.

This week, everyone but the Trib is making endorsements in the many competitive elections in Oakland and the East Bay. So, like Robert Kennedy, I thought Why not? Here are my endorsements for who will make decision affecting the future of Oakland, from a transit and Smart Growth perspective.

City Council District One: Jane Brunner

I have a lot of problems with Ms. Brunner, so this endorsement comes with serious caveats. I think that she is often illprepared for meetings, as V-Smoothe pointed out, and seems to vote however the last person who got to her wants her to vote, but her staff is not as scattered as she is. I’ve already decried using Inclusionary Zoning, a rare ideological split on the Council, as a litmus test, so I’ll forgive her decade-long quest to impose price caps on condos. The real housing issue is that District One builds no affordable housing, and very little entry-level housing. I grew up in Rockridge and I’ve been forced out by the lack of development! There are fewer apartments now than there were in 1987, when Market Hall opened, and no newly-built condos. Ms. Brunner has offered little leadership on development in Temescal, instead exacerbating the neighborhood’s battles by meddling in projects (with the full consent of the rest of the Council). However, Mr. McCullough has no position on development.

The hot issue is crime, but Ms. Brunner hasn’t been particularly worse than anyone else on the Council; unlike Jean Quan and Nancy Nadel, she’s not a ringleader of the anti-cops brigade. Her shameful refusal to condemn Black Uhuru’s slander of Mr. McCullough is disturbing, but she does listen to crime concerns and is belatedly pushing for the high-tech crime-reduction strategies championed by Sean Sullivan. Honestly, I don’t see Mr. McCullough offering much in the way of crime but attention. Unlike Sean Sullivan, he doesn’t have detailed plans or a clear policy direction. I think Mr. Pine has the same problem except that he talks about the number of police relentlessly. Mr. McCullough also has no support from other councilmembers or institutions so he would probably be an ineffective councilmember.

And effectiveness is exactly what Jane Brunner offers. IZ wouldn’t have a chance if it were pushed by Nancy Nadel, but Jane Brunner knows how to work the system. For her constituents she’s delivered bicycle lanes and bike parking, the only successful Measure DD project (Studio One), and a dog park at Mosswood (which Ms. Nadel took credit for). Her staff is involved in the negotiations with CalTrans over the Caldecott Tunnel, which is entirely appropriate. She makes noises about Smart Growth and will deliver the MacArthur BART project, even if has taken fifteen years. Without an experienced opponent with a clear alternative vision, Jane Brunner deserves reelection.

City Council District Three: Sean Sullivan

This is easy. V-Smoothe wrote an excellent essay entitled Nancy Nadel Has to Go. Now., and I have little to add. Sean Sullivan has impressed many people with his well-organized, aggressive campaign and positive, detailed vision for the future of the District (I’m part of his campaign). Greg Hodge barely got on the ballot, and has run an invisible campaign that is short on specifics. Sean Sullivan offers energetic, hands-on leadership at exactly the time Oakland needs it most, and his record delivering a multimillion-dollar youth center and effective violence prevention programs is the experience City Hall needs. He is endorsed by Desley Brooks and Pat Kernighan, the two swing votes on the Council who are also the most junior. The ranks of newer councilmembers, not beholden to the old power structure, deserve more members.

City Council District Five: Ignacio de la Fuente

Ignacio is the best member of the Oakland City Council. He is the most respectful and attentive to public speakers, his staff are the most open to new ideas and new activists, and he has been there for public transit and Smart Growth every time. He attempted to lobby the MTC for an East Bay HSR alignment (but was thwarted by Nadel), which is perhaps the biggest single transit issue of the decade. Under his leadership, Fruitvale has become a charming, thriving district. In the mid-nineties, when I lived in Rockridge, nobody thought of going to Fruitvale for dinner or shopping. Now many people do, and the Transit Village is a model for the entire region. Jingletown exists because of Ignacio’s vision of reclaiming industrial land and creating access to the waterfront. Even if his leading opponent wasn’t an inexperienced businessman with a checkered past, Ignacio de la Fuente would deserve reelection.

City Council Seven: Larry Reid

Larry Reid is good. He stands up for what’s right, not what’s politically correct, like with plastic bags or industrial zoning. He does a great job attracting retail and residential development to his economically depressed district. I hear his constituent services aren’t very good, but I don’t see Clifford Gilmore offering anything better. Running a terrible campaign doesn’t help matters. This is a great example of the Guardian’s endorsements revealing themselves to be utterly irrational.

City Council At-large: Clinton Killian

This is a crowded field but honestly the choice wasn’t that hard. Charles Pine is one-note and wouldn’t be effective on the Council. Frank Rose is awesome but he gives so much to the community without being on the Council, so I don’t think he really brings much to this particular role. Kerry Hamill doesn’t bother to campaign downtown at all, is nowhere on transportation and development (though the big developers love her for some reason), has no credibility on the crime issue that she’s pushing, and says annoying things that are obviously political, like we need fewer political staff, even though she is political staff (she was Don Perata’s Chief of Staff and is now a Policy Analyst for BART). Rebecca Kaplan is appealingly energetic, and says a lot of the right things, but she doesn’t really have a track record of clear positions. I need to know more about her.

Clinton Killian, despite some minor business troubles years back, offers a great mix of experience for the City Council. He’s been on the AC Transit Board, the Planning Commission, and serves on the Paramount Board. His commitment to downtown, smart growth, transportation and the arts is unquestionable, and those are my priorities. I also appreciate how he brings together two often-squabbling sectors of the business community, the mainstream businesses and the ethnic businesses. His campaign has a clear message and is well-targeted, and he has a great shot at the runoff despite being outspent. That’s a good sign.

School Board District One: Brian Rogers

Who cares that he’s a Republican? At least he has something to say about education that’s relevant. Jody London, who just oozes politician, managed to squeeze green-collar jobs, energy independence and Save The Bay into the School Board debate, and said that she had no position on charter schools but is against them. Her entire campaign appears to be based around the fact that Mr. Rogers is a Republican. I think the race is pretty clear-cut: Rogers represents reform, London the status quo. She’s endorsed by the outgoing Boardmember, the Teachers’ Union and all the usual suspects. Brian Rogers supports educational innovation and charters, involvement from business, and continuing the Expect Success reforms opposed by Jody London and the Teachers’ Union.

AD 14: Tony Thurmond

I agree with the Express, the Chronicle and the Trib that the Richmond Councilmember is best to represent the district, rather than a Berkeley politician. His resume, running a successful nonprofit serving at-risk youth, reminds me of Sean Sullivan. Kris Worthington and Nancy Skinner are awful, the perfect embodiment of everything that’s wrong with the Berkeley City Council (NIMBYism meets Communism). I worry that Phil Polakoff will take too many moderate North Oakland / Berkeley votes and hand the race to Nancy Skinner, unfortunately. No runoffs in a partisan primary! But if you live in this district, which I don’t, please vote Tony Thurmond.

State Senate: Wilma Chan

Since we’re all getting two pieces of mail a day about Loni Hancock and Wilma Chan, many people may have made up their minds. I think the mail itself is a pretty good way to judge the candidates: Ms. Chan has a clear argument, that she accomplished more when she was in the Assembly than Ms. Hancock did (that’s true). Ms. Hancock, on the other hand, is all over the place, bragging about big-time endorsements one day and then bashing Wilma Chan for not having enough endorsements the next. Her mailers are full of stupid quotes like “the courage to lead” and dumb photos of her staring over the Berkeley Marina or talking to college students. Anyway, this one is easy: Wilma Chan represented Oakland and Alameda, Loni Hancock Berkeley and points north. Gotta go with the home team.

Predictions:

City Council: all the incumbents win outright except Nancy Nadel. Nadel may be bested by Sean Sullivan, who has reached out to people his opponents haven’t contacted, and seems to have the momentum heading into the final weekend when the undecideds are making up their minds. As for the at-large, Rebecca Kaplan will make the runoff with either Hamill or Killian in second place.

School Board: Incumbents in D5 and D7, Olu in D3 (Jumoke Hodge will do as poorly as her husband, because they didn’t campaign very much). There will probably be a runoff in D1, since Tennessee Reed has some name recognition and Rogers and London seem to be dueling it out pretty evenly. Rogers has a clear message so he could win, though I may be overestimating the voters’ willingness to overlook party registration.

Assembly: Thurmond could make it, otherwise Skinner. Polakoff’s base is too narrow but he’s probably done lots of mailers. Thurmond’s mailers contain typos but the demographics are on his side (everyone else is from Berkeley, he’s from the other half of the district).

State Senate: Wilma Chan will pull it off. The endorsements Hancock’s touting aren’t going to matter all that much, since Ms. Chan has great name recognition. Ms. Hancock is a divisive figure in her own Assembly district, so she can’t count on her half of the Senate district serving as a base. Chan’s mailers have a clearer message, as I said before, and so are more effective. I guess we’ll see on June Third!

Transportation and land use are intimately linked. The combination of better public transportation and transit-oriented development is the Bay Area’s best hope for reducing the pollution, congestion, and related problems associated with the region’s over-dependence on the private automobile. Yet, instead of leading the way, Berkeley, in the form of a relatively small group of activist neighbors, is fighting the trend vigorously.

This Tuesday, April 22, the Berkeley City Council will vote on a proposal that would significantly downzone the major transportation corridors. Essentially that proposal is exactly the same as Measure P, which 80 percent of Berkeley’s voters defeated in 2002.

I followed Berkeley’s protracted zoning-by-committee Downtown Plan process and always check the Berkeley Daily Planet, which seems to be that city’s only news source, but had never heard of any downzoning effort. Why would the Berkeley Daily refrain from applauding neighbors’ efforts to keep newcomers out with restrictive land-use policies? Then I remembered an ongoing and rather odd discussion of a density bonus that comes to the Berkeley City Council today:

Two different versions of a proposed municipal density bonus are on the council’s agenda, one recommended by the Planning Commission and the other by the city planning staff.

The regulations would govern the size and shape of multi-story mixed-use housing projects of the sort now being built along the city’s major traffic arteries.

The commission is urging the city to pass an ordinance that will take effect before the June 3 general election to offset the possible impacts of Proposition 98.

In Oakland, there has been a little discussion of density bonuses, which are available to developers who include price-restricted (“affordable”) units in residential projects by state law. The density bonus functions as a voluntary Inclusionary Zoning program, similar to Los Angeles or Massachusetts though much less used (one project in Temescal is applying for it; I don’t know of any other use of this ten-year-old law in Oakland). Desley Brooks specifically directed the Blue Ribbon Commission to look at density bonuses as they attempted to draft an affordable-housing ordinance, but of course the commission did not, and IZ advocates ignore the density bonuses that would be consequence of their proposal. As a result, few people understand that once cities adopt mandatory IZ regulations, they lose some control over development, which prevents municipalities from adopting IZ just to discourage development.

It appears that Berkeley’s planning staff is adept at using the state’s density bonus to move projects past a skeptical Zoning Adjustments Board and Planning Commission hearings dominated by outraged NIMBYs. Having caught on to the ruse, the ZAB has been for some time asking for an ordinance that allows them to limit development further. Much like Jane Brunner tried to pass a poorly-thought-out IZ ordinance before Prop 90 came to a vote in late 2006, it appears the Berkeley City Council is sufficiently cowed by the spectre of Prop 98, and will radically downzone their transit corridors in order to assure that Berkeley’s future development includes price-restricted units, and that there will be few of them.

In related news, it appears that State Senate candidate Loni Hancock (former “progressive” Mayor of Berkeley, current Assemblymember, wife of Tom “I stole the newspaper” Bates) is carrying some significant legislation to further placate NIMBYs who love affordable housing in theory. According to the Planet (I couldn’t find this bill), Hancock has introduced a bill that would exempt cities with IZ from the statewide Density Bonus without forcing them to create their own bonuses, thereby encouraging cities to pass the sort of IZ ordinances a recent pro-IZ study found to be the least effective: mandatory, unfunded policies without planning concessions. Politicians like Loni Hancock, Tom Bates and, in Oakland, Jane Brunner and Nancy Nadel advance a damaging anti-growth agenda under the auspices of providing more affordable housing, and inevitably their targets are transit corridors and other places that make growth smart. BRT proponents and other environmentalists are wise to connect the dots.

The basic premise of “industrial preservation” is that a few years of residential development in industrial areas (there have been only two General Plan Amendments permitting conversions since 2003) are responsible for the decades-long decline of Oakland’s industrial base. By this logic, competition from residential developers, rather than from, say, China, is the biggest hurdle facing Oakland industry. Stunningly, not a single Planning Commissioner disagreed with these assumptions, and, even in the absence of anything approaching an industrial revitalization plan, unanimously approved strict and inflexible zoning rules over industrial lands. To be determined in the future is a “checklist” of criteria, prioritizing “community benefits” over planning, to determine conversions in the future.

Embracing the broad and abstract goal of revitalizing industry, the City Council and the Planning Commission were unconcerned with the details of the measure. Two elements of the new zoning code are sharply at odds with existing land-use patterns in Oakland: the industrial lines and the live/work code. The industrial lines encompass residential neighborhoods, particularly around 24th and Adeline. Though a representative of the neighborhood has been to every public meeting on the topic, his inconvenient point that the lines are wrong has been  ignored by everyone from planning staff to the Planning Commission to his Councilmember, Nancy Nadel. Now the Council is poised to approve the zoning law, rendering his entire neighborhood of single-family homes “legally non-conforming,” ruling out infill residential development and greatly complicating simple tasks like renovating homes.

Perhaps even worse, the live/work code harshly restricts live/work in the industrial areas. The planning staff seems entirely unaware that there are already hundreds of live/work residences within the industrial zones, legal and otherwise, which would be placed in limbo. And the provisions for establishing new live/work developments are written so that all of Oakland’s current live/work developments would be excluded, including the West Oakland’s Peralta Studios and Noodle Factory.

I understand that Mayor Dellums won the election and gets to set planning policy, even though “industrial preservation” (and for that matter, a radical downzoning of downtown) was never part of his platform. But the city for years has actively encouraged artists to move into underutilized buildings in Oakland’s industrial areas. Everyone from former Mayor Brown to the mass media has praised artists and their conversions as cutting-edge and culturally vibrant. But the radical shift in planning policy embodied in “industrial preservation” is more than just yanking away the welcome mat – it raises the very real prospect of artists losing their homes.

It is simply wrong to encourage people to move to your city for a decade and then abruptly tell them that what their doing is illegal and, in Councilmember Nadel’s words, irresponsible. In fact, it is the city decision-makers and the planning staff who are irresponsible: by ignoring the reality of West Oakland’s neighborhoods and live/work projects, by reversing years of tolerance to artists, and by placing artists’ homes in sudden legal jeopardy. This willful ignorance of economic and social reality will have very real consequences to the artists and homeowners who, by a stroke of Dan Lindheim’s pen, find themselves in illegal housing.

UDPATE: With Ignacio de la Fuente telling artists and their supporters “you are right,” the CED Committee did not send the zoning ordinance to Council, and will instead discuss changing it to include live/work at their April meeting. The Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the West Oakland Commerce Association spoke in favor of moving the ordinance forward without changes.

This evening the City Council will hear an appeal of an entitlement granted by the Planning Commission. Unusually, this appeal is coming from a developer, not NIMBYs. In question: the conversion of a motel to condos in that dingy stretch of MacArthur at the 10000 block (the staff report (PDF) contains an unsavory description the adjacent buildings). The developer received permission to convert to apartments in 2003 but never finished building them out. Recently he asked for a condo map for the 19 units, but staff recommended and the Commission moved to approve only 17 units. Staff cited the zoning, since according to a strict reading of the General Plan a portion of the property extends past the strip of Urban Residential covering MacArthur. When asked for a variance to exceed the zoning formula concocted by the staff, planners pulled out an even more persnickety objection to fully converting the building to condos: that the motel did not meet open-space requirements. All six responses to the request for a density variance were answered by citing the open-space requirement (not parking). The commission recommended that one of the two surplus units be used as a “community/recreation area.”

Apartments, being for-rent, and for-sale condos are not as dissimilar as they would appear. Newly-built apartments usually secure condo-conversion permission, and “speculators” purchase condos to rent as apartments. The primary difference between the assets has to do with the federal tax code, because homeowners and REITs receive preferential tax treatment, and other landlords do not. The appeal before the Council brings up interesting questions about how planning policy should treat these kinds of housing. Since the difference is primarily financial, is it appropriate for the city to hold condos to more stringent requirements than apartments? In this case, though only 17 units were approved as apartments the extra two were to be used as a common area and as an on-site management dwelling, both required by state law for apartments but not condos. So under the prior approval, there was still an open-space deficit (18 inhabited units). Why is open-space more important for homeowners than renters? The staff report also makes a big deal of how they’re not requiring them to go through the condo conversion hoops even though the apartments for which the developer received permission in 2003 were never occupied. While I’m relieved the conversion isn’t being blocked by the ordinance, the idea that the ordinance applies to never-occupied apartments is chilling to potential apartment developers who may want the option of converting them in the future.

Because this is an adaptive reuse of a hotel, there is little leeway for the developers in terms of site use and provision of open space. The developer agreed to the city’s instructions on landscaping and arrangement of parking. As I explained above, the Planning Commission unanimously ruled that at least one of the units be used as a “community/recreation area” to meet the city’s requirement. But what is the value of indoor open-space? As I have written before, I find newly-built private open space of dubious value in a city replete with beautiful (or potentially beautiful) parks. But what possibly could be gained to the 17 other units to have two common units? The HOA fees will of course be higher to maintain these spaces. The idea that indoor open space consisting of two units is more valuable than two more families in the building is disturbing and certainly contradicts the city’s goals of responding to the housing crisis and becoming more transit-oriented and green (indoor open space is not green).

Open space requirements make no sense in this context, where the building already exists and was built as housing (albeit temporary housing). If a historic high-rise hotel downtown were converted to apartments or condos, would the city also require that some units remain vacant? Effectively, the decision by the planning commission sets a city policy that fewer housing units are more desirable than any amelioration of the city’s open-space requirements, although only for certain kinds of housing finance. The General Plan strongly encourages the conversion of seedy motels into permanent housing, and MacArthur Blvd is being studied for a Bus Rapid Transit line. Leaving empty units in this condo complex is simply bad public policy.

At the Community and Economic Development Committee, the Council was treated to the unpleasant spectacle of sharp disagreements over the city’s proposal to construct affordable housing next to Raimondi Park. The city staff and West Oakland residents supported the family-sized homeownership units aimed at households making around 60% of the Area Median Income. Several One non-profit housing developers strenuously objected, arguing that the city should somehow force the Central Station master developer to transfer a plot of land for free, and that more of the units be aimed at 100% AMI households (making up to $82k/yr), since that’s easier for them to develop.

Chair Jane Brunner told the nonprofits that if they wanted to set-aside land for subsidized housing, that should have happened years ago when the master plan was approved. She then speculated that subsidized housing units should be sprinkled within market-rate developments, “so you couldn’t tell which was which.” While I love her socialist idealism, it’s incredibly inefficient to do that. First, subsidized developers should take advantage of cost-saving measures that may not be available to market-rate developers, like low-quality finishes or less parking, since that helps lower the cost of housing. Second, land costs are a huge factor in housing prices. It makes sense to use lower-value sites for subsidized housing, and to allow more density for subsidized units. Both of these measures lower the relative cost of land as a portion of housing costs. Third, the press has reported a lot recently on how owners of BMR units can face steep condo fees since their incomes don’t match those of their neighbors. Luxury buildings should be able to have luxury amenities, and it doesn’t make sense to place people in those buildings if they can’t afford the upkeep. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another attempt to socialize the housing market early next year.

Because of the overly-long meeting, a periodic report (PDF) on the progress of the city’s redevelopment areas (it did not include the largest RDA, Central City East) was put off until the Council meeting next week. Overall, while the report provided valuable information on the collection and disposition of revenues, there were not detailed charts on affordable housing production or spending for every redevelopment area. While large amounts of money are being generated for housing subsidies, there’s not a direct explanation of where all of that money is going. However, it’s clear that downtown is doing very well, and almost every redevelopment area is meeting its goals and exceeding its revenue projections. While many say the city having some problems meeting its debt obligations, that was not clear from the charts, which showed all of the areas in the black.

The standout redevelopment areas included the Coliseum RDA (which is lower East Oakland from Fruitvale to San Leandro), which strongly outperformed in affordable housing production, with the vast majority of the units aimed at “Very Low Income” households. On the other hand, the Broadway / MacArthur / San Pablo RDA has not produced any affordable housing in its seven years of existence, despite being the pet agency of supposed affordable-housing champion Jane Brunner. The only planned subsidized housing is in the MacArthur BART transit village, which is taking forever and consuming huge amounts of money. The RDA is also cash-poor, so even though 52% of the Conley Report proposal area is in that RDA, Ms. Brunner is very unhappy about contributing to the Specific Plan for retail development.

Downtown (Central District), of course, had the most projects and programs ongoing. $29.7m was set-aside for affordable housing in the last three fiscal years, 568 affordable units were constructed, and $4m was transferred to schools and other agencies (also, the state stole $5.1m to balance the budget). Even though downtown has experienced recent losses of parking spaces, revenue for the city-owned parking garage in the UCOP fell 13%. Of $66.5m spent on projects, $51.9m went to the Uptown district, primarily to Forest City and the Fox Theater. Though the majority of the Tax Increment Funds (TIF) was spent on debt service, there was more than that amount available from bond funds. More stats on downtown at The DTO.

The Stanford-Adeline RDA is winding down, and Oak Center will expire next year, with no more TIF. Some folks, like the ORPN, want to see a rollback of redevelopment areas. It seems that many of the RDA boundaries are arbitrary, and that perhaps the last remaining inner West Oakland RDA could expire along with its neighbor Oak Center. But it is important to have the ability to capture and set-aside revenues from development for specific purposes, which could include public safety. And it’s not like the problem with the police is a lack of General Fund revenue! Without clear priorities and set-asides, the bureaucracy will just eat it all up. Of the redevelopment funds reported in the last three fiscal years, $29.2m went to personnel.