How many housing units could be built at Alameda Point right now? Before the November vote? Any idea?
Eighteen months ago and later, I suggested that the boosters of the pro-active Density Bonus law in Alameda didn’t really understand what they were pushing, and that it was being used for political, rather than practical purposes.
So the question remains, under Measure A, what number of houses can be built at Alameda Point? It’s easy math.
The PDC was roughly 700 acres, and the SunCal initiative covers 918 acres.
Measure A requires 2000 sf per dwelling unit which allows for approx. 22 units per acre.
So in the PDC area, you’re looking at 15,400 units (700 acres x 22 units/acre), and in the overall area it’s over 20,000 dwelling units (918 acres x 22 units/acre).
The reason this won’t happen is that it’s too expensive to clean up the base to allow for this building. It’s not Measure A, it’s the environmental clean up that keeps 20,000+ houses being built.
Which brings us to the Density Bonus. Written by the state to allow developers to supercede charter amendments like measure A which can limit the ability to build housing affordably.
This allows for an increase of up to 35%, if a developer can show that the constraints on building housing make it unaffordable to build. The density bonus requires the developer show that they need concessions from local zoning codes in order to provide the housing.
Showing that building large (and I mean LARGE) apartment/condos on Alameda Point on the cleanest land would save hundreds of millions on clean up would qualify.
This means that a developer could propose 20,700 dwelling units (700 acres x 22 unit/acre + 35% increase in units) on the PDC land, or over 27,000 (918 acres x 22 unit/acre + 35% increase in units) on the land covered by SunCal. All they would have to show is that by allowing them to do away with the “no multi-family dwellings” their project becomes economically feasible, and bingo. Toxics no longer limit development.
So in reality, the SunCal ballot initiative limits housing much further than Measure A…by capping the total number of housing units at the Point.
You know, it’s a bit early in this process to go off the deep end. I would save that until we get a bit closer to the election.
Either that, or this is a strange joke, is that it? An example of transit geek hysteria or something?
Anyway, of course this isn’t true. The density bonus doesn’t override CEQA, it would not allow housing to be built all over the base, or in the form of LARGE buildings, not remotely, as I’m sure you know.
Oh Transit Geek, How Dense You Are
DL: From a pure numbers perspective, how is JKW wrong? Barring all other external factors: toxicity, political will, etc… Measure A + Density Bonus = a whole lot of housing units.
CEQA is not a density or large building limiting measure, it is simply a law that requires that the potential impacts of a project be studied. So I’m not precisely sure how you propose that CEQA would “not allow housing to be built over the base.”
I appreciate you agreeing that the numbers are right.
I agree that CEQA would never let it happen.
It is also true that CEQA will never let more than the 4500-4800 housing units proposed in the ballot initiative happen.
So maybe now, the density bonus hysteria over the SunCal proposal can chill.
I’m saying that you can’t “bar toxicity” — it cannot be overlooked when the housing is sited, and that CEQA would not allow that, since the level of contamination on most of the site will never be mitigated sufficiently to allow residential construction — is that wrong?
So given the portion of the site that can be used for residential construction — this would be the same as what appears in the earlier proposal, wouldn’t it? (Which proposal I don’t feel like reading at the moment, but if need be, I will).
Within that portion of the site, Measure A will allow 1700/1800 units, correct? So then, you need to look at what the density bonus would allow beyond that., which could be anywhere from 20% to 35% more units, depending on the number of affordable units — I don’t see that adding up to 20,000 units.
Also — John — re the “density bonus hysteria” : Please see Table 11-2, on pg 5 of the Community Plan (Exh B), which defines the density in each zoning district. It indicates a range of density, from “17.1 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre” (“du/a”), for example. So, obviously, SunCal has lots of room to expand the number of units per acre.
If that were were not enough, the legend beneath the table states:
“Note: This table represents the maximum build-out for the Plan Area. While development intensities have been assigned to each district, the development intensity can be moved from one district to another to optimize development opportunities.” [=maximum build-out BEFORE density bonus is applied]
Which sounds rather weasel-worded, don’t you think? I mean, what would it take? If they found plutonium out there, would you try and rationalize that too?
And if I need to point this out, the word “hysteria” is inherently sexist, which I somehow thought was obvious, but I guess not. Please find another word, thanks.
DL,
I believe you are actually incorrect on the toxics issue.
A developer could propose housing on the toxic land, claim the Density Bonus, and move the housing off the dirty land to the clean land to build it. They could easily show that the cleanup of the land made the plan economically infeasible, and therefore be able to show the economic benefits of avoiding the multi-family aspects of charter XXVI. the Density bonus law is more than just an increase in density.
I am not advocating this, nor am I suggesting that it’s politically feasible, only that it’s technically possible, much like the concerns folks have raised about the density bonus and the ballot initiative.
However, CEQA would show impacts in traffic and other issues that would make city council acceptance impossible. As would making the SunCal project 6,500 units (or 7,000 in the parlance of people who like hyperbole).
If the SunCal ballot initiative passes, then the total number of possible houses is lowered for the land at Alameda Point unless the voters change it. If it doesn’t pass, the number of housing units that can be built on that land will be nearly four times as high.
I submit that the same decision makers that you don’t trust with the density bonus and the SunCal plan are the same people you are currently trusting not to build 27,000 units out there.
John: To claim that 27,000 units could be built at Alameda Point is preposterous. My best guess is that you’re trying to get that message out somewhere, so the local idiots will say “OMG, whatever we do, let’s get that SunCal in here!” People are not that stupid.
Please explain how most of the site could be used for homes — the Roma report says no such thing. For starters, most of the site is within the Tidelands Trust area, which won’t allow houses to be built — nearly 1,000 acres. So eliminate that. Virtually all of the remaining site requires decontamination, and the small part of the site considered the least contaminated (and chosen for housing in the Roma plan) is on the north side of the site, which SunCal is avoiding due to the liquefaction issues.
You’re saying that developers could claim use of the “clean” part of the site — well, that’s a very limited area, so good luck to them if they want to use it. Under Measure A, that portion of the site will allow 1800 homes, as the Roma plan indicates.
You’re also saying that the contamination and traffic issues are comparable under CEQA, which doesn’t seem credible. SunCal would have to show traffic mitigation in order to build additional homes over the 4,500 to 5,000 it’s proposing (in accordance with the density bonus), which it might be able to do — at least on paper. To show mitigation of a toxic site would be much more difficult.
But of course, this is just a run-around anyway.
http://www.alameda-point.com/APDocs.html
See: 2/2006 – Final Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC) (the Roma plan)
DL,
It’s difficult to have a real conversation with someone who accuses a person of hysteria, and then screams “sexism” when that same person uses it. (See comments 1 and 3).
You’re best guess, referred to above is off the mark. My point, posited twice, is that those who run around screaming the Density Bonus, the Density Bonus have no clue what they are talking about.
Your comment above shows you to be one of those people.
The secondary point is to clarify that the SunCal proposal does not increase the number of houses legally allowed by Measure A on the site, that it would in fact be possible to build SunCal’s plan using the density bonus (with the appropriate political support). The starting point is not “clean land” the starting point is “developable land” which the council could easily zone mixed use.
You have a point on the tidelands trust, though your numbers are off. it’s not possible for there to be 1000 acres of tidelands trust on a 900 acre project site. Feel free to get the real numbers and remove them from the project area, the number of housing units will still be between 15,000 – 20,000 and my point still valid.
Hmmm…if it’s obvious that the word “hysteria” is inherently sexist, why is the phrase “transit geek hysteria” acceptable? I suppose putting it right next to the word “geek” somehow negates the sexism and elevates the whole phrase to the level of reasoned civic discourse.
I have spent weeks reading all the back and forth and have come to a conclusion…..Measure A, no measure A, density bonus, etc….The bottom line is Suncals plan is just not a good one. I have no idea why anyone would want to have 4 to 6 thousand more homes or apartments out on the base. It all boils down to traffic……And, anyone that thinks they are all going to take buses (or the silly pod cars shown in the plan) is living in a dream world. I think I might believe it if all the homes were not built with garages, but we know that is not going to happen. So, I say scrap the entire plan and get both sides together ( this would be very difficult because of the verbal insults back and forth) but not impossible. Let’s try to think of the impact on the entire island and stop trying to make a seperate world out there. We have some big problems facing this town but I think we all will agree it is a wonderful place to live.
JEA: Good point.
JKW: Please give me some cites on what I don’t understand. Thanks.
DL, see above.
Regarding cites, I’m referring to language within the density bonus law itself or a reliable source which backs up what you’re saying here.
As an obvious point, the density bonus does not allow a builder to swap one piece of land for another — or if it does, could I maybe propose building on an underwater site, and then use the density bonus to get a site onland? Jeez, we could all get rich.
And also, fyi, I’m not a big proponent of the “Measure A plus density bonus” plan — I know you’re very critical of this plan — and critical of David Howard as well (who proposed it), for bending the truth, but what the heck are you doing with the claims above?
I’d start with what I wrote, and the links I provided back in 2007.
I have never accused David Howard of bending the truth on the Density Bonus Law. I have said that he doesn’t understand what he’s been advocating for.
What I’m “trying to do” is put the concerns about “SunCal’s Proposal and the Density Law” into perspective with “Existing Conditions and the Density Law.”
Nothing more, nothing less.
The same protections that protect Alameda from a 15-20,000 household plan (not measure a) are the same ones that will protect it from 6,500.
Once that’s understood, we can more calmly discuss the plan and the ballot initiative.
CALM?!?! Why would I be CALM?!?! (Sorry, couldn’t resist)