New housing group says action needed
James Faulk The Times-Standard
04/27/2007
EUREKA -- Housing for All, a new housing advocacy group, is asking the county Board of Supervisors to put into action concepts that they believe will help address the lack of affordable housing in Humboldt County.
The group held a press conference at the Humboldt County Courthouse Thursday to announce its mission to bring solutions to the table in the ongoing debate over how to provide housing for all income levels, but especially the poor.
Citing figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, the group pointed out that Humboldt County has the highest percentage in the state of people paying more than 29 percent of their income for housing, at 57.5 percent of renters.
”These people are living more on the edge,” said Kermit Thobaben, a Housing for All spokesman.
A broad range of housing is necessary, he said, including homes and apartments for low- and very-low income households.
”The market has been able to provide housing for people in the higher incomes range, but not for moderate, low- and very-low incomes,” said Rebecca Price-Hall.
Nearly everyone rents at some point in their lives, and it's pivotal that those choices are available, Thobaben said.
Housing for All wants to ensure that the Board of Supervisors takes action soon to make sure there are housing choices for everyone in the county over the next 20 years, Thobaben said.
The press release announcing Thursday's event seemed to take on the recently filed Humboldt Sunshine lawsuit against the county.
But during the press conference, organizers said they weren't against anyone -- rather they're fighting to give a voice to people normally outside the process -- the poor, the people who are living on the edge and paying too much of their income for housing, Thobaben said.
The group is not in a position to question motivations for that suit, he said.
”We're not against anybody, but we're for movement and action,” said Thobaben. “I would hope that these parties could look at our points and find some common ground.”
The most important of these, the group says in its press release, is a strong and effective inclusionary zoning policy.
”If we in Humboldt County are serious about providing affordable housing, then all new developments must include a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all income levels,” the release states.
The group said it intends to speak for those who often don't or can't speak for themselves in the Humboldt County General Plan update process.
Box:
Recommendations
* Establish strong inclusionary zoning policies to require that new residential developments include a percentage of housing for moderate, low- and very-low incomes.
* Identify a greater supply of buildable sites with appropriate infrastructure for higher-density housing that is affordable to moderate, low- and very-low income families.
* Identify sites available for homeless shelters and transitional housing.
* Create overlay zones with higher density allowances and provide incentives for providing low- and very-low income housing.
* Encourage mixed-use zoning, mixed-income developments and a broader variety of housing types.
* Reduce or eliminate minimum house size requirements, allow smaller lot sizes, and revise setbacks, lot coverages, parking requirements and solar shading ordinances to accommodate higher density developments.
* Ensure that lots appropriated and reserved for low-income housing are not used for any other kind of development.
* Provide regulatory clarity and public support for
those developers who are willing to take on the difficult task of providing low- and very-low income housing.
James Faulk can be reached at 441-0511 or jfaulk@times-standard.com.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
Linking Social Equity and Smart Growth
WorldChanging TeamMarch 31, 2007
by Worldchanging SF local blogger, Holly Pearson:
Peter Cohen has witnessed the unnoticed darker side of the Smart Growth movement as much as anyone in the Bay Area has.
As Director of the Community Planning Program at the non-profit organization Asian Neighborhood Design (AND), which works with community groups, neighbors and residents of San Francisco in the development and revitalization of their communities, Peter is one of a handful of urban planning professionals in the Bay Area who are working to create mechanisms for linking new public benefits, such as affordable housing and community facilities, to urban infill development projects. The aim is to minimize and mitigate the unintended negative socio-economic impacts of the kind of development promoted by progressive models of urban planning like Smart Growth, New Urbanism, and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).
Although the driving objectives of these movements are to curb sprawl and build compact, environmentally sustainable communities, promoting densification and encouraging a high concentration of new development in older city neighborhoods can unintentionally result in gentrification. Many neighborhoods that are located near city centers and have vacant or underutilized land that’s suitable for relatively dense new development have historically been home to lower-income, working-class populations. When policy frameworks and economic incentives are enacted to attract new development in these areas, they often have the inadvertent effect of driving up housing costs and changing the demographics of communities, sometimes to the point of pushing long-time working-class residents out of the neighborhood.
It’s a phenomenon that Peter Cohen has observed increasingly during the recent development boom years in San Francisco. AND’s Community Planning Program focuses its efforts on the city’s lower-income eastern neighborhoods, including Chinatown, the Tenderloin, South of Market, the Mission, Bayview Hunter’s Point, and Visitacion Valley. Each of these neighborhoods has experienced the pressures of new development to some extent -- some have already undergone widespread gentrification while others are just starting to deal with these issues.
According to Peter, most advocates of Smart Growth and other current models of sustainable urban development don’t pay much attention to the sociological impacts on existing neighborhoods. He explains, "There’s an attitude among a lot of the planning community in San Francisco that density is good for density’s sake -- that a denser city is inevitably a better urban environment. My response is that density is not necessarily inherently good. You also have to look at issues of diversity, accessibility, and livability." Even if new development patterns bring about positive physical changes to an urban landscape, like better access to public transportation and greater energy efficiency, if factors like ethnic diversity and affordability are sacrificed, then has sustainability really been achieved?
But the Smart Growth and TOD models and encouragement of new urban infill development don’t have to be at odds with social equity. A new approach that’s being tested in San Francisco is to create and codify mechanisms that redistribute wealth directly from development profits to those sectors of the community that have historically lived in central city neighborhoods and older city suburbs. It’s about meeting community needs. It’s about respecting and benefiting the existing residents of a community and maintaining diversity while accommodating growth, increasing density, and creating compact, transit-accessible neighborhoods.
So how can these more holistic objectives be achieved on the ground? What possible new approaches might allow new infill development while ensuring the continued socio-economic vitality of existing neighborhoods? That’s what Peter Cohen’s Community Planning Program and other like-minded groups in the Bay Area have been trying to answer.
Peter Cohen was instrumental in drafting the proposed "Better Neighborhoods Plus" legislation—an enhanced version of the City of San Francisco’s Better Neighborhoods program. One of the ideas that Better Neighborhoods Plus sought to accomplish was to link the impact of new development with mitigation measures which benefit the community, and ensure that these mitigations are financed as part of a neighborhood plan. The proposed legislation was designed to apply to six designated areas for which the City has already initiated neighborhood planning processes: Mission, Showplace/Lower Potrero Hill, East SoMa, Central Waterfront, Upper Market/Octavia, and Inner Geary Boulevard. But it was also intended to establish more general standards to be used for all long-range planning initiatives.
As part of the neighborhood planning and implementation process, Better Neighborhoods Plus called for:
Preparation of a Neighborhood Baseline Conditions and Needs Analysis, which would identify existing shortfalls in infrastructure and community amenities that are lacking in a neighborhood, such as transit, open space, housing, neighborhood-serving businesses, and community facilities and other key amenities.
Preparation of a New Development Impacts Analysis. The topics addressed through this analysis could include a much wider array than is conventionally done in planning studies which typically focus on urban design, transportation and public service infrastructure, thereby allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of the impacts of new development on a community.
Recommendation of a Public Improvements Plan and Funding Strategy, including proposed funding mechanisms. Examples of the types of public improvements that could be funded under Better Neighborhoods Plus include affordable housing, economic development and employment training, community facilities and services, open space, and historic and cultural resources protection. Suggested strategies for paying for and mitigating the impacts include new development impacts fees, utilization of existing funding sources, and other funding from special benefits districts.
Although the Better Neighborhoods Plus legislation did not pass, the important result of this initiative is that the ideas have been articulated and framed as a methodology, and the issue of integrating social equity and community development goals with new urban development projects has entered the local planning dialogue.
A related initiative with a successful outcome is a recently adopted City ordinance, which was a piece of that sweeping Better Neighborhoods Plus proposal, which requires closer interaction between agencies in implementing public improvements that are promised in new area plans for the City’s eastern neighborhoods. Peter Cohen and AND’s Community Planning Program were involved in the crafting of this relatively simple ordinance, the purpose of which is to enhance the participation of various City departments and agencies (e.g. the Municipal Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Redevelopment Agency, Mayor’s Office of Community Development, Department of Recreation and Parks, etc) in the preparation and implementation of community benefits plans. It’s also intended to provide a means by which the various parties interested in neighborhood improvement programs can stay informed and provide input and support. The ordinance provides a mechanism for coordination between the departments and for dialogue with the community, in the hopes that these relationships will streamline the delivery of community benefits for those areas of the city that are most in need of improvements.
This past fall the City also strengthened its inclusionary housing ordinance, now one of the most progressive in the state, and AND’s Community Planning Program was involved in the technical analysis behind drafting the ordinance and advocating for its passage. One of the studies being produced by an interdisciplinary working group brought together by the city was a Residential Nexus Analysis. A draft of that study shows that the development of market-rate housing does generate significant demand for affordable housing, a finding which supports the City’s inclusionary policies and provides a foundation for future actions towards affordable housing. So public benefits mechanisms to further increase affordable housing are still needed, and are in the works. One mechanism that is being explored as a part of various planning proposals is the recapture of benefits conferred by the private sector on properties, through rezoning or other City actions. The City is exploring strategies of securing a portion of that benefit so that it can be rededicated back into the community, in the form of needed low-cost housing, open space, or other amenities for the community.
Another victory for Peter and AND in the effort to promote more equitable development was a resolution recently passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors which articulates a public policy framework for preparing and evaluating new neighborhood plans for the city’s eastern neighborhoods. The policies outlined apply to the Mission, East SoMa, Potrero Hill and the Central Waterfront, though the policy sentiment is really applicable citywide, and they relate to objectives such as the development of new affordable housing, the retention and expansion of industrial and other working-class jobs, and the promotion of arts venues as well as work spaces and affordable housing for artists.
"All these initiatives are pieces of a puzzle that I think is moving the policy framework towards more of an equitable development outcome," says Peter.
In order to further advance these efforts, Peter and other planning experts who are concerned about social sustainability agree that urban and regional planning needs to become more proactive, addressing not only land use considerations from a regulatory standpoint, but also looking at the relationship between the physical form and socio-economic conditions of cities and actively seeking to promote sound community development principles. Understanding that new development, and specifically more compact forms of urban development, are necessary in order to accommodate future growth, reduce traffic and sprawl, protect open space and air and water quality, and preserve our high standard of living in the Bay Area, Peter would like to see developers become "enlightened capitalists." This means developers who fully consider and understand the range of impacts that arise when new development is introduced into existing neighborhoods, and who recognize the importance of preserving affordability, enhancing community assets, and protecting less tangible qualities like neighborhood character
by Worldchanging SF local blogger, Holly Pearson:
Peter Cohen has witnessed the unnoticed darker side of the Smart Growth movement as much as anyone in the Bay Area has.
As Director of the Community Planning Program at the non-profit organization Asian Neighborhood Design (AND), which works with community groups, neighbors and residents of San Francisco in the development and revitalization of their communities, Peter is one of a handful of urban planning professionals in the Bay Area who are working to create mechanisms for linking new public benefits, such as affordable housing and community facilities, to urban infill development projects. The aim is to minimize and mitigate the unintended negative socio-economic impacts of the kind of development promoted by progressive models of urban planning like Smart Growth, New Urbanism, and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).
Although the driving objectives of these movements are to curb sprawl and build compact, environmentally sustainable communities, promoting densification and encouraging a high concentration of new development in older city neighborhoods can unintentionally result in gentrification. Many neighborhoods that are located near city centers and have vacant or underutilized land that’s suitable for relatively dense new development have historically been home to lower-income, working-class populations. When policy frameworks and economic incentives are enacted to attract new development in these areas, they often have the inadvertent effect of driving up housing costs and changing the demographics of communities, sometimes to the point of pushing long-time working-class residents out of the neighborhood.
It’s a phenomenon that Peter Cohen has observed increasingly during the recent development boom years in San Francisco. AND’s Community Planning Program focuses its efforts on the city’s lower-income eastern neighborhoods, including Chinatown, the Tenderloin, South of Market, the Mission, Bayview Hunter’s Point, and Visitacion Valley. Each of these neighborhoods has experienced the pressures of new development to some extent -- some have already undergone widespread gentrification while others are just starting to deal with these issues.
According to Peter, most advocates of Smart Growth and other current models of sustainable urban development don’t pay much attention to the sociological impacts on existing neighborhoods. He explains, "There’s an attitude among a lot of the planning community in San Francisco that density is good for density’s sake -- that a denser city is inevitably a better urban environment. My response is that density is not necessarily inherently good. You also have to look at issues of diversity, accessibility, and livability." Even if new development patterns bring about positive physical changes to an urban landscape, like better access to public transportation and greater energy efficiency, if factors like ethnic diversity and affordability are sacrificed, then has sustainability really been achieved?
But the Smart Growth and TOD models and encouragement of new urban infill development don’t have to be at odds with social equity. A new approach that’s being tested in San Francisco is to create and codify mechanisms that redistribute wealth directly from development profits to those sectors of the community that have historically lived in central city neighborhoods and older city suburbs. It’s about meeting community needs. It’s about respecting and benefiting the existing residents of a community and maintaining diversity while accommodating growth, increasing density, and creating compact, transit-accessible neighborhoods.
So how can these more holistic objectives be achieved on the ground? What possible new approaches might allow new infill development while ensuring the continued socio-economic vitality of existing neighborhoods? That’s what Peter Cohen’s Community Planning Program and other like-minded groups in the Bay Area have been trying to answer.
Peter Cohen was instrumental in drafting the proposed "Better Neighborhoods Plus" legislation—an enhanced version of the City of San Francisco’s Better Neighborhoods program. One of the ideas that Better Neighborhoods Plus sought to accomplish was to link the impact of new development with mitigation measures which benefit the community, and ensure that these mitigations are financed as part of a neighborhood plan. The proposed legislation was designed to apply to six designated areas for which the City has already initiated neighborhood planning processes: Mission, Showplace/Lower Potrero Hill, East SoMa, Central Waterfront, Upper Market/Octavia, and Inner Geary Boulevard. But it was also intended to establish more general standards to be used for all long-range planning initiatives.
As part of the neighborhood planning and implementation process, Better Neighborhoods Plus called for:
Preparation of a Neighborhood Baseline Conditions and Needs Analysis, which would identify existing shortfalls in infrastructure and community amenities that are lacking in a neighborhood, such as transit, open space, housing, neighborhood-serving businesses, and community facilities and other key amenities.
Preparation of a New Development Impacts Analysis. The topics addressed through this analysis could include a much wider array than is conventionally done in planning studies which typically focus on urban design, transportation and public service infrastructure, thereby allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of the impacts of new development on a community.
Recommendation of a Public Improvements Plan and Funding Strategy, including proposed funding mechanisms. Examples of the types of public improvements that could be funded under Better Neighborhoods Plus include affordable housing, economic development and employment training, community facilities and services, open space, and historic and cultural resources protection. Suggested strategies for paying for and mitigating the impacts include new development impacts fees, utilization of existing funding sources, and other funding from special benefits districts.
Although the Better Neighborhoods Plus legislation did not pass, the important result of this initiative is that the ideas have been articulated and framed as a methodology, and the issue of integrating social equity and community development goals with new urban development projects has entered the local planning dialogue.
A related initiative with a successful outcome is a recently adopted City ordinance, which was a piece of that sweeping Better Neighborhoods Plus proposal, which requires closer interaction between agencies in implementing public improvements that are promised in new area plans for the City’s eastern neighborhoods. Peter Cohen and AND’s Community Planning Program were involved in the crafting of this relatively simple ordinance, the purpose of which is to enhance the participation of various City departments and agencies (e.g. the Municipal Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Redevelopment Agency, Mayor’s Office of Community Development, Department of Recreation and Parks, etc) in the preparation and implementation of community benefits plans. It’s also intended to provide a means by which the various parties interested in neighborhood improvement programs can stay informed and provide input and support. The ordinance provides a mechanism for coordination between the departments and for dialogue with the community, in the hopes that these relationships will streamline the delivery of community benefits for those areas of the city that are most in need of improvements.
This past fall the City also strengthened its inclusionary housing ordinance, now one of the most progressive in the state, and AND’s Community Planning Program was involved in the technical analysis behind drafting the ordinance and advocating for its passage. One of the studies being produced by an interdisciplinary working group brought together by the city was a Residential Nexus Analysis. A draft of that study shows that the development of market-rate housing does generate significant demand for affordable housing, a finding which supports the City’s inclusionary policies and provides a foundation for future actions towards affordable housing. So public benefits mechanisms to further increase affordable housing are still needed, and are in the works. One mechanism that is being explored as a part of various planning proposals is the recapture of benefits conferred by the private sector on properties, through rezoning or other City actions. The City is exploring strategies of securing a portion of that benefit so that it can be rededicated back into the community, in the form of needed low-cost housing, open space, or other amenities for the community.
Another victory for Peter and AND in the effort to promote more equitable development was a resolution recently passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors which articulates a public policy framework for preparing and evaluating new neighborhood plans for the city’s eastern neighborhoods. The policies outlined apply to the Mission, East SoMa, Potrero Hill and the Central Waterfront, though the policy sentiment is really applicable citywide, and they relate to objectives such as the development of new affordable housing, the retention and expansion of industrial and other working-class jobs, and the promotion of arts venues as well as work spaces and affordable housing for artists.
"All these initiatives are pieces of a puzzle that I think is moving the policy framework towards more of an equitable development outcome," says Peter.
In order to further advance these efforts, Peter and other planning experts who are concerned about social sustainability agree that urban and regional planning needs to become more proactive, addressing not only land use considerations from a regulatory standpoint, but also looking at the relationship between the physical form and socio-economic conditions of cities and actively seeking to promote sound community development principles. Understanding that new development, and specifically more compact forms of urban development, are necessary in order to accommodate future growth, reduce traffic and sprawl, protect open space and air and water quality, and preserve our high standard of living in the Bay Area, Peter would like to see developers become "enlightened capitalists." This means developers who fully consider and understand the range of impacts that arise when new development is introduced into existing neighborhoods, and who recognize the importance of preserving affordability, enhancing community assets, and protecting less tangible qualities like neighborhood character
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Want a mix of housing? Require it!
Article published - Apr 2, 2007 by Chris Coursey
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat
It makes sense to concentrate new development downtown, as city officials envision with the Station Area Plan that was reviewed last week by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission.It's a positive step to plan for 3,249 housing units and 6,000 extra residents close to the city's core. It's a wise move to pair that residential development with 300,000 square feet of shops and restaurants and 200,000 square feet of office space.But there's a big hole in this plan, and it flies in the face of its theme of "transit-oriented development."Nowhere does it require affordable housing.Some city officials take issue with that statement. The plan, after all, includes as part of its "vision" a statement that it will "provide for a range of housing choices and support a diverse population." There's even a line that states, "Housing is affordable ... "But having a vision of affordable housing is a lot different than having a requirement for it.Santa Rosa Mayor Bob Blanchard says affordable housing "is a valid issue" and it will be "a subject of discussion and review.""You've got to have it," he said.But he and other city officials have said in the past that affordable hous- ing already exists downtown. They also have said that by allowing higher densities and a mix of housing types downtown there will be a mix of housing prices.Both of those statements are true. But the affordable housing that exists downtown is a tiny fraction of the amount of new housing proposed in this plan. And unless developers are required to produce affordable units, does anyone really believe that a single new home will be sold or rented for a penny less than what the market will bear?Santa Rosa's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires developers either to include below-market-rate housing in their projects or pay an "in-lieu" fee to a fund the city uses to subsidize housing elsewhere.The 650 downtown acres included in the Station Area Plan aren't exempt from that ordinance.The problem is builders only are required to include affordable hous- ing if the project is larger than 15 acres - and none of the properties within the plan area is that big, said city planner Ken MacNab.Further, the city exempts "mixed- use" projects from the ordinance, based on the expectation that multi-story projects with ground-floor retail or office space will include a mix of sizes and styles of housing, thereby creating a mix of prices.But the "mix" created so far ranges from high-priced to higher- priced. Developers predict condos in three high-rise buildings approved along Third Street will sell for $400,000 to $1 million. Monthly rents in a new mixed-use building off of College Avenue range from more than $1,300 for a one-bedroom apartment to almost $2,400 for some two-bedrooms.No doubt the developers will be able to charge those prices, but at what cost? Who are the people who will be able to pay them?The key priority of the Station Area Plan is to create "transit- oriented development" downtown. It is designed to provide more places to live close to a future commuter railroad, and place residential development closer to jobs.But empty-nest retirees living in downtown penthouses aren't going to fill the seats on a commuter train, and the waiters and baristas and clerks who work in all those new downtown businesses aren't going to live in $600,000 condos.If city officials truly want variety downtown - young and old, singles and families, retirees and office workers, shoppers and sales clerks - then they need to create housing that is affordable to people with a variety of incomes.And the only sure way to get that is to require it.
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat
It makes sense to concentrate new development downtown, as city officials envision with the Station Area Plan that was reviewed last week by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission.It's a positive step to plan for 3,249 housing units and 6,000 extra residents close to the city's core. It's a wise move to pair that residential development with 300,000 square feet of shops and restaurants and 200,000 square feet of office space.But there's a big hole in this plan, and it flies in the face of its theme of "transit-oriented development."Nowhere does it require affordable housing.Some city officials take issue with that statement. The plan, after all, includes as part of its "vision" a statement that it will "provide for a range of housing choices and support a diverse population." There's even a line that states, "Housing is affordable ... "But having a vision of affordable housing is a lot different than having a requirement for it.Santa Rosa Mayor Bob Blanchard says affordable housing "is a valid issue" and it will be "a subject of discussion and review.""You've got to have it," he said.But he and other city officials have said in the past that affordable hous- ing already exists downtown. They also have said that by allowing higher densities and a mix of housing types downtown there will be a mix of housing prices.Both of those statements are true. But the affordable housing that exists downtown is a tiny fraction of the amount of new housing proposed in this plan. And unless developers are required to produce affordable units, does anyone really believe that a single new home will be sold or rented for a penny less than what the market will bear?Santa Rosa's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires developers either to include below-market-rate housing in their projects or pay an "in-lieu" fee to a fund the city uses to subsidize housing elsewhere.The 650 downtown acres included in the Station Area Plan aren't exempt from that ordinance.The problem is builders only are required to include affordable hous- ing if the project is larger than 15 acres - and none of the properties within the plan area is that big, said city planner Ken MacNab.Further, the city exempts "mixed- use" projects from the ordinance, based on the expectation that multi-story projects with ground-floor retail or office space will include a mix of sizes and styles of housing, thereby creating a mix of prices.But the "mix" created so far ranges from high-priced to higher- priced. Developers predict condos in three high-rise buildings approved along Third Street will sell for $400,000 to $1 million. Monthly rents in a new mixed-use building off of College Avenue range from more than $1,300 for a one-bedroom apartment to almost $2,400 for some two-bedrooms.No doubt the developers will be able to charge those prices, but at what cost? Who are the people who will be able to pay them?The key priority of the Station Area Plan is to create "transit- oriented development" downtown. It is designed to provide more places to live close to a future commuter railroad, and place residential development closer to jobs.But empty-nest retirees living in downtown penthouses aren't going to fill the seats on a commuter train, and the waiters and baristas and clerks who work in all those new downtown businesses aren't going to live in $600,000 condos.If city officials truly want variety downtown - young and old, singles and families, retirees and office workers, shoppers and sales clerks - then they need to create housing that is affordable to people with a variety of incomes.And the only sure way to get that is to require it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
