The biggest decisions
in land-use should have broad public involvement. Whether the decision might be the adoption of
a general plan, downtown specific plan, or rewritten zoning ordinance, extensive
public participation should be part of the process. The involvement might be through a general
vote or it might be through broad public input followed by the decision of an
elected body. Either way, our system of
government demands that the public be involved.
At the other
end of the scale, small and intimate development details, such as whether the
bathroom counters are marble or granite, should be decided privately by the developer. (I’ve known a few planning commissioners who
seemed not to concur, but I discount them.)
These are marketing decisions to which the consumer can respond, but in
which the general public has no legitimate role.
With the two
ends of the spectrum defined, there’s a wide expanse of development decisions. How tall can a building be? What setbacks apply? What size residential units should be
provided? How much parking should be
provided? What color should the cornices
be painted? How should the interior
public spaces be decorated?
To deal with
those decisions, we’ve devised a broad range of decision-making systems. Zoning codes set standards to which most
project details conform. Warrants and/or
variances may allow divergence from zoning codes. Smaller projects may be subject only to administrative
review. Bigger projects may appear
before design review boards, hearing officers, planning commissions and/or city
councils, some of which allow public comment.
And that’s before we consider the role of court system which is occasionally
pulled into the process.
As regular readers
know, I’m not enamored with the current land-use entitlement system. I think it imposes obstacles to urbanism that
are unfortunate and harmful to our long-term good.
Nonetheless,
the land-use entitlement system is a finely-tuned edifice to which tinkering
should be done carefully and only with a well-conceived plan.
But a group
of San Franciscans are taking a sledge hammer to that edifice. They have proposed Measure B, which will
appear on the June ballot. Measure B will
require a city-wide vote for any project that doesn’t conform to height
restrictions now in place along the waterfront.
Forget the rules for changing the established heights. Ignore the role of the Board of
Supervisors. If a developer wants to
build a project one foot taller than the established limit, the project goes to
the voters.
Propelled by
an effective slogan “Let the people decide”, Measure B zoomed to a big lead in
the early polls. More recent polls show
that the lead has diminished, which is fine because Measure B is a bad idea.
I’m not
being dismissive toward the voters. I
believe much broad wisdom can only be discovered when the entire electorate
participates. But the electorate often
struggles to make fine distinctions. Is
it reasonable to allow a building to exceed the height limit by five feet if it
provides a well-configured public park at its base? How about ten extra feet if the result is
twenty extra low-income apartments?
Those are subtle questions that should be carefully weighed, not voted
upon by members of the general public, some of whom will make up their minds by
reading slogans on lawn signs.
Also, if we
give the electorate the right to vote on building heights near the waterfront
now, what other subjects might become subject to voting? C.W. Nevius of the San Francisco Chronicle
summed up this concern in his editorial of April 26. “If this is such a good idea, why stop
there? Shouldn’t other neighborhoods be
able to vote on height limitations? Or
homeless shelters? Or Muni routes? Or whether the Mayor should have soup or
salad for lunch?”
In a follow-up editorial of May 24, Nevius makes
another good point about Measure B. In both
its public face and its fundraising, only a few people are involved. Those folks are likely to continue their
interest in the development of the parcels affected by Measure B. If the ballot measure passes, it’s likely
that future developers who wish to exceed a height limit will need to make
accommodations with these folks, after which the developers can tout the
backing of the shadowy power brokers during the election campaign.
In our rush to
take decision-making away from the back rooms at city hall, we risk putting the
decision-making in the back room of luxury condos. It wouldn’t be a good trade-off.
My
opposition to Measure B doesn’t imply that I favor more height. As I written before, it can be a design
challenge to integrate people who live more than six stories in the air with
the sidewalk where walkable urbanism must occur.
But the best
urban solution can sometimes be three or four stories of zero setback mixed-use
topped by a reduced footprint spire that contains another ten stories of
residential space. Vancouver is known
for this style of urbanism. If Measure B
forces this type of site solution to a public vote, then urbanism suffers.
We need to
make changes in the land-use entitlement process and we need to make them
urgently. But Measure B is a step in the
wrong direction. And I don’t want a bad
idea to take root in San Francisco from where it can spread to the North Bay.
(Acknowledgement:
I had no personal role in the 8 Washington project, the controversial proposed
development which led to Measure B. But
I know and have worked with people who were involved. I didn’t favor every detail of 8 Washington,
but believe that San Francisco would have been a better place with it than
without it.)
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment