Planning Commissioner Kathrin Moore was Honored at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Meeting.

Planning Commissioner Moore slipped away with her husband, Bill, after swarms of photographers and well-wishers piled on the love and affection at the City Hall ceremony honoring one of our own for her years of exceptional service. Photo by zrants.

“This notable occasion, the celebration of Commissioner Moore’s election to the position as Fellow of the prestigious American Institute of Certified Planners, gives us the opportunity to thank her for her past service and appeal to both her and the Board of Supervisors to continue her invaluable service on the Planning Commission.  This recognition by her peers reinforces what we have seen consistently now for nearly twelve years.” – Jim Warshell, Co-Chair, Van Ness Corridor Neighborhoods Council 

Thank you Commissioner Moore and congratulations on this honor.

Commissioner Moore’s continued service is supported by Noe neighborhood council  and many other neighborhood groups who she has worked with to bring about better projects that satisfy developers and neighbors. Please encourage Kathrin’s continued service: Petition Please Reappoint Planning Commissioner Kathrin Moore

 

Advertisements

Mayor Brand to CA Legislature: Instead of Simplistic Supply Side SB827, Give Cities Resources

By Mayor Bill Brand : planningreport – excerpt

“We want to pass a statewide citizen-led initiative that amends the state constitution to protect local zoning and land-use regulations.” – Mayor Bill Brand

In reaction to legislation threatening to usurp local control of housing and land-use policy by the state, mayors and local officials are mobilizing to enshrine their decision-making jurisdiction in the California Constitution. Redondo Beach—one of the top 25 densest cities in Southern California—is one of those cities.  With a housing density greater that SF, it has supported investment in transportation infrastructure and new job creation, but has been critical of new development mandates. Mayor Bill Brand, in this TPR interview, opines on the current housing policy dialogue in California in the wake of SB 827 demise. Brand, who previously was elected to the Redondo Beach City Council on a slow-growth platform, is clear in his sentiment that state legislation relying on upzoning R1 neighborhoods is a patently “absurd” approach to generating more affordable housing supply in our lifetimes…

Bill Brand: The state’s current effort is a giant overreach that goes far beyond where they should be going…

Some of the bills coming out of Sacramento would exacerbate the problems we have here. And that’s a common theme I’m hearing from other local elected officials: that many recent state bills are out of touch with the complex land-use decisions we have to make. We feel like Sacramento dial turning is exacerbating complex local problems that require local solutions, and we are strongly opposed to it…

That’s another issue we have with the bills coming down from Sacramento. If residential density paid, we’d be a very rich community. As it turns out, we’re not, because it’s really commercial that pays, and that’s what we lack.

One of the consequences of Prop 13 is that cities look to attract successful commercial and hotel. Still, I remember when it was passed—and why. I think a lot of people have forgotten that older people were being forced out of their homes. The state was coming in with big reassessments, and people’s property tax bills were going up. It was creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty and hardship around the state.

Prop 13 was created to serve a purpose. While it created other challenges, I do think Prop 13 fixed a bigger problem, and that if we tried to repeal it, we would probably end up right back where we were… (more)

It is good to hear from other communities in the state that do not have the problems we have in the Bay Area to get a different on our own situation. This is most enlightening.

How SF loses affordable housing almost as fast as it gets built

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt (includes graph)

For every ten new affordable units we create, evictions cost us about six. Plus: Sup. Fewer tries to cut rent hikes…

The Planning Commission will hear a report Thursday/24 on the city’s latest housing balance figures – and the data includes some startling information that helps explain why homelessness is such an intractable problem…

In the past ten years, the data shows, the city has added 6,515 units of affordable housing – and lost 4,221 units, mostly to Ellis Act and Owner Move-In evictions.

That means, in essence, that every time we build 100 units of affordable housing, we lose about 60 units to evictions. Add in the number of evictions that are never reported, the number of rent-controlled units lost to Airbnb, and the number of people who lose their jobs or are told to leave after crashing with friends or family and you can see how every month, on average, 100 more people become homeless in San Francisco…

The bottom line – although the Planning Department report doesn’t say it: We can’t solve the homeless crisis until we solve the eviction crisis. And keeping people in their homes is far, far cheaper than helping them get off the streets.

I wonder why that never made it into the Department’s report.

Sup. Sandra Lee Fewer has a proposal that will help a lot of tenants, might prevent some evictions, and will reign in some of the worst abuses of big speculative landlords…(more)

 

 

For the New Urban Density Hawks, Community Character is Not an Option

By John Mirisch : citywatchla – excerpt

GUEST WORDS–Urban planning exists to serve people and communities, not the other way around. Unfortunately, urban planners these days, perhaps under the influence of academic arrogance as well as the lure of developer dollars, seem to forget this simple truism.

A particularly invidious form of planning orthodoxy involves certain adherents of so-called “new urbanism,” which looks at density, more density and only density as the hallmark of the (for them) only acceptable form of urban living.

Without considering that people of all colors, stripes and ethnicities might like to have gardens, these urban planning densifiers support policies whose main aims are to eliminate low-density housing, without regard to preservation of the integrity of communities or without acknowledging that community character means anything.

The new urbanist density hawks also use other “arguments” apart from social justice to make their moral case for high-density, including, importantly, environmental considerations. Never mind the fact that even studiesdone by density advocates show that the supposed benefits of increased density on the environment would be marginal, at best. But that doesn’t dampen the rhetoric. Far from it. Some of the most strident density fetishists decrysingle-family neighborhoods as “the enemy” and proclaim homeowners to be nothing less than “zoo animals” and “bloodthirsty dinosaurs,” who are “angry, entitled, immoral, classist and racist.”…(more)

De-humanizing fits well into the Urban landscape that embraces robots and machines over human beings, and has been ushered into our communities under the “sharing business model”. Those of us who saw this coming and rebelled by calling it “renting not sharing”, are being vindicated as the politicians who sold us out are now under pressure to push back against the monsters they created. The sick thing is that they used taxpayer dollars to pay the lobbyists who wrote the legislation they are now stuck with. Of course any laws that make can be broken, so let’s see how long it takes for them to fix what they broke.

comments welcome at the source.

CaRLA lines up cities to sue

This is YIMBY, who is supporting CaRLA and pushing legislation to allow more lawsuits against cities by taking state power away from local jurisdictions. This is why we oppose YIMBY and the state legislators who are pushing these bills. This one is SB 827. The Board of Supervisors voted to oppose it 8-3, but, San Francisco voters need to join the millions of California voters all over the state to pressure their state representatives, Wiener, Ting and Chiu, to withdraw SB 827, 828 and all the other bills that YIMBY is pushing.

SB 827 Wiener, Transit-rich height increase. This bill would impose a state-mandated local program based on a Transit-rich housing density bonus, (amendments),  Amended and referred to Sen Transportation and Housing Committee. This one was killed in Committee.

SB 828 Wiener, Housing Element change. Establish a methodology for the comprehensive assessment on unmet need for a prescribed number of units of housing built in each local area. Sen Transportation and Housing Committee. This is now on suspension in the Appropriations Committee.

 

Plan for marina at Clipper Cove gets no support from supervisors’ committee

By Dominic Fracassa : sfchronicle – excerpt

Sailing near Clipper Cove photo by zrants

A long-running and controversial proposal to build a private marina at Clipper Cove, a stretch of calm water between Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, appeared to suffer a setback Monday at the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee.

After extensive public comment, the committee unanimously passed a resolution affirming the city’s commitment to preserving Clipper Cove as an important public recreation space and educational area. The resolution was introduced by Supervisor Jane Kim, whose district includes Treasure Island.

Kim’s resolution doesn’t kill the marina plan. But the tenor of the measure, with its repeated calls to preserve the cove for public use, provides a glimpse at how city lawmakers want to see it used.

Clipper Cove is a cherished spot for sailing enthusiasts, and given its calm waters and protection from winds, it’s used extensively for sailing instruction, largely through the nonprofit Treasure Island Sailing Center.

That’s a big reason for the public’s concerns behind the proposal to build a 313-slip private marina at Clipper Cove capable of parking boats up to 80 feet long. Critics say a marina of that size would take up about 32 percent of the cove, potentially eliminating opportunities for amateur sailors, who would otherwise be forced to head farther east, into choppier waters….

“My preference is that we keep our commitment to public recreation and environmental protection in this public open space,” Kim said.. (more)

RELATED:
Proposed Treasure Island marina faces hurdles :
“Clipper Cove is the Dolores Park of the bay,” said Bryan Schrayer, a sailor who frequents Clipper Cove. “You wouldn’t let somebody mow that over for a parking lot.” Around 2,000 fourth and fifth graders from San Francisco Unified School District’s sailing and STEM program flock to Clipper Cove each … (more)

 

 

The Urban Humanism Manifesto: Putting Communities First

By John Mirisch : newgeography – excerpt

Construction comes with a high cost to residents’ health. All is not rosy for the residents of the new Mission Bay housing springing up along the San Francisco Bay who are getting a dose of dust and contaminants from the piles of excavated dirt blowing their way. Photo by zrants.

Urban planning exists to serve people and communities, not the other way around. Unfortunately, urban planners these days, perhaps under the influence of academic arrogance as well as the lure of developer dollars, seem to forget this simple truism.

A particularly invidious form of planning orthodoxy involves certain adherents of so-called “new urbanism,” which looks at density, more density and only density as the hallmark of the (for them) only acceptable form of urban living.

Without considering that people of all colors, stripes and ethnicities might like to have gardens, these urban planning densifiers support policies whose main aims are to eliminate low-density housing, without regard to preservation of the integrity of communities or without acknowledging that community character means anything.

The new urbanist density hawks also use other “arguments” apart from social justice to make their moral case for high-density, including, importantly, environmental considerations. Never mind the fact that even studies done by density advocates show that the supposed benefits of increased density on the environment would be marginal, at best. But that doesn’t dampen the rhetoric. Far from it. Some of the most strident density fetishists decry single-family neighborhoods as “the enemy” and proclaim homeowners to be nothing less than “zoo animals” and “bloodthirsty dinosaurs,” who are “angry, entitled, immoral, classist and racist.”… (more)

How livable are the new dense urban environments? How healthy are residents living in a perpetual construction zone?

CVP challenges the Draft EIR for the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Rehab Project

By Bob Silvestri : marinpost – excerpt

Community Venture Partners  has sent the following public comment letter to Dan Dawson, Principal Transportation Planner in charge of the proposed Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Rehabilitation Project and its Draft Environmental Impact Report:

Dear Mr. Dawson:

We have reviewed the SFD DEIR and respectfully submit the following comments:

As you know, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard is one of the most important thoroughfares in the county and it is well known for its intolerable traffic congestion. After reviewing the DEIR, CVP questions whether the improvements being proposed won’t in fact make traffic congestion even worse. The proposed changes to the roadway include reconfiguration of all the major intersections and per your descriptions, “modifications” (narrowing) of the vehicular traffic lane widths for the entire length of the roadway included in the project.

Our review of the DEIR and its attachments finds them to be deficient and in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)..

The findings from our review are numerous. In summary, the County has:

(1) Violated CEQA by failing to provide an adequate “project description” containing specific information about what the “modifications” of vehicular traffic will actually entail, i.e., the DEIR provides no dimensions or other design specifics about how much lane narrowing will actually occur or where it will occur, though from your correspondence with us, we are informed it will be “throughout the corridor”;…(more)

Interesting suggestion for more better shuttle services instead of costly , disruptive road re-configurations in comments below. This appears to be one of the approaches San Mateo is taking to their traffic problems, according to this article: https://savesfmuni.wordpres…

San Francisco’s water conservation can flow to salmon

By Robyn Purchia : sfexaminer – excerpt

California’s untouched beaches is within easy reach until it isn’t photo by zrants

San Francisco’s commercial salmon season opened last week, but feasting on the fatty fish is still an upstream battle for many San Franciscans.

Already-low populations of salmon were further decimated by the drought in 2015. This means smaller catches for local fishermen and higher prices this season for The City’s consumers.

“The fishery we see today is based on what happened three years ago,” explained Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “Too much water got taken out of the rivers for too long, and the situation was exacerbated by drought. Right now, salmon habitats are miserable.”.

Conditions could improve. This summer, the state may finalize its proposal to increase water flow in the San Joaquin River’s tributaries: the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced rivers. According to the state, the recommended flow will improve conditions for salmon and other wildlife and still provide enough drinking and irrigation water.

But the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission disagrees. Approximately 85 percent of The City’s supply comes from the Hetch Hetchy watershed, which collects water from the Tuolumne River. The SFPUC is concerned the state’s proposal would put The City in a precarious position.

While the SFPUC’s concern is understandable, it may also be unwarranted. Regional demand for water has declined remarkably over the past 10 years. Protecting salmon isn’t perilous for San Franciscans, even in times of drought. Our conservation efforts should benefit California’s rivers and the wildlife they support… (more)

State regulatory agencies are mandating conservation as they force upzoning and “sharing” on citizens, to convince people to live with less.

 

Many residents want to consider setting capacity levels and live within our means, but so far our government is not getting the message.

 

If you are concerned about quality of life and support addressing capacity levels, we suggest you vote NO on RM3 to send a message to the local authorities, and support candidates who are willing to consider a change in the forced density program.

.

Vote No On Regional Measure 3

op-ed

There is a reason why many city councils and governments oppose Regional Measure 3. Some of them are based on the theory that regional unelected officials, should not be taking such a large role in our local government affairs. Others are based on the agenda behind RM3, to use our money to control us, by promising traffic control, when the real agenda is to use our money against us. Follow the money and see where it goes. Transfer of power and money is always a dangerous combination and this bill has both.

Not only will the state bridge tolls in the 9-county area be raised to $9.00, if RM3 passes:

$9.00 is the base rate, the least you will pay to cross a bridge if RM3 passes. Voters will give up their right to determine future bridge toll increases. The regional entities that are selling $9.00 bridge tolls are also asking voters to give up our right to vote on future increases;

Voters are being asked to allow automatic inflationary increases. Those tolls, when combined with diesel taxes, will insure higher costs on everything including food;

As more bonds as sold, the funds will be used to pay down bond debts, also tied to inflation;

Additional taxes, fines and fees will be required to build all the projects promised in this bill;

Bridge toll funds will be used to turn traffic lanes into toll roads and congestion pricing in areas that have no bridges, capturing revenue from people who don’t commute;

But, worst of all, many voters who are tricked into supporting this bill, will be displaced by the higher costs of living so they will not experience the total disaster that awaits a society that relinquishes power to regional, unelected officials who serve their corporate masters who created them;

If you want to know who that is, just look at the supporters and sponsors of RM3.

RELATED:
Election 2018: Bay Area Voters to Consider $3 Bridge Toll Hike
http://transdef.org/ : TRANSDEF’s blog What’s Hot, is where we post recent developments
in High-Speed Rail and Bay Area Transportation. Check it out!
http://occupymtc.org : On the June ballot, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC, is asking voters to approve Regional Measure 3, a $3 bridge toll increase, phased in over 6 years.

 

Election 2018: Bay Area Voters to Consider $3 Bridge Toll Hike

By Michael Krasny : kqed – excerpt (includes audio)

Bay Area voters will consider a measure on the June 5 ballot that would raise tolls on the region’s seven state-owned bridges by $3 over six years. If approved, Regional Measure 3 would finance $4.5 billion in transit and highway projects, including a BART extension to Santa Clara. Supporters say the toll hike would ease traffic congestion and improve critical infrastructure. But opponents say the measure does little to encourage shared travel and unfairly burdens East Bay residents. We take up the debate… (more)