Drivers outraged over not enough parking at new Antioch BART Station

By J.R. Stone : KRON4 – excerpt (includes video)

They are complaining about the parking situation.

Some say they have nowhere to park and not enough spaces were built.

There are hundreds of parking spaces available, but the issue at the new Antioch BART extension is at 6 a.m. People KRON4 spoke with said it is a mess at that time.

There were no spots and people are cramming side-by-side across the street to park illegally.

A KRON4 viewer actually reached out with this problem. In a Facebook Live video, she showed all of the cars parked illegally because there was nowhere to go…

Riders saw KRON4 recording and came to give their thoughts…(more)

 As far as we know parking is not on the list of improvements to be paid for under RM3. MTC hands out punishment only to anyone who supports them. Vote NO on RM3.

And, if SB 2923 passes and BART builds housing on the parking lots, there will be less parking not more.

Editorial: BART housing bill exposes lots of hypocrisy

Chronicle editorial board : sfchronicle – excerpt

People’s parking: The North Berkeley BART station’s locally beloved expanse of asphalt. The Berkeley City Council went on record Tuesday solemnly urging the governor to declare homelessness a statewide emergency while noting its own “comprehensive” efforts to grapple with the housing shortage. At the same time, the council formally objected to legislation that might allow new apartments to encroach on the ocean of asphalt surrounding the North Berkeley BART Station…

Judging by some cities’ reactions to the Chiu-Grayson bill, AB2923, that’s no accident. Berkeley’s council narrowly voted to join Hayward, Concord, Lafayette and the League of California Cities in opposing the legislation. Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín, who is among the bill’s detractors, insisted that he “strongly” supports housing at the North Berkeley station but wants to retain “control over shaping our future.”… (more)

Anti-state overreach efforts have reached a high note, as more government officials join the ranks of the disillusioned. A state charter amendment is being prepared that could override much of the legislation that California legislators are feverishly trying to pass while Governor Brown is still in office. The citizens are getting restless and demanding new solutions to the housing crisis as they tire of watching the parade of homeless tents being shoved from block to block. The old supply and demand arguments are fading fast.

Livable California goes to Sacramento to argue against SB 828

LC1by: Susan Kirsch : marinpost

A five-member team traveled to the State Capitol on Monday, May 21 and met with Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, aides of Appropriations Vice Chair Senator Patricia Bates, and the aides of Senators Jim Beall, Steven Bradford, Jerry Hill, and Jim Nielsen.

Our team consisted of Jorge Castaneda (Coalition to Preserve LACoalition to Preserve LA), Tes Welborn (Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council), Michael Goldman (Sunnyvale City Council memberSunnyvale City Council member), Susan Kirsch (Livable California), and Ileana Wachtel (Coalition to Preserve LA)

Our message was clear.

Reject Scott Wiener’s SB-828, which changes the methodology for calculating Regional Housing Need Assessments (RHNA) quotas.

Unfortunately, as of Friday, May 25, Senate Bill 828 had survived with a mishmash of amendments. Even with those amendments, the bill remains riddled with problems, most of which is that it lacks any plausible reason to even be considered.

Sunnyvale City Council member Michael Goldman pointed out the fallacy of the one-size-fits-all bill that would require every city and county to zone for housing at all income levels, as a magic solution to our affordable housing crisis.

As Goldman stated,

“Cities don’t construct housing, developers do. Cities can’t make developers build low income housing. Threats to penalize cities for not meeting RHNA quotas don’t have impact when it is the builders who are not building. Land in the South Bay is selling for $7M to $10M per acre. At this rate, it is impossible to get developers to construct affordable housing without subsidies from the state. In addition, housing is a net drain on city finances while office space is a net plus.”

Haight Ashbury community leader Tes Welborn described how residents are already stepping up with housing solutions. San Francisco passed a bond measure to tax themselves in order to get funding for more housing.

“SB-828’s top-down, heavy-handed approach ignores the work of cities like San Francisco, Wiener’s home district,” Welborn said, pointing out that Wiener didn’t talk to his constituents about the bill. “It caters to developers’ profit motives and escalates tensions between cities, counties and the legislators, rather than foster a collaborative approach to meet housing needs.”

Ileana Wachtel and Jorge Castaneda, Coalition to Preserve LA, presented facts and figures from the West LA Community Plan Area that show unbuilt zoning capacity that meets housing needs at all income levels. “The zoning already exists,” Wachtel explained, “but developers fail to build, holding out for greater profit margins.” Wachtel added, “This bill threatens to permanently, unnecessarily destroy open space, industrial land, and parklands.”

I wrapped up the presentation with a recap of why the Senate Appropriations staff report recommended allowing this bill to die in committee. The bill increases state expenses over $2.3M in the first two years and then adds an estimated annual expense of $741,000.

But more troublesome, the bill doesn’t make provisions to cover the local costs to implement it. The bill concludes,

No reimbursement is required . . . because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by the act.

In other words, it is an unfunded state mandate.

Considerable administrative expenses and the costs of providing public services will all be passed on to local cities and counties (and local taxpayers), but they will need to fend for themselves to find the money, while developers will reap bigger and bigger profits.

Perhaps it’s this irresponsible scenario that prompted the California Chapter of the American Planning Association, in their letter of opposition to SB-828, to write,

New RHNA requirements that simply can’t be met would set up local governments to fail.

Livable California is grateful to the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and their staff for meeting with us.We’re inspired by working together to combine the power and diversity of Northern and Southern California; large and small cities; and elected and volunteer community leaders.

Good government is possible when we work for it on a regular basis. It’s not enough to cast our votes in an election and think our part is over.

If you’d like to know more about Livable California, visit our website at www.livablecalifornia.org.

You’re invited to join us as we strive to work smarter, not just harder.

Thanks for your efforts to stop the spread of state control over local jurisdiction over local land use issues. The future we take the power away from the communities the less influence we have over how our government functions. Leaders are only leaders when they serve the people. They lose their power and influence when they try to force unwanted changes on their constituents.

 

Efforts to build housing around transit threaten to price out those most dependent on bus and rail

By Joshua Emerson Smith : sandiegouniontribune – excerpt

The greatest risk is the places that are already showing signs of gentrification. There’s already value in those neighborhoods and the private market has seen...

Lawmakers, academics and urban planners from Southern California to Sacramento have long called for building denser housing around transit stops. The idea is to design neighborhoods that encourage people to ditch their car commutes — simultaneously fighting climate change while trying to address the state’s historic housing crisis.

However, efforts to inspire construction along rail and bus lines, coupled with a severe shortage of housing, have brought opulent apartment buildings and condominiums into economically challenged neighborhoods. As young professionals flock to the new housing, moderate- to low-income tenants in urban areas from San Diego to Sacramento are now facing displacement.

Tenants’ rights groups, especially in Southern California, say the trend is already playing out in many communities with serious consequences…

While the median family income in those neighborhoods was on average less than $64,000 a year, the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment was more than $3,500 a month, according to a San Diego Union-Tribune analysis of Census and Costar data.

And about one in five of those projects are in areas where the median household income is less than $30,000, where the average rent on a two-bedroom apartment is still more than $3,300….(more)

Continue reading “Efforts to build housing around transit threaten to price out those most dependent on bus and rail”

Granny flats and renters’ tax credits: Which California housing bills lived and died Friday

By Katy Murphy : mercurynews – excerpt

SACRAMENTO — An array of bills aimed at easing California’s housing crisis, from banning fees on “granny flats” to pushing housing development on BART property, cleared a key hurdle on Friday, while others died quietly in fiscal committees…

 

As negotiations over state spending approach the June 15 deadline for passing a budget, hundreds of bills with cost implications were run through rapid-fire hearings in the Assembly or Senate. Within seconds — and typically, with no explanation — it was announced whether or not each of the proposals would move forward…

Here is a look at some bills that will live another day, with a chance of becoming law:

New construction: Senate Bill 828, from Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Assembly Bill 1771, from Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, would set more aggressive housing goals for local cities and counties and change how the targets are set in an effort to improve the widely criticized process.

A break for granny flats: It would be illegal for cities or counties to charge certain fees for backyard or garage units — or to require off-street parking — under Senate Bill 831, by Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, a champion of the backyard “accessory dwelling” revolution. For too long, the senator says, some cities have limited the addition of these units with cumbersome requirements and high fees.

BART housing: Chiu and Assemblyman Tim Grayson, D-Concord, see the BART system’s expansive parking lots as fertile ground for housing construction, and their Assembly Bill 2923 aims to nudge the transit system and local governments into allowing it.

Tax credit and more protections for renters: Senate Bill 1182, by Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, would incrementally raise the state tax credit for renters over the next five years — and give a larger break to renters with children — increasing the amount for the first time in decades. Assembly Bill 2343, by Chiu, would give renters facing eviction more time to respond to the landlord’s notice… (more)

 

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…

Over 90 percent of people in Redondo Beach leave the city to go to work. We have the housing; what we really need are more job centers…

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.

Continue reading “For the New Urban Density Hawks, Community Character is Not an Option”

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

Clipper

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)

 

 

%d bloggers like this: