Who needs cars? Aggressive transit plan for Chase Arena discourages driving

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

When Metallica plays at ear-splitting decibels in the soon-to-open Chase Center in September — the arena’s first-ever event — the thousands of concert goers won’t be humming “Enter Sandman” as they drive home to far-flung points across the Bay Area.

Instead, most will be head-banging on Muni, Caltrain, BART and ferries. At least, that’s according to The City’s plan…

Long-time San Francisco Giants fans may remember Muni shuttles that served Candlestick Park. Well, SFMTA is instituting two similar shuttles for Chase Center, one running down Van Ness Avenue from the waterfront and the other running directly from 16th Street BART

(more)

Head-banging takes on new meaning when applied to the new Muni side facing seats. Asses may stay firmly in place, but, heads and shoulders may indeed lunge forward, or sideways, as the vehicle brakes are applied, meaning heads may be jerked into the adjoining seat or head. I am surprised no one thought of this when they designed the seats. The laws of perpetual motion do apply.

After a couple of ventures out, many will take the easiest method to avoid traffic, crowds, and potential head-banging. They will watch the action from their couch. It will be interesting to see how many people take that route, or go the nearest sports bar to drink and cheer or jeer with the fans.

One more thing that concerns everyone is the plan to dig up 16th Street at the time when it is most needed to assure completion of all the other construction projects that are ongoing, and to keep the constant flow of traffic, including the buses and shuttles moving between the Bay and the rest of the city. What will it take to stop work on 16th Street before a reasonable plan is devised to use an alternate route. Only 16th Street and Cesar Chavez cross both 101 and 280. Large numbers of the public are at risk of being cut off if either of those streets are not passable at all times.

Revitalizing SF’s historic piers: Next step could start a fight

By Roland Li : sfchronicle – excerpt

The Port of San Francisco is planning to seek a developer to revitalize up to four historic piers and two other structures on the city’s northeast Embarcadero — but a longtime local activist is calling for a pause…

Jon Golinger, a longtime North Beach activist who has successfully fought previous projects at the same piers, wants to see an update to the Waterfront Land Use Plan before a request for proposals moves forward.

An updated plan was developed by the 32-member Waterfront Plan Working Group between 2015 and 2018. The update calls for water recreation, public waterfront access, parks and open space, along with higher revenue generators in pier sheds to help finance projects at the piers… (more)

FIX THE MESS FIRST and move slowly into the next big project on the bay. We have seen this movie before, and now that our governor is suing again, San Francisco should be very careful to follow the rules and be as transparent as possible over the development on the Bay.

It is being sold off at a pretty fast pace. There is a renewed push for costly dredging on Treasure Island in spite of a recent decision to kill that idea, and a renewed push to put in ferry lines that will further impact access to the Bay.
It is not a bad idea to pause while all these projects are melded into a solid plan. We only have one Bay and and we don’t need any more fast poorly executed projects while we are in the midst of fixing the host of disasters bought on by eager investors. Let’s get this right the first time please.

 

Clipper Cove marina boondoggle is back

By Hunter Cutting : sfexaminer – excerpt

Over the holiday break the Mayor’s Office quietly submitted to the Board of Supervisors a proposed 66-year lease to build a controversial private luxury marina in Clipper Cove at Treasure Island. Currently the Cove hosts the sailing programs of the non-profit Treasure Island Sailing Center that put thousands onto the Bay each year, including over 1,500 4 th graders from San Francisco public schools.

Disturbingly, the Mayor’s proposal disregards a stakeholder agreement and Board resolution approved last year that established a set of development guidelines to protect both the public interest and the pocketbooks of City taxpayers…

Under the proposed lease, the developers will not be held responsible if their project causes the rest of the Cove to fill in – as has occurred elsewhere around the Bay after construction of other marina projects…

New sedimentation also threatens to smother the protected sea grass beds on the south side of the Cove. In an inexplicable twist, City staff recommend that the Supervisors approve the 66-year lease now before the threat is evaluated, arguing that the analysis will be done later.

All of these issues were addressed by the Board resolution approved last year. So, it is surprising that the developers are now trying to work their way around the Board’s direction… (more)

This will be a big test for the new Board of Supervisors’ ability to stand up for their constituents in a show of unity.

RELATED: Proposed Treasure Island marina faces hurdles

 

State agency drops objection to city rules on waterfront development

By Kurtis Alexander : sfchronicle – excerpt

San Francisco’s Proposition B, which gives voters a say in waterfront development, will remain in effect under a settlement announced Wednesday that ends a state lawsuit challenging the measure.

The State Lands Commission, which sued the city over the proposition — approved by voters four years ago — agreed to let the measure’s checks on high-rise buildings stand. In exchange, city officials offered to guarantee that future projects would benefit not only San Francisco but all state residents…

Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco and now candidate for governor, was widely criticized for going to battle with the city. He maintained that, as a state officeholder, he had the responsibility to look out for the interests of all of California… (more)

Did Newsom really think suing the city would win him votes for Governor?

Funding for Affordable Housing Headed for Vote in State Legislature

Host: Michael Krasny : kqed – excerpt (includes audio)
Guy Marzorati, reporter, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk
Laura Foote Clark, executive director, Yimby Action
Tim Redmond, editor, 48 Hills.org
Fernando Marti, co-director, Council of Community Housing Organizations…

The California State legislature is set to vote on a package of affordable housing bills as early as this Friday. Among the bills is SB 35, which would streamline the approval process for development projects in cities that are not meeting regional affordable housing goals. Supporters of SB 35 say the measure is needed to tackle the state’s critical housing shortage. But opponents say the bill wrests control of housing policy from local governments and could actually make housing more expensive in low-income Bay Area neighborhoods. We take up the debate… Listen to the show here

RELATED:

Comments by Tim Redmond:

…SB 35, the Wiener bill that would promote more market-rate housing development in the mistaken belief that more luxury condos will bring housing prices down, will come to the Assembly floor any day now. Fernando Marti, co-director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations, and I were on KQED Forum Friday debating this bill with Laura Foote Clark, executive director of Yimby Action; you can listen to the show here

What I told Clark was that the whole premise of SB 35 is false. No housing gets built without financing, and most financing comes from investors who want the maximum rate of return. The private market right now will never build housing for the middle class. If you built so much that prices started to soften, that money would go elsewhere.

Much of the affordable housing that cities get comes from forcing developers into building more below-market units than they want. Take away that tool and you will get less affordable housing. Not surprisingly, the landlords and developers are among the biggest backers of this bill, and tenant and anti-eviction groups are against it(more)

Should we build lots more housing in San Francisco? Three reasons people disagree

by Julia Galef – excerpt

Some people, such as YIMBYs, advocate building lots more housing in San Francisco. Their basic argument is:

Housing in SF is the priciest in the country, with the average one bedroom apartment renting for over $3,000 per month (compared to the nationwide average of $1,200.)

The main reason rents are so high is because the supply of housing has been artificially restricted — new developments are constantly getting blocked by land use regulations and neighborhood associations. Meanwhile, demand to live in SF continues to rise. And since supply is not keeping pace, rents go up, as a growing number of would-be tenants outbid each other for the limited housing available.

Therefore, it’s important that we find a way to increase the rate at which we’re building new housing in SF, or it will be a city in which only the rich can afford to live.

I’ve been trying to understand why others are critical of this argument. I think there are three main areas of disagreement between what I’ll call the advocates and the critics, and I’ll briefly explain each in turn. (Note that I’m trying to present the strongest version of each argument, which may be different from the most common version.)… (more)

Newsom’s lawyer says voters can’t be trusted

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

In stunning argument, Lite Gov’s legal team says land use decisions should be taken away from voters — and that the Port’s future should be all about big-money development

It leaves Newsom, who is running for governor, in the odd political position of saying that the voters can’t be trusted.

Deputy Attorney General Joel Jacobs also argued that the main issue at hand was money – how much the Port could make from commercial development. In essence, he said that the five commissioners, all appointed by the mayor, should be allowed to approve whatever sort of tall buildings they wanted if it would bring money into the agency, and the rest of San Francisco should have no check on their decisions.

“The more revenue generated by profit-making projects, the more the Port can do to promote other uses,” he said… (more)

IF THEY DON’T TRUST US HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM?

While our readers are pondering that amazing claim, we are working to put together a list of all the bills currently running through Sacramento that are base on one theme: Removing voters’ rights to determine how the state government functions by changing the laws that limit the state’s rights to decide for them. These claims prove that the state legislature does not trust us. Why should we trust them?

There is a long list of bills. Let’s start with AB 943, authored by Santiago, that raises the bar for referendums on developments in California by requiring a 2/3rds majority to pass. This bill has already bee passed by the Assembly and was sent to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee this week.

Find out who voted for this bill and let them know you are onto them. Call or write the Senate members to stop them from passing this one. Meanwhile, stay tuned for more bills to fight.