Transbay Blog

Land use is famously about local controversies. Neighborhood groups, often brandishing long, unwieldy names like “Citizens For A More Responsible” something-or-other, fill up municipal legislative chambers demanding justice; other distinctly local personalities may also emerge into the forefront of the discussion. In addition, land use decisions are often based on a context made up of such fine microscopic detail that it would unproductive or impractical for the state or federal government, both presumably inexpert in those details, to intervene. A local government thus enjoys relatively complete autonomy over how land within its domain is used, subject to only limited requirements issued at the state or federal level.

But one major exception to that general rule is housing. The State of California requires that General Plans contain a set of elements, which lay out a blueprint and policy direction to guide future development. Among those elements, the Housing Element is singled out as special, in that it must be updated every five years in accordance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and ABAG will project the number of housing units that the Bay Area will need to accommodate for the next several years, at four income levels (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate), and then will assign a housing share to governments throughout the Bay Area, ensuring that the region, as a whole, meets the required total. Each local government then updates its Housing Element every five years, specifying how it will accommodate its share of the regional housing need. Cities throughout the Bay Area have been engaged in this process this year.

This process ensures that local governments plan to accommodate housing units that are accessible to a range of income levels. Without such a procedure in place, it’s easy to imagine what could happen. Many cities — whose elected officials might simply translate the parochial demands of a local NIMBY group into something resembling legislation — would shirk on their obligation to ensure the production of housing units, particularly affordable units. They might, for instance, amend the zoning code to contain a set of requirements that are a proxy for wealth, ensuring that only affluent citizens can afford to live there. Other cities might freeze growth altogether, thinking only of what will happen within their city limits and ignoring what the effect would be outside. The point is that without a state mandate prohibiting that sort of behavior, it would be difficult or impossible for California to accommodate, in a just and equitable fashion, a population that is projected to increase to 60 million by the year 2050. The state has an enormous interest in ensuring that all of its citizens, of all income levels, are safely housed; but accomplishing this goal requires the cooperation of local governments, who, after all, are empowered to control land use through zoning.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have been too busy lately to post regularly, but there is still plenty going on in the world of Bay Area planning and transit. My guess, and hope, is that people will still want to discuss the news, even though I am unable to pull enough time together to prepare full posts on these topics. Others may want to initiate topics, rather than simply respond to prompts in blog posts. Many websites fill in this niche by setting up open threads. I haven’t tried that yet, because I was not really sure if there would be enough interest, or if there was a critical mass of people commenting and checking in. I am also testing the waters with removing comment moderation, despite ongoing problems with managing spam comments. So this is an experiment with open threads. If it looks to be well-used, it could be made into a regular feature. Please feel free to leave any feedback on the open threads if you feel so inclined.

The last post discussed the SFCTA report on Geary BRT, so here is a roundup of other recent news:

SFMTA Budget is up for debate: To close a $128.9 million shortfall, the SFMTA Board adopted a budget that raised the adult and paratransit individual fares to $2 and adult fast passes to $60 on January 1, 2010. The budget also raises some parking fees, but it eliminates several lines altogether and institutes considerable service cuts on many other lines. As promised, Board President David Chiu will introduce a motion (PDF) at today’s Budget and Finance Committee meeting to veto the MTA-adopted budget. If you’d like to attend, the meeting is in the Board chamber, 2nd floor of SF City Hall, at 1:30 pm.
Update: At the Budget and Finance Committee, the vote was 4-1 (Carmen Chu dissenting) against the MTA’s budget, and Chiu has the seven votes needed to overturn the budget at the full Board.

New parking lot in Oakland defeated: Last night, I learned via Twitter that the Oakland City Council rejected the Redevelopment Agency’s proposal for a temporary surface parking lot on Telegraph Avenue in Downtown Oakland, next to the Fox Theater. The City Council requested that staff investigate the possibility of art installations instead, which would be a considerable improvement over a parking lot. Whatever use is ultimately installed will be temporary, to be dismantled in 2011 when construction will begin on the second phase of Forest City’s Uptown project.

Caltrain to declare a fiscal emergency: Despite ridership gains in 2008 and already having raised fares 25 cents on January 1, Caltrain is scrambling to close its budget shortfall, in light of the lost STA funds; it plans to declare a fiscal emergency in order to exempt service cuts from environmental review.

Read the rest of this entry »

Given the fact that the Berkeley City Council decided not to litigate against the anti-BRT voter initiative — choosing instead to “honor the initiative process” — it was clear that the initiative would indeed be added to the November ballot. That said, I thought I should probably add this update to clarify any potential confusion about the timing, because my previous post about the initiative went live at 8:00 pm, but the Council did not vote to add the initiative to the ballot until about 10:45 pm. During the Council open session, Mayor Bates admitted the initiative had “lots of problems” (therefore appropriate for voters), and both TALC and Friends of BRT stepped up to the plate to denounce the initiative. Meanwhile, one quite confused speaker claimed that giving buses a dedicated lane would cause them to “get stuck,” and that what we really needed was “flexibility.” She suggested that with “flexibility,” AC Transit could run buses every three minutes, while implying that three-minute headways would be impossible with a dedicated bus lane. Just incredible. Anyway, the language will be slightly fine-tuned, but the City Council moved unanimously to add the anti-BRT initiative to the November ballot, as expected.

The last time we picked up the seemingly endless saga concerning the mere 1 to 1.5 miles of bus-only lanes proposed for the Berkeley leg of AC Transit’s BRT project along Telegraph Avenue, the Berkeley Daily Planet had propagated an outright lie, alleging that the San Leandro City Council had already “opted out” of its portion of the project’s bus-only lanes — which the Council had not, in fact, done. A few months ago, though, the beginnings of a ballot measure were in the works, aiming to stop BRT once and for all, and then, just yesterday, the Chron reported that the anti-BRT contingent had gotten enough signatures to put the measure on this November’s ballot. The measure would require voter approval to set aside bus-only lanes (or any dedicated HOV lane) on any street owned or controlled by the City of Berkeley. Specifically, the initiative would require creation of a “designation plan” involving more impact analysis, possibly costing an additional $250,000 to $500,000 per project to prepare, and voters would then have to approve the designation plan. The designation plan is itself quite vague, requiring enough information to be given such that “a reasonable person can assess how the designation and use will affect them.” There is also a possibility that modifications to the project made after the close of the planning process could themselves require a separate designation plan and another vote. In other words, if the initiative proposed for this November’s election is approved by voters, it would significantly stall the BRT project, because no dedicated bus lanes in Berkeley could be reserved without the vote. These delays will make it all the more difficult to obtain the varied array of funds required to complete the project.

The voter measure, as the Chron correctly noted, is quite embarrassing for a city that prides itself on its (increasingly dubious) claims of progressivism.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Safeway and 76 gas station, at the northeast corner of College and Claremont Avenues in Oakland, together occupy a site whose layout is entirely inappropriate for an urban setting, particularly for the intersection of two major avenues. The large parking lot, which fronts directly onto parts of both College and Claremont, is a (sub)urban design error I have long hoped to see corrected — particularly in the Rockridge commercial district, which features a mostly uninterrupted frontage of buildings that open onto the street and contribute to a pleasant pedestrian experience. (Unfortunately, the Highway 24 overpass, which is the neighborhood’s most intrusive interruption, is much less easily corrected than this Safeway parking lot.) Good thing, then, that Safeway has released its latest plans to transform the current site, which is essentially a strip mall. The new plan has more parking (212 spaces) than ideal for a supermarket a few blocks from BART and located in an eminently walkable neighborhood — Safeway’s newer lifestyle stores are not quite farsighted enough to attempt changing the lifestyle of driving. The first floor will feature several small retail spaces (totaling 16,000 square feet) fronting onto College and a small section of Claremont. The 59,000 square foot grocery store will be located on the second floor, so that the parking would at least be hidden behind the retail and under the grocery store. The plan’s weakness looks to be the Claremont frontage, which will feature little retail. All in all, the plan is an improvement over the current auto-oriented store and gas station. Constructing the new building right to the property line will make this wide intersection more attractive by emphasizing its non-perpendicular angularity. For more design images and renderings like the one pictured above, check out the project website.

Read the rest of this entry »

Not everyone in the East Bay hates BRT. Here is an article from the Daily Review, forwarded by Hank Resnik of the Berkeley group Friends of BRT. The Berkeley Daily Planet continues to cement its reputation as one of the Bay Area’s most definitive sources for fact-free journalism, by “reporting” that the San Leandro City Council has “opted out” of its transit-only lanes for the East Bay BRT project — thereby implying that Berkeley ought to do the same. Except for the small detail that San Leandro, well, hasn’t opted out of its transit-only lanes. In fact, after San Leandro City Councilmembers heard a presentation just this week about the BRT alignment along San Leandro’s East 14th Street thoroughfare, “most were encouraged by the proposal.” And as for San Leandro’s mayor, Tony Santos? “It’s reducing our carbon footprint and cutting down on greenhouse gases. … Anything you can do to get people on the bus is fine.” Let’s back up one step, though. By fighting for the “right” of motorists to drive without having to deal with the inconvenience of transit-only lanes getting in the way and slowing them down, Berkeley is just being progressive, right? Yes, that must be it.
[Daily Review]

Proposed BRT at Shattuck Avenue & Bancroft in Berkeley. Courtesy FMG Architects.

And so it continues: the ever-committed opponents of Bus Rapid Transit in supposedly progressive Berkeley have hatched a plan to stop BRT in the East Bay — “Rapid Bus Plus,” a brainchild of the group Berkeleyans for Better Transportation Options (BBTOP). Under “Rapid Bus Plus,” the comfortable bus stops and dedicated bus lanes that distinguish BRT would be removed. BBTOP instead suggests that AC Transit obtain Orion VII low floor hybrids, like those that the SFMTA obtained. These vehicles have not quite proven to be an unqualified success in San Francisco, but even so, new vehicles and cleaner fuels are collateral to a primary objective of dedicated lanes — namely, system speed and reliability. BBTOP also suggests that the signal preemption and NextBus technology currently used for the 1R and 72R be expanded to the full system, and that Proof of Payment (to be used on the proposed BRT line) also be expanded to the full system. These latter ideas are fine — certainly, it would be nice to see signal preemption in more places, and NextBus can go a long way toward reducing rider stress — but neither is a substitute for separating transit vehicles from automotive traffic, particularly on a high ridership route that serves a great many of the East Bay’s activity centers.

Read the rest of this entry »

A busy week prevented me from posting about this earlier, but better late than never: as you may have already read in the Chronicle, there have been favorable updates at the Board of Supervisors concerning the Market & Octavia Plan, which I addressed in a post a couple weeks ago. Supervisors Mirkarimi and McGoldrick had articulated competing visions for the contentious issues of affordable housing, parking, and density in the Market & Octavia plan area: more details are provided in that linked post. But the two proposals have since coalesced into a single compromise plan. Thankfully, Mirkarimi’s stricter parking requirements survived, helping to ensure that the Market & Octavia Plan maintains livability at its heart; the compromise also adopted Mirkarimi’s affordable housing funding plan, which set forth a tiered impact fee (of $0, $4, or $8 per square foot, depending on the location of the development) and the opportunity for developers to contribute to the citywide affordable housing fund in lieu of TDR fees. However, the compromise incorporates McGoldrick’s density cap, which will apply not just to Duboce Triangle, but to all blocks zoned as Residential Transit-Oriented (RTO), which includes most of the residential blocks deeper in the plan area, off of Market Street. These amendments were passed at first hearing at the Board last Tuesday, finally drawing some consensus on this comprehensive plan that has been highly contested in recent months.

Read the rest of this entry »

Courtesy Stanley Saitowitz / Natoma Architects, Inc.

For several years, the City of San Francisco has worked to develop the Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan, studying neighborhoods centered on the pivotal intersection of Market and Octavia, bookended by Church Street on the west and Van Ness Avenue on the east. The plan was one part of the Better Neighborhoods 2002 effort — a sadly ironic name, because a mere 365 days is nowhere near sufficient to start and finish such a large-scale planning process, particularly in San Francisco. In some areas covered by the Market-Octavia plan, one has the impression of being in an unclassifiable neighborhood that is nonetheless quite close to favorite, well-established locales. The plan encompasses an area historically known as “the Hub”, so named for the Muni turnaround located there, and the neighborhoods contained within the plan area continue to evolve and come into their own, coining names like Deco Ghetto to reflect both an emerging identity and broader acknowledgment of that identity. Other parts of the plan area, including Hayes Valley, already enjoy established commercial districts but have been given a new chance to blossom since the retreat of the Central Freeway to the south side of Market Street.

It is also in this area that the slanted South of Market street grid curves and reorients into an arrangement that reflects the cardinal directions, adjusting to form the Mission/Castro grid. This is a departure from the pattern firmly established all the way from the Ferry Building, resulting in a suspension of the security resting in the predictable pattern of downtown streets. But some clever planning could take advantage of this insecurity and transform it into a distinctly urban sort of excitement, in which even the unsuspecting pedestrian would be smoothly guided by intuitively navigable streets designed for humans, rather than for the sole function of moving automobiles efficiently.

Market-Octavia is exactly the plan that aims to knit these disconnected neighborhoods together into a more unified and walkable set of districts that San Francisco could rightly be proud to call its own. The plan reflects thoughtful cooperation between community members and city planners. This vision was not forcefully hoisted upon neighborhood residents; rather, the goal was to achieve a consensus. It simultaneously blends a respect for the eminently livable residential scale of San Francisco’s most beloved neighborhoods, while advocating for a forward-thinking vision of elegant density graced by moving examples of contemporary design, like the Octavia Gateway pictured above — a building that provides a splendid answer to the problem posed by the narrow, awkward parcel of land on which it would sit, at the northeast corner of Market and Octavia.

Read the rest of this entry »

Courtesy Flickr member in2jazz.

The Berkeley Daily Planet mentioned last week a problem point in the planning of the proposed East Bay bus rapid transit route, which would run from Berkeley to San Leandro via Telegraph Avenue, downtown Oakland, and East 14th Street. The issue concerns the new street replacing the expressway around Lake Merritt, which connects downtown Oakland to East 14th Street and Lakeshore Avenue. One component of Measure DD is to replace the messy twelve-lane expressway and its speeding cars with a slower six-lane city street, improved pedestrian and bicycle access, and also to add a new park on the west end of Lake Merritt. Of course, buses as well as cars would move more slowly through here, and the combination of having half the traffic lanes and the introduction of new pedestrian signals could cause delays in excess of two minutes at rush hour. Rebecca Kaplan, vice president of the AC Transit board, noted: “That is enough of a delay to destroy the entire purpose of [bus] rapid transit.”

As is often the case with the Daily Planet, the language of the article is cast so as to make BRT seem like a failure. The article references quotations of indignation about the lack of dedicated right of way on 12th Street, and in doing so, it misleadingly makes it seem as though this fact is a brand-new development. It’s not. The EIR, in fact, has already indicated mixed flow for this stretch of road, and it has long been known that bus-only lanes would be suspended here. So the BRT project is not all of a sudden a lost cause because of this “revelation”, as the tone of the article would imply.

In any event, Berkeley NIMBYs are almost foaming at the mouth in glee at the news of this snag, hoping that a difficulty in Oakland could mean the end of the whole project. To date, complaints have been raised in Berkeley and San Leandro, at either end of the proposed route — but the majority of the line and its riders are in Oakland, where there has been little to no complaint about the “destructive chaos” that will allegedly ensue after BRT is built. The Daily Planet continues to print reader letters containing rants that are disconnected from reality:

Read the rest of this entry »