Category Archives: Transportation

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics, Transportation

We need help stopping Senate Bill 79

If you need a visual to understand the impacts of Wiener’s SB 79
The above links to a visual explanation that illustrates the significance of the changes SB 79 could make in your neighborhood.

It took Wiener three rounds of voting to get SB 79 passed in the Senate. It’s amended and scheduled for hearings in the Assembly Housing, Local Government, and Natural Resources committees.
The Housing Committee hearing is in the first week of July;
letters are due June 25th.

If you are concerned about this, consider taking some actions:

See contact info below.  You may call or  leave a message on the phone asking the Assembly members to vote NO on S B 79.
A  spreadsheet of Assemblymembers with contact info

Or send a letter to the Assembly members listed below:

Assembly Members on the Committees 

Text version of a sample letter and speaking points.

I strongly oppose SB 79 as an assault on local control that disregards state-certified housing elements. At first glance, the amendments made by Senator Wiener might appear reasonable, but actually offer nothing of substance.

• The new “affordability” component merely reflects incentives already available.

• The new option for localities to write alternative plans are of no benefit. By requiring that the same number of units and floor area ratio be maintained, this provision is a false alternative, as it merely creates a complex balancing act.

The thrust of SB 79 remains ministerially approved market-rate density without regard to local conditions. Our housing elements have already indicated which sites best serve our communities as infill.

SB 79 is deeply flawed in both concept and consequence. It would inflict disproportionate harm on the most affordable neighborhoods in our cities.

I OPPOSE SB 79 for these reasons:

  • It undermines affordable housing goals
  • 81% of all development under new laws is already market rate
  • It encourages gentrification
  • It undermines the housing element process
  • It does not exempt fire hazard zones
  • Affordable housing near transit is the avowed goal of state policy, but it is not the goal of this bill.

Sincerely,

Individuals: Your name and address
Organizations: Your name, title, and signature; add logo at top

If you want to learn how to post to the portal, go here: https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/ca-legislative-process/ca-bills/posting-letters

CEQA, Housing, Politics, Transportation

Abundance meets resistance: Are Democrats finally ready to go all in on building housing?

By JEANNE KUANG : calmatters – excerpt

Amid a post-2024 wave of Democratic interest in the burgeoning pro-development “abundance” movement, this seemed to be an easy year for California’s yes-in-my-backyard housing development activists.
Democratic leaders in the state Legislature declared their intention to tackle affordability this year. Gov. Gavin Newsom and other politicians have since embraced the “abundance” platform, which argues that Democrats must do more to quickly deliver housing, transportation and other infrastructure projects to their constituents.
Lawmakers have introduced ambitious bills that would, for housing developments in existing neighborhoods, blow a hole through the longstanding thicket of environmental reviews and regulations that often slow down projects and add costs. One of those passed its first committee on Monday.
Still, YIMBY-ism hit a stumbling block Tuesday in the form of the Senate housing committee. The committee, led by Sen. Aisha Wahab, nearly killed a closely watched bill to require cities to allow taller, denser apartments and condo construction near public transit stations.
Wahab said she was acting on a chorus of familiar objections from progressives and others who have long delayed housing construction in California: The legislation didn’t guarantee that projects would be built with union labor. It didn’t require that the new units be affordable for low-income residents. It could infringe on local governments’ ability to block or green-light projects. It opened up the possibility of bypassing certain environmental reviews.
In the end, the committee voted 6-2 against Wahab’s objections to narrowly advance Senate Bill 79, by Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and prominent advocate for housing production. Some Democrats were absent or didn’t vote. The committee also killed a different Wiener bill that would have further loosened restrictions on property owners who want to split single-family homes into duplexes. It was a stark reversal from prior years in the Legislature, when Wiener chaired the housing committee and pushed through several bills to spur housing production…
A progressive who is focused on preserving explicitly affordable units for low-income tenants, Wahab, a Hayward Democrat, was pushing for legislation to help cities that enact rent caps compete with other municipalities for state housing and planning grants. Some studies have found rent control in San Francisco has reduced rental supply, while other economists say capping rents is still needed to help those who are housing insecure.
“The state has prioritized development, development, development,” Wahab said. “The types of development that are going up with zero parking and all these giveaways to developers have also not translated to housing that has dignity that people want to stay in and raise their families in.”
Her bill (SB 262) drew skepticism from some colleagues on the committee, who noted the state funding programs are for development and production, but nevertheless voted to advance it… (more)
 

SB 262: Housing element: prohousing designations: prohousing local policies. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb262

Housing, Planning, Politics, Transportation

Meet the politician who could make or break California’s housing efforts. What’s her plan?

By Emily Hoeven : sfchronicle – excerpt (via email)

Following their devastating losses in the 2024 election, many Democrats have eagerly aligned themselves with the burgeoning “abundance” movement, which contends that blue states like California need to focus less on sluggish bureaucratic processes and more on tangible outcomes to win back voters.

But it’s one thing to embrace a slogan and another thing entirely to take action. Here in California, we’re about to see which side of that divide our leaders stand on.

Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Appropriations Committee
Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Appropriations Committee

 

Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, is pushing one of the biggest bills in recent memory, AB609, to exempt almost all infill housing development from California Environmental Quality Act review. And it’s just one of 20 bills in an ambitious, bipartisan package that aims to streamline and simplify the state’s housing approval process and make it easier to build the estimated 2.5 million homes California needs.

Actually passing these bills, however, will require that Democrats risk alienating some of their most influential constituencies, including labor unions and environmental justice groups — some of which have already come out swinging against Wicks’ bill and others.

It’s “a moment of truth for the Legislature,” Michael Lane, state policy director for the urbanist organization SPUR, told me.

Will lawmakers move forward with bold bills, or will they revert to the failed policies of the past?

Aisha Wahab, Chair of the California State Housing Committee
Aisha Wahab, Chair of the California State Housing Committee

One key lawmaker who will play a decisive role in answering that question is state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, whom Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, recently appointed as leader of the Senate Housing Committee.

Committee leaders have significant sway in the Legislature. Not only can their stance on a bill meaningfully influence its chance of passage, but they also can decide whether to give a bill a hearing or kill it in cold blood.

Wahab isn’t the only committee leader or legislative power broker who will determine the fate of California’s “abundance” agenda, but she may be one of the biggest wild cards. In her first hearing as housing committee chair last month, she proclaimed that it’s time for California to “move away from development, development, development” and also stated “transit-oriented development doesn’t necessarily work.”

Continue reading Meet the politician who could make or break California’s housing efforts. What’s her plan? →

Transportation

Tumlin reflects on his tenure leading the SFMTA

KTVU

SFMTA Executive Director Jeff Tumlin reflects on the time he spent leading the agency… Direct of MUNI,  Julie Kirschbaum will take over the department until Lurie chooses a new director.

For those of us who did not appreciate Tumlin, here is a little history.

Déjà vu:  Tumlin out as city consultant
by Ashley Archibald – March 15, 2013 : smdp – excerpt

CITY HALL — City officials confirmed Wednesday that they would no longer work with traffic and circulation consultant Jeffrey Tumlin after comments on an online biography proved even more controversial than the parking policies he espoused.

In the bio, Tumlin wrote that Santa Monica politics “had been dominated by NIMBYs who used traffic fear as their primary tool for stopping development.” The reference, indeed the entire section on Santa Monica, had been removed as of Wednesday.

The comment spurred outrage amongst residents, who called for Tumlin’s dismissal. Additionally, Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, or SMCLC, wrote an adjoining letter expressing distaste for Tumlin’s parking policies, which involve building less parking than currently required for new development and opening up existing lots to increase supply in some areas.

The net effect would be to drive down costs of development, and therefore the price of housing, and ostensibly cause fewer car trips by attracting fewer cars based on the premise that you will not drive where you cannot park.
The theory is embraced by planning professionals, although it constitutes “a huge transition,” said Juan Matute, of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, in January when Tumlin’s proposal first ricocheted through Santa Monica.
That holds little water for Santa Monicans aghast that large amounts of new development could ever result in the “no new net PM trips” promise enshrined in the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element, a planning document that is supposed to dictate development in Santa Monica for decades to come.
“Mr. Tumlin’s central premise — that new development would yield no additional traffic — is an unsound prediction without basis,” SMCLC wrote. “It is fanciful social experimentation, embraced only by developers.”
It’s unclear if those unpopular ideas will exit along with Tumlin.… (more)

Look at the date on this article. We were cubically warned about him about the time this article came out. He claimed his firm had done some work in San Francisco that was not done by anyone. The product did not exist. So much for the wasted years and millions of dollars spent fulfilling his dreams on our streets. This document partially edited by Tumlin, because the treatise of sorts for those exposing his beliefs in a lifestyle for special interests. How many people and city authorities have been hoodwinked by this guy and his ideas on how to control the masses? How many cities have seen rents go down as promised when they were densified? And how many people have given up the privacy and freedom of owning their owning a car?

path-to-a-livable-city-1-pdf.jpg

The Path to a livable City, published in 2002 by such luminaries as  Gabriel Metcalf, edited by Steven Bodzin of the Congress for New Urbanism, Jeffrey Tumlin of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting, and Shannon Dodge and Doug Shoemaker of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Lydia Tan of Bridge Housing helped the group gain perspective on housing issues. And thanks to the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition, on whose regional leadership Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) will rely heavily.

 

CEQA, Politics, Transportation

Sloat Street Quickbuild gives neighbors another reason to Recall Engardio

Who dreamed up this Sloat project and when was it first announced to the neighbors? The lack of transparency is one of the reasons Engardio is being recalled.

This project was sprung on us at the very last minute and passed by the SFMTA Board at a meeting under questionable  procedures. Director Heminger who voted to oppose the approval, questioned the wisdom of rushing this through.

Isn’t Sloat the preferred route for the cars to take to get to the beach and zoo now the Great Highway is going to be off-limits? Or is the plan to limit public access to Ocean Beach to bikers and walkers? No more families loading up the beach and picnic supplies for a beach day?

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics, Transportation

Bay Area Housing Finance Authority Pulls Regional Measure 4 from the November Ballot

For Immediate  Release:

San Francisco – This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.

Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars at a time using bonds that would waste two thirds of the revenue on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”

The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity. Said Mattammal, “Actually working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California, a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden, is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes. That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”

Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for now, many other expensive proposals remain on the ballot, and the $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay.

About Gus Mattammal – Gus is an entrepreneur and educator who has lived and worked in the Bay Area for over 17 years. He is proud to work with the committed Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents who seek to ensure that the public’s money is wisely spent. Learn more at: 20billionreasons.com

CEQA, Politics, Transportation

The new road rage: ‘Disrespect’ to drivers fuels an angry political movement

By Han Lee : sfstandard – excerpt

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

State assembly candidate Manuel Noris-Barrera was among a number of candidates who spoke in opposition to the initiative before joining the car parade to protest the ballot measure proposed by Supervisors Joel Engardio, that would permanently close the Great Highway to cars. The event was organized by the Chinese Community that has been overwhelmed by street project and parking restrictions all over the city

It was a chilly, windy Thursday morning — good weather for getting mad. Denise Selleck drove to a parking lot near Ocean Beach to meet up with other motorists who had gathered to fume before forming a protest caravan that would take over the Great Highway.

Selleck was one of dozens of protesters opposing the potential permanent closure of the Great Highway and its transformation into a park. Located on the west end of the Outer Sunset, the coastal road is open to cars during weekdays and closed on weekends.

“I’ve never felt as dismissed and disrespected as I did,” Selleck, a 67-year-old retired teacher at City College, told The Standard. She said keeping the Great Highway open to cars is safer than rerouting them to other roads in the Sunset. ..(more)

RELATED:

Seven-story building on the Great Highway to house homeless people. Neighbors are pissed

Chinatown merchants say parking restrictions hurt businesses.

Chinatown leaders say bike-lane idea ‘blindsided’ them

Voters feel that SFMTA and Rec and Park projects that re-direct traffic are  largely to blame for SFMTA’s financial woes. Everything they do to diminish traffic on major thorough-fares creates a need to spend more money on mitigations on the side streets that would be not be necessary if SFMTA just managed MUNI instead of working to remove cars.

As the streets become more difficult to navigate residents and businesses leave. The destroy to “build back better” theme has lost whatever luster it once had. City Hall needs to stop the destruction and maintain what is left for those who are still here.

The Chinese community leaders and merchants have so far taken a lead in the fight to keep the Great Highway open. They have been  battling for parking in Chinatown. And now they are being threatened by bike lanes.

We expect many more to follow if Engardio does not withdraw his ballot initiative.

Politics, Transportation

How to Fund Road Maintenance

By Phil Ting : richmondsunsetnews – excerpt

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has been exploring alternatives to the state gas tax that will finance the road work we need. Fewer drivers are paying this fuel tax, as they ditch their combustion engines in favor of cleaner cars. The problem will worsen as California closes in on the year 2035 when a ban on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles takes effect.

On average, Californians shell out about $300 a year in state gas taxes, raising about $8 billion annually to support 80% of road repair and maintenance. By comparison, zero-emission vehicle drivers like me pay a $100 annual DMV fee to help make up for not paying into the road fund. Estimates show there could be a $4.4 billion shortfall in a decade because of dwindling gas tax revenue.

The good news is, we see this coming and we have time to find a solution. There have already been two pilot programs trying out some ideas, but a third one is about to get under way, and Caltrans needs 800 volunteers statewide to be part of it. Road Charge Program participants will be compensated up to $400 in gift cards. Sign up now through the end of June at caroadcharge.com.

The road charge is an innovative funding mechanism allowing drivers to support road and highway maintenance based on how many miles they drive instead of how many gallons of gas they use. The more they drive, the more they pay. It’s just like electricity bills, which are calculated by how much power is used. A “user pay” system for transportation funding ensures that all drivers pay their fair share of keeping our streets in good condition…(more)

Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the west side of San Francisco along with the communities of Broadmoor, Colma and Daly City as well as part of South San Francisco.

CEQA, Politics, Transportation

State Attorney General’s Office Joins the Fight Against the Pro-Parking Group ‘Citizens for a Better Eureka’

We will be targeting all coastal towns in CA with Wiener’s SB951 crazy ass law. So yes we will try to send to these folks too!

On 02/02/2024 11:31 AM PST zrants <zrants@gmail.com> wrote:

By Ray Burns : lostcoastoutpost – excerpt
The State of California wants in on the City of Eureka’s fight against the Security National-funded Citizens for a Better Eureka.

The Office of Attorney General Rob Bonta today submitted a request to file amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs in support of the City of Eureka and the Eureka City Council, and it says the court should reject the Citizens for a Better Eureka’s efforts to thwart affordable housing developments downtown.

Last month, Citizens for a Better Eureka filed a series of motions seeking preliminary injunctions that would immediately block the city and its partners, including Linc Housing and the Wiyot Tribe’s Dishgamu Humboldt Community Land Trust, from breaking ground on affordable housing and transportation projects slated for development on municipal parking lots downtown.

The motions – five, in all – allege violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing that the city failed to conduct legally required environmental review not only for the elimination of public parking spaces but also for the various planned redevelopment projects, which the group says will impact traffic and air quality…(more)

RELATED:

Eureka Planning Commission Chair Jeff Ragan Abruptly Resigns, Citing ‘Grave Concerns’ Over City’s Approval of Housing Projects on Three City-Owned Parking Lots

We keep warning the Democrats that they are risking losing support in communities that are barely on their side to begin with and these efforts to reign them is is stupid and irresponsible. They stand the possibly of losing seats in the House if they continue to attack the less urban communities. Where are the jobs and where is the need for housing in Eureka? Must contact them regarding ourneighborhoodvoices.com and other state organizations who are fighting their battles with them.

Politics, Transportation

Cruise Car hits Fire Truck

VIDEO: SF fire truck, driverless Cruise car collide, injuring passenger, company says.

By Gloria Rodriguez : abc7news – excerpt (includes video)

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — A driverless Cruise car and a fire truck collided in San Francisco late Thursday night, sending one passenger to the hospital.

The crash happened at the intersection of Turk and Polk in the city’s Tenderloin district after 10 p.m.

Video shows the Cruise car with its passenger side doors smashed in after the collision with a San Francisco Fire Department truck responding to a call nearby… If you have been following the Autonomous Vehicle saga waiting for the shoe to drop. It finally has. A Cruise car hit an emergency vehicle and injured a passenger. . .

VIDEO: Driverless Cruise car struck by SF fire truck, injuring passenger, company says
abc7news.com

https://abc7news.com/cruise-driverless-car-sffd-fire-truck-accident/13666936/#:~:text=Cruise%20says%20that%20one%20of,one%20passenger%20to%20the%20hospital.

We should take this opportunity to request an audit of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). In their zeal to thrust the state into high growth, forced density and future technologies, the CPUC has removed important safety guardrails that protected the public. Our their health, safety, and economic well-being have given way to the demands of corporate investors. Many of the recent CPUC decisions have come in spite of requests and warnings from the public that were backed by scientific and expert opinions that the changes were not in the publics’ interest.

Who does the CPUC work for? Why do they ignore experts on subjects they are clearly not prepared to judge? Why are they forcing us to rush into a dubious future with products and services that we do not need or trust and many will not use? Why are they setting up job cutting technologies that are unproven, untrusted against the public’s will?

They clearly blew it with robotaxis that have been nothing but trouble since they were given the green light to expand. What else are they getting wrong and who are the people that are making major decisions re: public health, safety and the economy?

How honest and competent is the state system that oversees people who have such a heavy hand on our lives? Where does their money come from and what is their incentive for raising the cost of living by forcing the public to foot higher energy bills? First they cut the payments to the solar producers who are feeding the grid to lower the costs of producing energy. Now they want to raise the cost to consumers by adding “taxes” onto the bills they just claimed to have lowered. How dumb do they think we are?

What is the end game and who is pulling the strings? Why is our governor appointing these people to oversee these important decisions that affect most aspects of our lives, from jobs, to housing and transportation, to energy and the economy. Who will step up to take control of conditions that have banks and insurance companies fleeing the state? What do they know that we don’t?