<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Streetsblog Los Angeles &#187; San Francisco</title>
	<atom:link href="http://la.streetsblog.org/category/communities/san-francisco/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://la.streetsblog.org</link>
	<description>Covering Los Angeles&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:10:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Best Practices: Bay Area Developers Ditch Parking for More Units</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/best-practices-bay-area-developers-ditch-parking-for-more-units/</link>
		<comments>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/best-practices-bay-area-developers-ditch-parking-for-more-units/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Roth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=20271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
    When
it comes to building new developments in the Bay Area, especially in
San Francisco, the battle over limiting the construction of new parking
spaces is pitched. Parking reform advocacy organizations like Livable City,
which maintains a listserv populated by car-free and livable-city
advocates keeping a keen watch on planning commission parking
exemptions, have long encouraged <a href=http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/best-practices-bay-area-developers-ditch-parking-for-more-units/>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="post-entry"> 
    <p>When
it comes to building new developments in the Bay Area, especially in
San Francisco, the battle over limiting the construction of new parking
spaces is pitched. Parking reform advocacy organizations like <a href="http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/parking.html">Livable City</a>,
which maintains a listserv populated by car-free and livable-city
advocates keeping a keen watch on planning commission parking
exemptions, have long encouraged city leaders to tighten the
parking-to-unit ratios in dense neighborhoods flush with transit and
bicycling options.<br /> </p> 
    <div class="figure alignright" style="width: 256px;"><img width="250" height="305" align="right" src="http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11_12/no_parking_small.jpg" alt="no_parking_small.jpg" class="image" /><span class="legend">Photo: Matthew Roth</span></div>Why,
these advocates ask, would any city seeking to be a model of
sustainability require developments to have one parking space per unit,
as is the case across San Francisco outside of the downtown core and
certain neighborhood plan zones (the mandatory parking ratio can be
higher in other Bay Area cities)? San Francisco is the city it is
because it was built densely, with
minimal parking, and areas like the Mission or North Beach would be
impossible with 1:1 ratios. </div><p><span id="more-20271"></span></p>
    <p>And who should they hang for granting variances permitting
higher than 2:1 ratios, as happened last week when a two-unit home at
2626 Larkin Street in Russian Hill received permission from the San
Francisco Planning Commission to build five parking spaces, one with a
parking stacker for additional cars? <br /><br />When these questions are asked of city planners and developers, like they were during the struggle to <a href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/">limit parking at 299 Valencia Street</a>,
advocates and political leaders are led to believe that it is
impossible to finance new developments, particularly condos and
non-rental properties, without the maximum parking ratio possible. Less
parking, goes the developer refrain, banks will refuse to loan and the
units will be impossible to re-sell.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/696394">Not all developers buy that argument</a>, however, and some have buildings that disprove it. </p> 
    <p>&quot;If
you are doing a project next to BART or many buses, you really don't
need to have a lot of cars,&quot; said Oz Erickson, Chairman of the <a href="http://www.emeraldfund.com/index.htm">Emerald Fund, Inc</a>,
a developer who has built more than 2,000 units in San Francisco.
Emerald's newest development, a rental building at 333 Harrison Street
in Rincon Hill, will be built with a .5:1 parking-to-unit ratio, even
though the developer could appeal for a variance to build more parking.<br /> </p> 
   
&quot;It really works in those situations when the cost of excavation for an
additional floor is really high and you're doing a rental project that
has really good public transportation,&quot; said Erickson. He explained
that excavation and construction costs for a single parking space in
his new development could run as high as $60,000, whereas the return on
the space will only be $200 per month. Further, the additional
construction time required to excavate for parking pushes costs even
higher, which, according to Erickson, is a liability in a lending
climate as constricted as the current one.<br /><br />Erickson didn't
always build with voluntarily lower parking ratios and he said that the
333 Harrison development wouldn't be as easy to finance if it were
condos. &quot;Banks like to see 1:1,&quot; he said, though they have gone below
that ratio on centrally located areas like Kearny Street and they have
done it for condominium projects without maximal parking.&nbsp; Erickson
confirmed what <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13529914">has been reported in other cities</a>,
namely that national banks unfamiliar with a city's particular
development market can be reluctant to go below the familiar parking
ratios. 
    <p>Above all else, Erickson argued, a city should provide as much
flexibility in developments as possible. &quot;You really should be in a
position where zoning laws do not require you to put in parking,&quot; he
said.<br /> </p> 
    <div style="width: 506px;" class="figure alignmiddle"><img width="500" height="400" align="middle" class="image" alt="gaia_building_small.jpg" src="http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11_12/gaia_building_small.jpg" /><span class="legend">Patrick Kennedy's Gaia Building in Berkeley has 91 units and only 35 parking spaces. Photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremydw/2451917359/">jeremydw</a><br /></span></div>Across
the Bay in Berkeley and Oakland, Patrick Kennedy has been building
residential units with scant parking for decades. Kennedy's <a href="http://panoramic.com/">Panoramic Interests</a>
is responsible for much of Berkeley's current skyline, including the
Gaia Building and the Fine Arts Building, and his mission is to build
infill development near transit with as little parking as necessary. <br /><br />One
glance at his website and you understand the developer is unlike many
others, with quotes from Lewis Mumford (&quot;Cities exist not for the
passage of cars, but for the care and culture of human beings) and Jane
Jacobs (&quot;Possibilities to add convenience, intensity and cheer in
cities… are limitless&quot;) alongside before-and-after photos of his
buildings. For Kennedy, building more parking is a choice that reflects
a developer's priorities.<br /><br />&quot;If you want to go after the densest
configuration of housing, you have to not plan around the car,&quot; said
Kennedy. &quot;Spaces for cars cost a lot more to build than spaces for
people because they chew up so much space.&quot;<br /><br />Kennedy admits that
he hasn't built condos since 1996 and that much of his units are taken
by students and young professionals in the UC Berkeley orbit, a
decidedly less car-dependent demographic who are seeking a city
experience. He is, however, currently developing a building in San
Francisco two blocks from a BART station, where he intends to limit
parking significantly. The building will have 23 units and parking for
only two cars, both of which will be car-share vehicles. <br /><br />&quot;If
the car is considered a mere afterthought, we can get [more] units in.
Building a parking space costs at least $50,000 per car, including
opportunity costs for what else might have gone in the space,&quot; said
Kennedy, adding that if they were to build the building with
conventional parking ratios, he could probably only squeeze 6 units
into the same space.&nbsp; &nbsp;<br /><br />Kennedy argued that parking requirements
can be a significant barrier to home-ownership for first-time buyers.
&quot;If you're going to get the entry-level, it's smart to keep prices
down. If you had the choice of a small condo that had a parking space
for $450,000 or a condo for $250,000 without a car space, which [would
you choose]?&quot;<br /><br />&quot;Owning a car is expensive in a city,&quot; he added.
&quot;You can manage in San Francisco without a car if you're in a
neighborhood with a lot of transit.&quot;<br /><br />Both Erickson and Kennedy
stressed the importance of providing choice to customers, not excluding
parking completely, but recognizing that more and more people who
choose to live in cities might not want the parking space.<br /><br />Kennedy
explained that he lived car-free for four years in Cambridge when he
was a student, which he extolled with the fervor one might expect from
a bicycle advocate. &quot;The best way to force [people] out of a car is to
not provide them a place to park,&quot; said Kennedy, before asking whether
Superior Court Judge Peter Busch had lifted the bicycle injunction in
San Francisco. 
    <p>Referring to cyclists and others who don't own cars: &quot;I think
it's important to provide them with an opportunity to live a car-free
life if they choose to.&quot; </p> 
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/best-practices-bay-area-developers-ditch-parking-for-more-units/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SF Responds to Bike Injunction With 1353 Page Enviro Review</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/12/01/sf-responds-to-bike-injunction-with-1353-page-enviro-review/</link>
		<comments>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/12/01/sf-responds-to-bike-injunction-with-1353-page-enviro-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Roth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bicycling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bike Parking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[San Francisco's Market Street. 
  Two
and a half years after a&#160;judge issued an injunction preventing the city
from adding any new bicycle infrastructure to its streets, the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and the San Francisco
Planning Department have&#160;released a 1353-page Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)&#160;on the San Francisco Bicycle Plan.&#160; 
  At
a cost of <a href=http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/12/01/sf-responds-to-bike-injunction-with-1353-page-enviro-review/>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="center"><img height="401" width="560" src="http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11_24/Bike_Rider___Market_St.jpg" alt="Bike_Rider___Market_St.jpg" /><strong><br /><font size="1">San Francisco's Market Street.</font></strong><br /></p> 
  <p>Two
and a half years after a&nbsp;judge issued an injunction preventing the city
from adding any new bicycle infrastructure to its streets, the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and the San Francisco
Planning Department have&nbsp;released a <a href="http://sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=80504">1353-page Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)</a>&nbsp;on the San Francisco Bicycle Plan.&nbsp;</p> 
  <p align="left">At
a cost of more than $1 million,&nbsp;the city has attempted to demonstrate
in excruciating detail what would seem to be the obvious: better
bicycle amenities contribute to increased cycling and an improved
environment.</p> 
  <p>Despite the significant time and&nbsp;money
required to produce the tome,&nbsp;Mayor Gavin Newsom struck an optimistic
note, citing the proposed addition of 34 miles of bicycle lanes to San
Francisco streets—a 75 percent increase over the existing 45 miles of
lanes.&nbsp; </p><p><span id="more-1438"></span></p?
  <p>“We’ve accomplished a great deal together, but
much work remains to be done to improve the safety and convenience of
bicycling,” said&nbsp;Newsom. “I will continue to push for a better
bicycling environment as part of my deep commitment to improving the
health of our environment, our residents and our city.”<br /><br />A public hearing on the DEIR has been scheduled for January 8th. The deadline for comments is&nbsp;January 13th.&nbsp; </p> 
  <p>While Rob Anderson, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121919354756955249.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today">the plaintiff</a>
in the&nbsp;lawsuit that sparked the injunction, will surely continue his
befuddlingly successful crusade (a couple choice jeremiads from his
blog: <a href="http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2008_07_19_archive.html">cyclists as a special interest wielding inordinate political power</a> or a <a href="http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2006/09/bikes-in-sf-debate-goes-on.html">frivolous mode of transportation akin to skateboarding</a>), the city assumes the DEIR will be sufficient to lift the injunction.&nbsp; </p> <span id="more-5025"></span> 
  <p><!--moew--></p> 
  <p align="left">“The
Planning Department is confident that the DEIR fully satisfies the
issues cited in the superior court's injunction and will enable timely
implementation of bicycle improvements that will enhance transportation
alternatives in San Francisco,” said Planning Director John Rahaim. </p> 
  <p align="left">What
this means practically is a different matter. According to Andy
Thornley, program director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
(SFBC), even if the DEIR is certified by&nbsp;spring and the Bicycle Plan
goes before the MTA board shortly thereafter, the 60 projects
outlined&nbsp;for immediate implementation likely won't begin until the
summer of 2009.&nbsp; </p> 
  <p align="left">“The Draft EIR is a very
expensive bow-tie that we’re going to attach to the Bike Plan itself.&nbsp;
While it is a big deal, it shouldn't be the only focus. The city needs
to build out the Bike Plan as soon as possible.&quot;</p> 
  <p align="left"><span style="border-collapse: collapse;">The
injunction held that the previous version of the Bicycle Plan had not
received sufficient review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA</span>). The Bicycle Plan DEIR identifies some potentially
significant impacts as defined by CEQA affecting traffic congestion,
transit operating delays, and loading activities for some project
options, particularly along portions of Second Street, Fifth Street,
Cesar Chavez Street, Portola Avenue and Masonic Avenue.</p> 
  <p align="left">Though the city <a href="http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/07/bicyclists_told_to_blame_ceqa.html">took considerable heat over the summer</a> for revealing at a Board of Supervisors hearing that it <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-1498952%7ESlow_pace_irks_bike_plan_fans.html">had fallen behind its own schedule for releasing the DEIR</a>,
the Planning Department delivered on its promise to release it by
Thanksgiving. Both advocates and critics of the Bicycle Plan will have
plenty to sift through over the long weekend (and likely through the
New Year). </p> 
  <p align="left">Given the&nbsp;timeline of up to five
years for completion of the&nbsp;60 near-term projects in the Bicycle Plan,
it is unclear whether Newsom,&nbsp;a likely candidate for governor in 2010,
will realize significant bicycle improvements during his last term as
mayor. </p> 
  <p align="left"><em>Photo: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency</em></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/12/01/sf-responds-to-bike-injunction-with-1353-page-enviro-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
