San francisco's abundant developable land supply

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

More people more congestion...

You’re still going to get more congestion either way because people will just commute from farther out like they are now. How is that any better?

[Ultrarunner]

As the Bay Area become one large Metro the impact on mobility is profound.

When I commuted from Oakland to San Jose 35-40 minutes was the norm... only did it for two years and decided I didn't like commuting... I have friends that make the same drive and an hour would make them very happy...

Public transportation isn't all that either... was to meet friends coming from Fremont for the Warriors Game... they boarded BART just as there was a police action at Coliseum Station... we never did meet up.

Being 7 minutes from work has spoiled me... friends that also work at the same Hospital and who lived very close to work sold their 1940-50's homes and moved to Livermore, Mountain House, Tracy, etc... and now loath the commute... just gets worse all the time...

None could take the commute more than a couple of years and all have since quit and work now closer to home for less money... but, still question if moving to a new and larger home requiring commute was really worth it...

There is no denying there are limits to growth... physical space, infrastructure plus living in an known Earthquake Center compounds problems with density... so many people when the big one hits could be a disaster of epic proportion.

Last summer I had visiting friends from Germany... they wanted to see San Francisco in the morning and we were to meet other friends in Martinez for dinner that night... it literally tool 3 hours to drive from Fisherman's Wharf to Martinez... I told them 3 hours is almost enough time to drive to Tahoe!!!

Back around 2009 the freeways were suddenly near congestion free... the volume at commute time had fallen and it was actually a pleasure to get around... no overcrowded BART trains and massive waits at the toll booths...

[sav858]

Way to completely avoid the question and offer no other suggestions...

Yes we’re all aware how much traffic congestion has grown ad naseum ...

[SFBayBoomer]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

There is no reason to be thinking about parking spaces. In fact, this highlights greatly an enormous flaw in our land use policies. We should be building for Public Transit usage, not personal automobile transportation

Parking spaces will always be needed in San Francisco.

San Francisco is a major tourist destination. Many tourists arrive by personal automobile. That is a fact.

Tourists who arrive by automobile and stay in San Francisco overnight want to park somewhere convenient to their lodging.

Many people who arrive in automobiles, whether they are overnight tourists with luggage, or day tourists (e.g. greater bay area locals) who cannot walk much due to physical inability will, of necessity, use automobiles.

There are many things that need to be part of overall city planning, and incorporating parking into that plan is also important.

[SFBayBoomer]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Bay Area does have extensive open space and park plus the Bay itself...

Not sure what to tell folks that live in the city limit and bought years ago a lot with plans of building their dream home... on land zoned for single family with sewer already in place...

It is criminal how a family wanting to build is treated... the case I am thinking of actually had community meetings at the local school saying the city should buy the land and most had no idea it was not city property... the owner had been tending to and paying the taxes over 25 years and finally reached the point of being able to build... it was actually 3 parcels totaling just shy of 5 acres and he was going to live in one and give the other to his son and daughter.

The short of it is the city did get the property and the owner lost years of his life in planning and the money for architect, engineering, permit fees, etc...

Can you post a link to the above story? I'm curious about the size and type of house someone waited 25 years to build and the details which might be found in the minutes of a city meeting. Oakland? San Francisco?

[Dave Coe]

Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer

Parking spaces will always be needed in San Francisco.

San Francisco is a major tourist destination. Many tourists arrive by personal automobile. That is a fact.

Tourists who arrive by automobile and stay in San Francisco overnight want to park somewhere convenient to their lodging.

Many people who arrive in automobiles, whether they are overnight tourists with luggage, or day tourists (e.g. greater bay area locals) who cannot walk much due to physical inability will, of necessity, use automobiles.

There are many things that need to be part of overall city planning, and incorporating parking into that plan is also important.

Many tourist will continue to arrive via car but an integrated Subway system can minimize traffic within SF.

[SFBayBoomer]

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

Many tourist will continue to arrive via car but an integrated Subway system can minimize traffic within SF.

I agree with that. San Francisco needs to expand and improve upon its current mass transit system while continuing to serve the needs of tourists and residents who drive and must find places to park.

However, I disagree with your premise that San Francisco would be well served by over-development of housing by building skyscrapers, which is what I think you are proposing.

We don't want San Francisco to lose its traditional character and turn into the vertical monstrosity that Vancouver, B.C. has become.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer

Can you post a link to the above story? I'm curious about the size and type of house someone waited 25 years to build and the details which might be found in the minutes of a city meeting. Oakland? San Francisco?

Both properties are in the Oakland Hills... one in Montclair District and other near Chabot Golf Course...

The Montclair property was bought by a builder after the original owner through in the towel... the builder had the where with all to move the project forward but in the end the land became a park due to public pressure... Beaconsfield Canyon

In 1987, PPNA rallied to convince Oakland to buy the property at the end of Beaconsfield Place (off Chelton Dr.), thus defeating a 16-home development. The land remains as open space and has been undergoing a beautification and creek restoration effort, spearheaded by resident Richard Kauffman, with major assistance from Wendy Tokuda and the Friends of Sausal Creek.

The project near Chabot Golf course was bought with East Bay Regional Park Bond money and transferred to the city of Oakland... also due to public pressure...

67 acres in the hills... Edward Patmont and his Chabot Dunsmuir LP would construct 61 single-family homes

Both projects conformed with zoning and density...

What was once buildable often may not be as time marches on... a factor in Oakland depends on what the slope is... never a concern before... plus stricter setback requirements that favor those that have already built and serve as a barrier to those wanting to build.

Down-Zoning also happens around the bay area... my brother's boss lived on acreage in Lafayette... neighbors had built on smaller lots and subdivided larger ones... what once was routine engineering may not be possible... even if there is a history in the neighborhood... existing improvement are reclassified as non-conforming...

Another very good friend owned a lot in Piedmont... he had it for about 15 years and reached the point of being able to build... the adjoining property owner is a lawyer with clout... he point blank asked my friend if he was prepared to spend years in litigation because that is what would happen if he proceeds... after two years of frustration in fighting the neighbor... my friends wife said she was tired of it... the lawyer now owns the parcel which he bought and brags how he stopped the development and increased the value of his property...

[SFBayBoomer]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Both properties are in the Oakland Hills... one in Montclair District and other near Chabot Golf Course...

The Montclair property was bought by a builder after the original owner through in the towel... the builder had the where with all to move the project forward but in the end the land became a park due to public pressure... Beaconsfield Canyon

In 1987, PPNA rallied to convince Oakland to buy the property at the end of Beaconsfield Place (off Chelton Dr.), thus defeating a 16-home development. The land remains as open space and has been undergoing a beautification and creek restoration effort, spearheaded by resident Richard Kauffman, with major assistance from Wendy Tokuda and the Friends of Sausal Creek.

The project near Chabot Golf course was bought with East Bay Regional Park Bond money and transferred to the city of Oakland... also due to public pressure...

67 acres in the hills... Edward Patmont and his Chabot Dunsmuir LP would construct 61 single-family homes

Both projects conformed with zoning and density...

What was once buildable often may not be as time marches on... a factor in Oakland depends on what the slope is... never a concern before... plus stricter setback requirements that favor those that have already built and serve as a barrier to those wanting to build.

Down-Zoning also happens around the bay area... my brother's boss lived on acreage in Lafayette... neighbors had built on smaller lots and subdivided larger ones... what once was routine engineering may not be possible... even if there is a history in the neighborhood... existing improvement are reclassified as non-conforming...

Another very good friend owned a lot in Piedmont... he had it for about 15 years and reached the point of being able to build... the adjoining property owner is a lawyer with clout... he point blank asked my friend if he was prepared to spend years in litigation because that is what would happen if he proceeds... after two years of frustration in fighting the neighbor... my friends wife said she was tired of it... the lawyer now owns the parcel which he bought and brags how he stopped the development and increased the value of his property...

Thank you for posting this information. I had not heard the term "down-zoning" before. I have three friends who live in the North Oakland Hills and Berkeley Hills. One built some houses there after the Oakland fire, but all three are very pro-nature, and I would not be surprised to learn that they might have lobbied for more parks. I probably would have, too, if I lived near there.

I tend not to like in-fill developments, especially when they don't look like the homes that are already there, and I would insist on keeping mature trees, even if it means someone can't build a McMansion to their desired specs or square footage because the trees would be "in the way." I have also seen some beautiful homes designed to incorporate mature trees into their design, but that means the trees must be super healthy, at full maturity and not likely to cause problems for the structure in coming years.