High Density Housing Element Overruled
A district appeals court ruling has invalidated the housing element of San Francisco's general plan, arguing that the environmental consequences of the plan's increased density were not considered.
"The decision Friday by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco was a victory for neighborhood organizations, mostly in the western part of the city, that formed San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods to challenge the housing element of the city's general plan. They argued that the proposal would concentrate development in their areas and cause overcrowding."
"City officials said the plan contained only minor differences from the 1990 revision and did not require an environmental impact report, a conclusion that a Superior Court judge accepted in December 2005. The appeals court disagreed."
"Some provisions of the 2004 document 'reflect a shift away from preserving existing housing density and a movement toward allowing denser housing development and decreased off-street parking,' the three-judge panel said."
"That, in turn, could lead to increased traffic congestion, air pollution and noise and a change in the "aesthetic quality'' of neighborhoods, the court said."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Big Box Retail Owners Ask For Stacked Housing - Nov 14, 2008
Mixed-Use Faces Mixed Reviews in Fullerton - Aug 20, 2008
New Urbanist Town Designed For Ultimate In Green Living - May 10, 2008
Los Angeles Cracks Down On Mansionization - May 07, 2008
Bay Area's Growth Shifts To Urban Areas - May 03, 2008
what a surprise. wait -- what a joke
people wonder why housing is so expensive in California - especially San Francisco where a studio unit goes for $400K.
Neighborhood groups have strangled the city, state, and development community and their collective ability to provide much, much needed housing,with the other 2/3 of the population (renters) paying the price.
It's ironic that these NIMBY groups argue for the status quo, believing that they are helping the city.
The most ridiculous comment was the one suggesting that local businesses are hurt by increases in population.
Y'all want less traffic, cleaner air, a quieter environment and free parking? They're giving great deals on new houses in Lathrop and Mountain House.
what a surprise. wait -- a another tired, cliched attack on SF
Think for a minute... A studio in San Diego costs about the same (800K for a 2BR/1BA in downtown San Diego) as place in San Francisco... So what's your point?
There are NIMBYs everywhere, this is certainly not exclusively a San Francisco problem. Ever been to a La Jolla Community Planning Group Meeting? A majority of the audience in those meetings are hard-core, selfish NIMBYs. They turn down projects based upon EIR technicalities/inconsistencies all the time to stop development.
For example, the entire "City of Villages" update to the City of San Diego General Plan back in 2005 was stripped away of its medium-density component (Land Use and Urban Design elements), due to overwhelming NIMBYism. That's why Gail Goldberg left as San Diego's visionary Planning Director to join the City of Los Angeles, because there was SO much anti-density, NIMBYism in San Diego.
In addition, General Plans (and certain required elements such as housing) are overruled quite often throughout California. This is due to the triumvirate of populist/progressive voter-enabling mechanisms (recall/initiative/referendum), which have been a fixture in our state since the California Constitution was ratified in 1911. Wanna go back to the good old days of mayor "bosses" and "political machines", a-la the era of Boss Tweed?
Maybe we should all stop pointing our fingers, saying "I told you so", whenever any bit of negative press (regardless the subject) is reported about San Francisco, or the Bay Area in general.
I mean, how many more articles are going to be posted here in Planetizen, which decry how MUNI is the "worst, most unreliable" public transportation system in the United States. Hey, at least we in the Bay Area have the 3rd highest transit ridership in the nation in 2006 (of cities greater than 600,000 people), according to the American Public Transportation Association. And we are certainly doing a lot better at preventing global warming and excessive emissions, due to our extensive public transportation network, than other regions can say.
Instead, we should be focusing on all the problems of affordability and cost of living in SAN DIEGO. Remember, average salaries in "America's Finest City" are 30% less than the Bay Area, with comparable (if not MORE expensive) real estate in many parts of San Diego.
Let's keep eveything into perspective, shall we?
Unless you believe the twisted propaganda Ronald Reagan was preaching in the late 1960's, during the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, when he horrifically said "The Bay Area is a hotbed of evil"...