Blog » blog

2012 was a big year for SPUR and for the urbanist agenda. Years of work culminated in dramatic victories on the November ballot: San Francisco voters created a Housing Trust Fund, passed a parks bond and reformed the business tax. San Francisco also adopted the Transit Center District Plan for the part of downtown surrounding the new Transbay Transit Center. The Central Subway and the electrification of Caltrain were fully funded. State legislators gave the green light to begin building the initial segment of California’s high-speed rail system. And SPUR completed the Ocean Bean Master Plan and began its implementation.

It was also the year we launched SPUR San Jose, marking a major expansion of our work to support the urbanist agenda in the Bay Area’s largest city.

Can we top this in 2013? We’ll sure try. Here is a sneak preview of some of the big projects we’ll be working on at SPUR:

Climate change. If you're tired of hearing about this we’re sorry, but this is — truly — the biggest issue facing us. There are two parts to SPUR’s climate work – reducing greenhouse gas emissions and beginning to adapt to the climate changes that are now inevitable – and we are determined to make progress on both fronts in 2013. Eventually, we are going to have to get to the point where our cities are carbon-neutral, meaning, we do not generate more carbon each year than can be absorbed by our share of the earth. The sooner we make this transition, the better we will all fare. To us it seems clear that we should be world leaders in this region. Given our wealth and our environmental consciousness, we have the best chance of any place to figure this out.

Caltrain and Transbay. The most important infrastructure project for us right now is actually a set of four inter-related projects: construction of the Transbay Transit Center; Caltrain electrification; the extension of Caltrain to the Transbay Transit Center; and finally, the connection of the Caltrain line to the state high-speed rail system. This has been a focus of SPUR’s for more than a decade, and it will remain so for at least another decade. Two out of the four are now fully funded. Now our job is to get the rest of the funding and make sure we work out a long list of design and planning issues.

The Central Corridor Plan. Right now, the largest plan area in San Francisco undergoing comprehensive rezoning is the Central Corridor, roughly the area within easy walking distance of the new Central Subway in the South of Market neighborhood. It represents one of the last major opportunities in San Francisco for adding high densities of employment within walking distance of regional rail transit. It’s important to get this plan right, building on the lessons of the very successful 1985 Downtown Plan.

The San Francisco Waterfront. A lot of activity is focused on the waterfront right now, from the Giants’ proposed Mission Rock development to a proposal for a Golden State Warriors stadium to redevelopment plans for Pier 70. We will work to make sure these proposals are thoroughly vetted and that the city considers the full spectrum of planning issues — from urban design to transportation infrastructure.

The Sewer System Improvement Program. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is preparing to spend between $3 billion and $8 billion retrofitting and upgrading the city’s sewer system. As the rebuilding of the agency’s Hetch Hetchy water supply system heads toward completion, the SSIP will be the the next big phase in modernizing San Francisco’s water system. The magnitude of this project represents a major opportunity to design the system in a more environmentally sensitive way while providing economic opportunity for thousands of people.

The Resilient City. Our resolution for the year: Make some progress on a seismic retrofit ordinance for San Francisco’s soft-story structures — buildings of a certain age that lack strength in the ground floor because of garage doors or storefronts. This has been identified as a class of buildings that places residents in significant danger from a major earthquake. We have all the information we need to take action now.

San Jose. We will be working on major policy studies on: new planning approaches to downtown San Jose that can add vitality and investment without the tools of redevelopment; a new vision for the Valley Transportation Authority; and a big urban design study intended to help the city implement its 2040 General Plan.

Regional projects. In 2013, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments will complete and adopt the first ever Sustainable Communities Strategy, a project we’ve been working on for several years. We will also push to solve some longstanding and intractable transit issues, such as the need to better coordinate fares, funding, schedules and others aspects of regional transit systems like BART and Caltrain. We will release a paper on reforming regional governance and another on managing our long-term water supply. We will conduct a major study on the Bay Area food system. And we will also be leading a major project to produce an economic development plan for the Bay Area that focuses on social equity.

As this year gets underway, it’s clear that urbanists in the Bay Area have some major problems to confront. But looking at all we’ve accomplished in the last year, we face these challenges with a sense of optimism and momentum. 2013 is a good time to be an urbanist. If you’re not already a member of SPUR, we hope you’ll join us.

In November, BART released conceptual plans for a multi-billion dollar rejuvenation that would introduce a new wave of service called BART Metro. BART expects vast ridership expansion in the next several years, and these changes would allow 50 percent growth — bringing the number of daily riders to an average of 560,000 — by 2025. The plans hinge on the idea that BART is not only a commuter rail that connects the suburbs to the cities, where most rides happen during rush hour, but also an urban-style metro, where large numbers of people are traveling throughout the day. The project seeks to balance improved service effectiveness (especially during mid-day and evening hours) with the need to enhance capacity on a two-track railroad.

How can BART improve its service to its two different groups of customers? The preliminary BART Metro concepts  involve a balance of two approaches. The first approach, Phase I, would be to start running shorter train lines with more frequent service connecting stations in the urban core, primarily the stops between the Richmond and Hayward stations in the inner East Bay and extending through the Transbay Tube southeast to Glen Park in San Francisco. The second approach, Phase II, would be to continue the service to more distant suburban destinations with an eye toward future skip-stop or express service to reduce travel times.

Some Phase I projects are already underway. BART is working on replacing its fleet with the Fleet of the Future, with three doors per car for faster on- and off-boarding; Phase I calls for about 200 more cars than are currently on the tracks. The agency also intends to increase peak service on the Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO line and the Fremont-Daly City line, and to extend service hours during the nights and weekends on the Richmond-Millbrae and Fremont-Daly City lines. In fall 2012, BART extended Richmond-Millbrae service until 8 p.m.

Longer-term concepts focus on shortening some train lines by adding turnbacks, often created by adding a side track that allows the train to reverse directions. For example, turnbacks could be built adjacent to downtown San Francisco stops and the Bayfair station in the East Bay, in order to shuttle more trains back and forth under the bay. During peak commute hours it could work as follows: Destinations like Richmond would have 10 trains an hour with a gap of six minutes between trains, while West Oakland — the jumping-off point for all trains entering the Transbay Tube — would have as many as 27 trains an hour, with a gap of about 2.2 minutes between trains. In the future, on evenings and weekends, the northern part of the Richmond line would see eight trains an hour, with the urban core dropping down to 16. Downtown Oakland and Berkeley stops would also see an increase in trains; for example MacArthur station in north Oakland would receive 21 trains an hour during peak times and 12 during off-peak times. In this way, BART would be molded to more efficiently serve the urban core while not losing its other identity as a commuter rail.

This model can be compared to public rail transit in Paris, where riders are served by two different rail systems: the RER, or Regional Express Network, for regional commutes and the Paris Métro for shorter trips within the urban core. With the BART Metro plan, BART aims to continue filling both roles while improving service through efficiency. While the BART Metro plan increases the number of trains and cars on BART tracks, it would actually decrease the total number of miles traveled by trains annually.

BART hopes to have the changes in Phase I completed by 2025. Longer-term Phase II planning is ongoing; eventually BART riders could see changes such as skip-stop and express route trains traveling to key commuter destinations, coupling of trains on the Dublin/Pleasanton-Daly City and Fremont-Daly City lines, 100 additional cars and planning for a second transbay tube.

SPUR applauds the development of BART Metro. We have advocated for concepts that increase BART service in the urban core for a number of years, and we recommended several of these ideas our reports A Mid-Life Crisis for Regional Rail and the Future of Downtown San Francisco.

View a presentation on BART Metro >>

While the majority of voters were lost in a sea of presidential fervor, San Francisco was busy having a historic local election. And after four years of significant cuts to education and public services, Governor Brown’s elimination of redevelopment agencies and a flagging local economy, the city had some serious business to address. On the ballot were a number of important issues — from education to parks, housing to taxation. Voters universally supported SPUR’s ballot recommendations. And San Franciscans turned out in record numbers to cast their votes. Here’s how the verdicts came down on four important measures:

City College (Prop. A)

City College is one of the largest English as a second language (ESL) providers in the city and an invaluable workforce development partner of the City and County of San Francisco. With the combination of repeated state reductions and a looming accreditation crisis haunting the school, San Franciscans clearly voted to support City College. Prop. A will provide approximately $14 million per year to support operations at the college, which — in combination with funding from the approval of California Prop. 30 — should give City College some breathing room to navigate the accreditation process.

This measure required approval of two-thirds of San Francisco voters.

Verdict: Passed with 72.4 percent of the vote

Housing Trust Fund (Prop. C)

With the demise of redevelopment agencies, cities across the state have been deprived of one of their main sources of financing for affordable housing. Prop. C is a direct response to this issue.

The result of unprecedented cooperation between diverse interests, Prop. C provides up to $50 million in funding per year for affordable housing construction and down-payment assistance, while making it less costly for developers to provide on-site inclusionary housing units. Make no mistake: this is a big deal. The housing trust fund will change how affordable housing gets built in San Francisco, and it provides $1.2 billion of housing funds to get it done over the next 30 years.

Verdict: Passed with 64.8 percent of the vote

Election Reform (Prop. D)

One of the least-noticed measures on the ballot will actually result in $1 million annual savings to the city. Prop. D will consolidate elections and coordinate the election of citywide offices, eliminating an election every four years. With the cost of elections at roughly $4.2 million per election, Prop. D savings will add up quickly.

Verdict: Highest voter approval. Passed with 83.5 percent of the vote

Business Tax Reform (Prop. E)

In 2001, a legal settlement over business taxes left San Francisco wondering what to do. The business tax at the time required companies to pay the greater of either the city’s gross receipts tax or its payroll tax. After a lawsuit found the requirement to pay the higher of the two options to be unconstitutional, San Francisco went with payroll tax only.A similar structure in Los Angeles was also struck down following a legal challenge, but L.A. went the opposite direction — gross receipts tax only — with better results. While much easier to administer, San Francisco’s payroll tax had the unfortunate effect of taxing job creation. Prop. E ends more than a decade of attempts to devise a more reasonable alternative, and it is the result of more than six months of outreach and negotiations with businesses of all shapes and sizes.

Verdict: Passed with 71.1 percent of the vote

Lessons Learned

Now that the dust has cleared, what do these results mean? It has become increasingly clear in recent years that ballot reforms championed by SPUR have helped narrow the focus of ballot measures and reduce the number of measures. In fact, this year had the lowest number of local measures for a presidential election since 1964.

There is one lesson here that may seem obvious but has just been proven: Consensus can work, even in San Francisco. These major reforms had very broad support across the political spectrum, and that in itself is remarkable in a city that is often divided.

Can San Francisco maintain this level of civility and consensus? That might be overly optimistic, but for now, it’s time to celebrate progress on some important issues that the city has faced for a long time.

City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Interim chancellor Pamila Fisher offered a blunt assessment of the state of the college at a SPUR breakfast on October 17, just two days after the school released an action plan to address deficiencies identified by the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. “Our commitment to San Francisco values has sometimes gotten in the way of making good decisions,” she told the audience.

The words were striking given CCSF’s recent trajectory.

With nine campuses, 100 instructional sites and just shy of 90,000 students, City College of San Francisco is the largest two-year community college in California. It is also a valued workforce development partner for the city and one of the largest providers of English as a second language (ESL) instruction in San Francisco.

The days since submission of the action plan have revealed just how painful changes are going to be at CCSF. The college’s board of trustees has appointed a special trustee to manage accreditation-related issues. The board is also considering a range of different options to restore the institution’s financial viability, including closure of college-run childcare facilities, which provide child development training opportunities. Forcing students to pay all enrollment fees (a practice found to be only sporadically enforced) could yield as much as $400,000 per year. In combination with other related proposals, the college has taken steps to save as much as $2.5 million per year. Unfortunately, this will only begin to address the school’s financial woes.

The accreditation threat is only the latest in a series of challenges faced by CCSF. The college has lost significant state funding in recent years: Recessionary pressures and California’s structural budget deficit have combined to reduce state funding by $57 million since 2007, about 17 percent of the school’s state funding allocation. CCSF is not alone; community colleges throughout California have experienced significant funding reductions in recent years. But City College may be alone in failing to adapt to those pressures.

Although the college is experiencing administrative challenges, voters acknowledged the importance of funding on Election Day. The passage of both California Proposition 30, Governor Jerry Brown’s temporary increase of both sales tax and income taxes for those earning above $250,000, and San Francisco Proposition A, a local parcel tax, mean that City College can not only forgo additional budget cuts in the current year, but will have an additional $14 million per year in each of the next eight years. Without the passage of both measures the college might have gone bankrupt.

What remains for now is a modicum of financial stability and yet another leadership transition for City College. Fisher’s six-month contract expired November 1. In her place will be another interim chancellor — Thelma Scott-Skinner, the retired president of Folsom Lake College — and the special trustee appointed by the board, Bob Agrella, retired head of the Sonoma County Junior College District. The action plan submitted in October explains how the commission’s recommendations will be addressed. The next impending deadline is March 15, when the college must submit a report explaining how and why CCSF should remain accredited.