This is Joseph.
Mark had a pretty strong reaction to my last piece. It has been a while since we had a debate and I think this is a good place for one. Let me state, before anything else, that Mark made good points.
But here is the thing, even though the reasons that he brings up are absolutely correct, they are not actually part of the core arguments being made by either side. I see the issue is administrative processes dragging on for very long periods of time, I think that whole new reasons becoming clear, as the megafire issue because more obvious, is actually a good example of this phenomenon.
The environmental impact report does mention the wildland fire risk as follows:
Wildland Fires
The Project site is located in a mostly urbanized area, and is surrounded by a variety of residential and commercial/office land uses. While the majority of the surrounding area is currently developed with residential and commercial uses, uphill to the north of the Project site is an additional a roughly 4.6 acres of undeveloped privately-owned parcel land, itself surrounded by development. This relatively small and isolated wild area would not be considered a high risk for wildfires and is not in an identified high fire hazard zone, as listed in Section 5.3.1 of the General Plan. In addition, it the Project is subject to approval of the Fire Marshal as it relates to brush and vegetation removal to the north. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Now this report is from 2012; conditions may well have changed. But this is a decade ago. The real concern here is not that the development is or is not approved. It's that starting a process to determine whether it can be approved or not is still going nearly 18 years after the initial process began.
Perhaps my first piece could have been clearer: it would be a far better world where the project was just dead after 5 years than one in which the costs can be driven up so much by legalistic delay. If the project is a bad idea then it should be canned. But it has been a decade since the final environmental report. Maybe it was botched. Maybe we know more a decade later.
It's also worth noting the original zoning that is being challenged (i.e., what could be built without the zoning change): Professional Administrative Office. So this debate is not about protected wildland but a debate about whether this parcel of land should be a series of townhomes or an office building. Now maybe it should be protected wildland, but the process should be a lot faster, one would think, about making this determination.
But the petition itself makes none of the excellent arguments that Mark is making (go read them first, they are smart and well taken, unlike what you are about to read):
The project as proposed would result in unacceptable adverse impacts on public safety and traffic congestion due to the increased number of vehicles attempting ingress and egress onto East Blithedale, at what is already the City’s most congested intersection.
The project proposes height, unit density, and building massing that is grossly inappropriate and out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods and structures, which would result in significant adverse visual and aesthetic impacts to those neighborhoods, and be in direct violation of the City's Design Guidelines and General Plan policies for the area.
The conclusions of the EIR that the project will have no significant impacts which cannot be mitigated, particularly with regard to traffic and visual criteria, are unrealistic and without basis in fact.
The project’s density would result in the complete loss of valuable open space, the obliteration of vegetation on the final foothill of Mt. Tam, and a loss of the aesthetic quality of the natural entry to Mill Valley.
The actual arguments are 1) traffic, 2) doesn't look nice, 3) we don't agree with the EIR's disagreement with #1 and #2, and 4) "valuable open space would be lost", which is a value to current homeowners more than anyone else.
I would have far, far more sympathy with the arguments if they had something like "California megafires are already making this area too dense and it would be unsafe to increase density; we need to build elsewhere". But the arguments being made are what they are and the smart arguments seem to be absent.
Perhaps this example is unrepresentative of the broader housing conversation in California. First, it is amazing how atypical San Francisco issues often are of broader CA issues. How many people would guess that the LA metro area much, much larger than SF metro area in population? Second, it would hardly be surprising for the NYT to pick the least relevant part of a problem in California. Some would say that it might actually be typical.
But I don't see how this type of slow process is helpful to quality and thoughtful development, given the arguments being advanced. I am really unclear why the office building would improve neighborhood character as opposed to the townhouses. Or how it makes sense to block any development of somebody else's land when it was clearly zoned for development when purchased. Maybe this is a rare and exceptional SF area problem that doesn't leak into other areas of California.
But it is clear that housing costs are growing. Fresno has nearly doubled in cost in the past 5 years (from a bit over $200K to a bit under $400K). I think it makes sense to consider the reasons. That said, I must admit that low interest rates are absolutely for sure a bigger driver than zoning disputes.
