This has prompted hand-wringing from San Franciscans who worry that their city is well on its way to being a global symbol of income inequality. With the average home selling for more than $950,000 and average monthly apartment rent hitting $3,458 this year, with further increases expected in coming months, this fear seems well-founded.

Yet a proposed new fee on residential development that appears likely to be adopted would push housing costs even higher. This account is from the San Francisco Business Times:

The city hopes to quiet one roaring gripe in San Francisco: Cranes are in the air and housing is pouring into neighborhoods, so why haven’t public transit improvements kept up?

 

Well, those complaints may never dissipate. But the first citywide transit fee on market-rate residential development was introduced as legislation Tuesday to help the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency pay for $1.2 billion worth of upgrades over the next three decades. …

 

“When I tell people that commercial development is required to pay transit impact development fees but residential doesn’t pay a dime, their jaws typically drop,” Supervisor Scott Wiener, who sponsored the bill, told the Business Times. “It’s been a gaping hole.” …

 

Residential builders will pay $7.74 a square foot on new projects, with those already approved by the Planning Commission grandfathered in. Non-residential projects will pay $18.04 a square foot, and production, distribution and repair (PDR) buildings will pay $7.61.

 

Private, nonprofit universities that build new facilities will also have to pay fees for the first time, but other nonprofits would be exempt.

Affordable housing said top priority

The fee has been endorsed by San Francisco Planning Director John Rahaim. In a June interview, he said that improving public transit was his second most important priority — trailing only affordable housing, which he said “keeps him up at night.”

This isn’t just hollow rhetoric. San Francisco has added more than 6,100 housing units since 2012, and Rahaim has emerged as a key supporter of some big, bold projects — especially the construction of 12,000 homes at the abandoned naval base Hunters Point Shipyard and at adjacent Candlestick Point.

Rahaim has downplayed the effect of the new fees on further residential construction. They would add nearly $8,000 in cost to a 1,000 square-foot apartment.

But as the state Legislative Analyst’s Office pointed out in a March report, “California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences,” developers see government fees as a huge impediment to pursuing projects — especially along the coast:

A 2012 national survey found that the average development fee levied by California local governments (excluding water-related fees) was just over $22,000 per single-family home compared with about $6,000 per single-family home in the rest of the country. … Altogether, the cost of building a typical single-family home in California’s metros likely is between $50,000 and $75,000 higher than in the rest of the country. … Building costs account for around one-third of home prices in California’s coastal metros.

Competing interests, limited options

So San Francisco’s leaders — and voters — have difficult choices and limited options. The case for improving mass transportation is plain. According to Inrix, a transportation data and analysis company based in Washington state, San Francisco/San Jose were among the five worst metro areas in 2014 when it comes to time wasted because of traffic delays. Swapping stories about traffic nightmares — and anticipating new ones — is a San Francisco tradition.

But if mass transportation improvements add to housing costs and create disincentives to adding new housing stock, that makes it more likely that there will be still more sharp increases in rent and the cost of homes, which are already sky-high. That will mean more stories about Northern Californians with middle-class jobs being unable to live in one of America’s iconic cities.

Despite persistent criticism from bike-friendly advocacy groups like the Green Lane Project, Caltrans opted against such sweeping measures. In 2014, however, Democratic officials decided to change that:

“Last year, the state’s legislature passed the Protected Bikeways Act of 2014, removing the de facto blockage and telling Caltrans to create statewide standards for protected bike lanes. Now, with the support of Gov. Jerry Brown and Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty, the agency is following through with such enthusiasm that it’s drawing praise from bikeway design pros.”

When Gov. Brown signed the bill into law, supporters hailed the move as a giant leap in mainstreaming bicycle usage statewide. “This is a game changer for bike infrastructure in California,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, the bill’s sponsor. “Sharing the road is one thing but designing it better is another thing altogether.  By changing our streets, cycling can finally become a realistic transportation option for millions of Californians held back by safety concerns.”

For decades, the expansion of bike lanes has been a project most closely associated in California with Democrats. In addition to making the roads more accessible for mobile nature lovers, bike lanes have long been touted as a way to help decrease reliance on cars — reducing their environmental impact while also likely habituating residents to more often consider using public transportation.

But recently, some Democrat-sponsored initiatives have inspired some head-scratching. In the Assembly, Kansen Chu, D-San Jose, had to take AB 28 back to the drawing board when critics questioned its requirement that cyclists utilize a flashing white light during nighttime hours.

Republican innovation

Typically, Republican interest in bike lane issues has been thought of as largely car-centric. Recently, for instance, Assemblyman Frank Bigelow, R-O’Neals, drafted AB 208, a bill designed to help alleviate driver uncertainty about how to pass cyclists safely.

But in a surprise offering, Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, recently unveiled a plan to expand the modes of transportation eligible for bike lane usage. Soon to receive a committee hearing, AB 604 would authorize stakeboarders with electric motors to ride anywhere bicycles are permitted.

“Electrically-motorized skateboards are a safe and eco-friendly mode of transportation for commuters,” Olsen said in a statement posted to her website, “yet current law bans them from being ridden in California.”

“The ban was implemented in 1977 to keep noisy, gas-powered boards off the streets, but boards built today are quiet, clean and safe to ride. Despite the restriction, manufacturers of these boards continue to invest in our state by developing and building their products here.  The industry is growing world-wide – so it’s time to modernize California law to support this emerging technology.”

Although manufacturers of electrically-powered skateboards quickly voiced their favor, according to Capital Public Radio, cyclists groups seemed ready to consider embracing their would-be fellow travelers. “The California Bicycle Coalition says it wants to ensure bike lanes don’t get too crowded,” CPR reported, “but other than that, it likes the idea.”

Scattered opposition

The popularity of bike lanes — and the push among legislators to promote their use — has been traced back to California roots in the city of Davis. There, in the mid-1960s, city council leaders and University of California-Davis professors created a coalition able to design, approve, and implement a network of lanes now totaling some 150 miles’ worth.

Today, however, bike lanes still haven’t secured unanimous support. “The expansion of bike lanes in Los Angeles can make motorists feel a bit elbowed out,” noted the LA Weekly. “We’ve seen perfectly pristine four-lane roads transformed into two-laners with thick strips of asphalt set aside just for the peddle-power set.” In addition to complaints from motorists, some have voiced more specific objections. “The only people who can use bike lanes are able-bodied and physically fit,” one reader wrote to the Los Angeles Daily News.