Justin Horner 
Member since Nov 4, 2011


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Oakland Planning Commission Approves 'Mammoth' Tower Next to MacArthur BART

There is actually a definition of a conflict; it is not a she said/he said affair. Here it is (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/conflicts-of-…).

It focuses on personal financial interest; not whether a person has previously exercised their rights of free speech and association.

Posted by Justin Horner on 02/02/2017 at 1:54 PM

Re: “Oakland Eases Rules on Secondary Units to Add New Rental Housing

I am pleased to say that I heard from CM Kalb and there is an important part to the story that I am happy to add.

Initially, staff did not include the 1R and 72R lines in the program at all, and it was CM Kalb who went to the Planning Commission and pushed them to be added. For that, he gets credit in my book, and thanks.

This doesnt mean the changes were great, but thanks to CM Kalb (and CM Guillen), the program is even more extensive than initially proposed. So, while I'm not happy that RCPC continues to ply NIMBYism, CM Kalb's not exactly the villain here.

Oh, and is that Gary Patton, who retired in his 50s from the City of Oakland as the Assistant Planning Director blaming an ex-council aide of nearly a decade ago for poor planning in North Oakland? I'll put Jane's increase in the redevelopment affordable housing set-aside and increases in affordable housing at Uptown and Oak to 9th, beating back attacks on Rent Stabilization and increasing local hiring practices up against your legendary work ethic any day.

Since your memory's so spot on, what great idea(s) did you have that you couldn't get past a Council aide in his 20s?

Posted by Justin Horner on 01/07/2016 at 10:07 AM

Re: “Oakland Eases Rules on Secondary Units to Add New Rental Housing

This is indeed much needed policy change, and kudos to the Mayor and Planning staff for bringing it forward. Props also to Councilmember Guillen, who moved to add areas of his district into the new, more permissive regulations.

It should be noted though that Councilmember Kalb, at the behest of the Rockridge Community Planning Council, put forward amendments to restrict the program's applicability to North Oakland. Not only did they restrict residents of secondary units from getting residential parking permits--as though people living in granny flats aren't residents--but, more importantly, the amendments restricted the program to areas only within 1/4 mile (as opposed to 1/2 mile) from the 1R along Telegraph Avenue.

The fact that Rockridge was the only community in the city that came forward to push for a more restrictive program is a shame, and the fact that Kalb sponsored the amendments is a major disappointment. As a Rockridger myself, Ill say that if any neighborhood needs to open itself up to more housing options, it's Rockridge.

I cant help but feel RCPC is stuck a bit in the past (to put it politely) with its deep deep obsession with parking and kneejerk suspicion of people who would build or live in secondary units. The fact that such simple and sensible reforms can't go through without the usual Old Guard pearl-cluching about parking shows we still have a way to go.

Posted by Justin Horner on 01/06/2016 at 8:15 PM

Re: “Special Deal Would Benefit Influential Oakland Developer

Looking at the Broadway Valdez Specific Plan Height Areas Map (http://tinyurl.com/ooo8ybt) it looks like 85 feet on that side of Broadway was the plan, save for the little 45 foot carve out between 24th and 25th Street (which I assume is the property in question). Id say allowing more density there is fine, and certainly not inconsistent with the general intent of the community plan, in my view.

So, seems to me to be a) good planning practice; b) crap process. Typical these days, sadly.

Nefarious and corrupt? I doubt it highly

Posted by Justin Horner on 11/04/2015 at 9:37 AM

Re: “Berkeley Merchants Say a Moved Bus Stop Has Been Bad for Business

Agree with Dan: losing five parking spots is simply not going to make your business "plummet," particularly when Safeway has just built a parking lot for local businesses a half-block away (yes, the conditions of approval require that Safeway allow shoppers at area businesses to park in their lot for free).

Oh, and spots on the street don't belong to any home or any business. It's public parking.

20 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by Justin Horner on 03/10/2015 at 8:19 PM

Re: “The Express Is Looking for a Few Good Interns

No minimum wage?

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Justin Horner on 12/10/2014 at 5:03 PM

Re: “Oakland Renters Concerned About Seismic Upgrade Costs

Everybody wants to go to heaven; nobody wants to die

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Justin Horner on 06/12/2014 at 1:54 PM

All Comments »

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation