According to theknot.com, 40% of engagements occur between November through February.
And, if you are looking for the ultimate place to pop the question, check out these romantic spots in Tri-Valley, California.

Blackhawk Grille's romantic setting sets the mood.

Romantic Restaurants

Tri-Valley’s most romantic restaurants offer romantic atmosphere,  delicious food and wine for your engagement.  Be sure to call ahead to make arrangements for your proposal.  These restaurants can offer a special menu or dessert and the best seat in the house and make sure to your proposal is perfect.

The Restaurant at Wente Vineyards: This place is just special.  The award winning restaurant features American dishes, influenced by Italian, French and California cuisine paired with Wente Vineyards wine.  The dining rooms are warm and inviting and the location amongst Livermore Valley Wine Country can’t be beat.

Bridges Restaurant: Stroll the streets of downtown Danville, and you’ll arrive at this very special spot.  Bridges offers California-American cuisine with Asian and European influences in a elegant atmosphere.

Blackhawk Grille: Another classic romantic spot tucked into the Blackhawk Plaza, you’ll stroll along the fountains admiring the swans and koi in the pond just in front of Blackhawk Grille. The food here is always spot on and the service and atmosphere are perfect for a BIG night!

Faz Restaurant, Danville: Pop the question in Faz’s unique dining room with a redwood grove in the heart of the restaurant.  The restaurant features simply elegant Mediterranean cuisine prepared with fresh, quality ingredients.

Barone’s Restaurant: Located in historic downtown Pleasanton, Barone’s offers innovative pastas, seafood and meat entrees in a romantic dining room.

Get Engaged Front of Concannon Vineyards

Love Wine? Propose in Livermore Valley Wine Country.

Picture it, you on bended knee, surrounded by vineyards and vistas.  Propose to that special someone at one of the 47 wineries in Livermore Valley.

Mitchell Katz Winery:  Popping the question in front of the tasting rooms fireplace in winter makes it extra special.  This winery is actually associated with Palm Event Center – one of the most popular spots to host weddings in the region.

Bent Creek Winery: Down a dirt road, this quiet and quaint winery offers scenic views and excellent wine.

Concannon Vineyards: The winery grounds are expansive and you are sure to find the perfect spot to propose, either in their newly constructed tasting room or outside in front of the white victorian house or under a canopy of grapevines.

McGrail Vineyards and Winery: This new winery specializes in big bold cabs.  They’ve got a tastefully decorated tasting room, and a large lawn as well.

Murrietta’s Well: Tucked off of the main roads, this quaint winery and the historic barrel room at Murrieta’s Well sets the stage for any special evening.

A view from the summit of Mt. Diablo

The Splendor of Nature

Looking for the perfect atmosphere for a proposal is pretty easy when you incorporate nature in the mix.  For the outdoorsy type of proposal check out these fantastic spots to pop the question where she’ll least expect it.

Mount Diablo State Park: Drive up to the summit and on a clear day you can see just a 360 degree view of the Bay Area.  It is a scenic spot to ask that special someone to spend the rest of their life with you.  Afterwards, drive down and have dinner or lunch in historic downtown Danville to celebrate.

Del Valle: If the weather cooperates, you can take a canoe into the middle of Lake Del Valle and pop the question on the water.

Pleasanton Ridge: This ridgeline follows along Pleasanton to Sunol and every bit of it is GORGEOUS! Just enter through August Bernal Park and start hiking. It’s an easy, pretty hike, and near civilization – so you’ll be able to hurry back to call friends and family the great news!

Romantic Stays

Where ever you decide to propose in Tri-Valley, you’ll probably want to spend the night in a romantic hotel.  Try  the Rose Hotel in downtown Pleasanton.  They offer a romance package and is the perfect place to spend the night as a newly engaged couple!

Good luck and be sure to check back for ideas on where to plan your wedding in Tri-Valley, California.

Experience the magic of a brightly decorated holiday train, covered with thousands of lights, as it winds through Niles Canyon on a 75-minute round-trip ride either from Fremont to Sunol or from Sunol to Fremont and return.  There is a twilight train and an evening train.  Tickets are $25 for anyone 3 years old and up, and are available for purchase online.

The trains start running on the Friday after Thanksgiving and run through December 27th.  This train ride is a holiday tradition for many families.  I’ve compiled a a few tips will make this more enjoyable for you and your small children.

1. If you have a large group, arrive 1 hour early to pick up your tickets and get in line to get seats together.  Or, if the weather isn’t great, arrive early to get a seat in one of the indoor cars, as there are indoor and outdoor cars and no guarantee of an indoor seat.

2. Pack some kid friendly healthy snacks and hot drinks.  They do sell the cookies and chips along with some drinks, but if you have your family on a healthier diet, bring your own snacks.

3. Bring some games or coloring books. Including the wait in line and waiting for the entire train to board and deboard plus the actual 75 minute ride, it can be a 3 hour excursion.  So depending on the age of the child,  you’ll need to ready to entertain them with games.

4. Santa is aboard the train but please be patient and stay in your seat – he will come to you! The families that jump up to bring their kids to Santa just delay things, and trust me -every child gets a chance to say hi to Santa and get a candy cane.

Follow these easy tips and make the Niles Canyon Railway Train of Lights a holiday tradition with your family!

This annual fundraising event is presented by the Pacific Locomotive Association to benefit Niles Canyon Railway projects throughout the year. For more information on the train and to purchase tickets, go to http://www.ncry.org/tol_09.htm

Residents of Livermore are fond of reminding us every so often that there is an outstanding “debt” to their city. They remind us that they have been paying BART taxes since the district’s beginning, and and that they have been waiting patiently for decades for the construction of their long-promised and past overdue BART extension. Indeed, a petition circulated a few years ago by Linda Jeffery Sailors (former mayor of Dublin, active in transportation efforts in the Tri-Valley, and an ardent supporter of both the Dublin/Pleasanton and Livermore extensions) gathered hundreds of signatures to demonstrate local support for the extension. In the meantime, Livermore has taken a back seat to the San Jose extension, which is a more expensive and complicated project serving a county that is not even in the district — even though Livermore is located within the district, albeit at the Bay Area’s easternmost fringe. But planning for the Livermore extension is moving forward, and BART has released its Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the project.

A number of potential alignments for a BART project to Livermore have been studied throughout the years, such as the diesel tBART project (which, like eBART, was conceived as a cheaper alternative to conventional rapid transit, but whose price quickly ballooned from about $200 million to $500 million). Also considered was a roughly 50-mile diesel route between Walnut Creek and Tracy parallel to Interstates 680 and 580. This concept, which contemplated connections to both the Walnut Creek and Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations, may well have been a more effective project than the bona fide BART alternatives now being analyzed.

Bouncing off of a scoping process that took place this past year, BART has selected 9 alignment alternatives to extend conventional third rail BART service (in contrast to eBART, which will use diesel multiple units) several miles east from the current Dublin/Pleasanton station to a new terminus in Livermore. The project would be in the mold of the usual BART project: extending service at least in part via a freeway median, even deeper into suburbia. By extending the track east along both I-580 and the Union Pacific right-of-way, the project would parallel a greater length of one of the Bay Area’s most congested stretches of freeway, and in the process capture new suburban riders; but it would also further strain the capacity of the Transbay Tube. And naturally, these endeavors do not come cheaply: most of the serious alternatives under consideration are pegged to cost $3-4 billion.

The Livermore extension does, however, provide an opportunity to fill a gap in the Northern California regional rail network, by furnishing an intermodal connection between BART and Altamont Corridor rail. The opportunities for such connectivity are discussed below in the context of each potential alignment, and will also be a topic in Part 2 of this post.

BART to Livermore: Alignment Alternatives

The Livermore BART DPEIR is a definitive, albeit preliminary, step forward in what promises to be a lengthy planning and funding process. The environmental document examines 9 alternatives that include variations on a few basic flavor of alignments. These alignments collectively feature a handful of station sites and three potential sites for future rail yards. The upcoming goal will be to whittle down the list of alternatives and adopt a preferred alternative. The images directly below show all alternatives on a single map, or you can click here to view a full-size PDF.

Alternatives. Top: west half (Dublin/Pleasanton to Downtown Livermore).
Bottom: east half (through Greenville East). Click here for a full-size PDF.

The alignments (other than the standard “No Build” alternative) are summarized below. All alternatives continue in the I-580 median east of BART’s current Dublin/Pleasanton terminus for a certain distance, but then split off at different points near the Livermore Municipal Airport. The routes range from 5.2 to 13.2 miles long, and travel times are generally estimated at one minute per mile. Ridership projections (given below) target that about 80% of the extension’s ridership would consist of new riders. The projections are, per usual, high. On an average per-station basis, they resemble San Jose’s overstated figures, although Livermore’s projections are for the year 2035. The cost estimates (also given below) are in 2009 dollars.

Alternative 1: This route follows the I-580 median at grade for most of its length with an elevated structure at the eastern edge, allowing the track to curve northward and then duck under I-580, aligning parallel to the Union Pacific right-of-way near Greenville Road. Alternative 1 includes a new rail yard north of I-580, as well as two new stations: a median station at Isabel, and an intermodal BART/Altamont station at Greenville East that would replace the current Vasco station.
(Estimated Cost: $2.92 billion. 38,100 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 1A: In contrast to Alternative 1, where the track follows the I-580 median for most of the extension, in Alternative 1A the track diverges from the I-580 median within one-and-a-half miles of Dublin/Pleasanton, ascending via elevated structure along El Charro Road, and then afterwards on retained fill to align along the UP right-of-way. Alternative 1A includes the same Greenville yard north of I-580 as Alternative 1, as well as two new stations: an intermodal BART/Altamont station in Downtown Livermore, and a BART-only Greenville East station.
(Estimated Cost: $3.61 billion. 35,300 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 1B: This alternative is very similar to Alternative 1A, with respect to its configuration along the I-580 median, El Charro Road, and the UP right-of-way approach to Downtown Livermore. The stations and rail yard are also the same as in Alternative 1A. The main difference is visible in the sketches located on the right: east of Downtown Livermore, the track in Alternative 1B follow the segment of ex-SP right-of-way.
(Estimated Cost: $3.65 billion. 35,300 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 2: Like Alternative 1, this alternative includes a lengthy initial segment at grade in the I-580 median (about six miles). Leaving the median, the track ascends in an elevated structure along Las Positas Road, and then aligning east onto the UP right-of-way. Alternative 2 includes a new rail yard east of Vasco station, as well as two new stations: a median station at Isabel (as in Alternative 1), and a BART/Altamont intermodal station at the site of the current Vasco station.
(Estimated Cost: $3.28 billion. 35,400 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 2A: This is basically a hybrid of Alternatives 1A and 2. The western segment of the route (along the I-580 median, El Charro Road, and approach to Downtown Livermore) follows 1A. East of Downtown Livermore, the track follows the UP right-of-way but with a short 0.3-mile elevated segment crossing over the right-of-way. Alternative 2A includes the Downtown Livermore station — and, as in Alternative 2, a Vasco station and nearby rail yard. Both proposed BART stations would be intermodal Altamont stations.
(Estimated Cost: $3.8 billion. 35,200 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 3: This shorter alternative is notable for its subway. As in Alternatives 1 and 2, at grade track in the I-580 median extends to the Isabel station (but unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, the station would be below-grade in the median). The track then dives into a subway under the eastbound lanes of I-580, traveling under Portola Avenue and Junction Avenue, and finally terminating at a subway station in Downtown Livermore. This downtown terminus would provide an intermodal Altamont connection, though it would be configured differently from the downtown stations in other alternatives. East of downtown, the track would resurface and lead to a new rail yard.
(Estimated Cost: $3.47 billion. 34,300 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 3A: This alternative adopts a variation on the route of Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2A, but is notable for its downtown elevated segment. As in previous alternatives, track in the I-580 median curves southward, is elevated along El Charro Road, and then follows the UP right-of-way on retained fill. In Alternative 3A, though, the track is then elevated through downtown. East of downtown, the track leads to a new rail yard. This alternative has two stations along the UP right-of-way: one station at Isabel/Stanley, and the elevated Downtown Livermore station, both of which would provide intermodal connections to the Altamont corridor.
(Estimated Cost: $3.38 billion. 33,600 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 4: This alternative is the shortest of the bunch — a single station 5.2-mile eastward extension within the I-580 median, terminating at the Isabel station. Tail tracks east of the station could be built to hold six ten-car trains, but there would otherwise be little space for storage and maintenance. Alternative 4 does not facilitate an intermodal Altamont connection. It was basically conceived as the initial operating segment of a two-phase extension.
(Estimated Cost: $1.12 billion. 25,100 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 5: This is the second-shortest alternative of the bunch, and it is notable for being the shortest extension that could facilitate an intermodal Altamont connection. Alternative 5 (which includes the elevated El Charro Road segment) terminates at the intermodal Isabel/Stanley station, and is basically an initial operating segment of Alternative 3A. As with Alternative 4, maintenance yard space is limited except for tail tracks east of the station.
(Estimated Cost: $1.61 billion. 23,100 daily entries and exits.)

More to come in Part 2.

All images are courtesy of BART.

Nov. 5, 2009

More good news for consumers, our members, and the housing market recovery. Following the Senate’s favorable vote yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives just voted 403 to 12 to extend the home buyer tax credit, expanding the parameters to include existing homeowners and not just first-time buyers. As you may know, C.A.R. and our partners at NAR have worked for months urging Congress and the Senate to extend and expand this crucial piece of legislation. We expect President Obama to sign the legislation in short order.

As it now stands, the federal tax credit will be extended through April 30, 2010, with a 60-day extension if a binding contract is in place prior to the deadline. First-time home buyers will continue to be eligible for a tax credit of up to $8,000, while existing homeowners will be eligible for a reduced credit of up to $6,500. To qualify for the $6,500 credit, existing homeowners must have lived in their current residences for at least five years. The bill also increases the qualifying income limits from $75,000 for single tax filers and $150,000 for joint filers to $125,000 and $225,000, respectively. The purchase price of the home is capped at $800,000 in both instances.

Under additional provisions included in the bill, taxpayers can claim the credit on purchases completed in 2010 on their 2009 income tax returns. The legislation maintains the provision that home buyers do not have to repay the credit provided the home remains their primary residence for 36 months after purchase, and waives this requirement for active duty military personnel who move due to a military order.

Nationwide, more than 1.4 million first-time home buyers were given the opportunity to become homeowners as a result of the Federal Tax Credit for First-time Home Buyers.  We expect that number to increase dramatically in the months ahead with this new legislation in place. Thank you to our members who called, wrote, and e-mailed their congressional representatives and voiced their support for the home buyer tax credit. Your voices were heard – today’s vote is a direct result of your actions and involvement.

Sincerely,

James Liptak
2009 PresidentCALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

Selecting the right paint color is a daunting task for most.  Here are two ways to get the job done.

Option 1: 

1. Do it yourself.
2. Try to narrow done your basic color desire down to one or two basic colors (blue, green, red, yellow).
3. Go to one or all of your local paint stores and gather up samples. This can be the hard part, because the lighting in the paint store is different than in your home.  When you select a color that you like at the store, chances are it will look different at home.  So, get A LOT of samples.
4. During daylight, look at the paint swatches in on each wall of the room.  Depending on lighting, it can look different on each wall.  If you’d like, you can look at them again at night.
5. Hopefully, a couple of the colors will  look good to you. If yes, I would suggest you go back to the paint store(s) and get a few more swatches of the same color, if possible – order large swatches, or get a sample of the paint to test.  If you decide to get a sample of the paint, you have three choices.  1.  Paint it right on the wall (be sure to do a swatch on each wall – lighting again), 2.  Get a piece of poster sized wall board from your local box store and paint it – then you can move it around the room with out having to paint swatches all over your walls, 3. Most box stores now carry designer sample boards, they are about the size of a piece of paper.  Get 4 and paint all of them and place on each wall. Do this for all colors you are considering.
6. Hopefully, you’ll love one of the colors.  If so start painting!
7. If not, go back to step 2 and do it all over again … and again … (if necessary) until you find the perfect color for you.

Option 2:

1.  Hire a professional and get a Color Consultation.  Someone like myself will come to your home and bring all the swatches to you.  I typically carry ALL the swatches for 2-3 different brands of paint.  Depending on how many rooms and how many colors you select, it can take as little as 1 hour, most take 2-3 hours … and you’re ready to start painting immediately!

If you’re located in the San Francisco Bay Area, contact me for more information about getting a color consultation.  If you’re elsewhere, contact me anyway – I can probably refer you to someone.

Jill Denton ~ Changing Spaces

One crucial part of design is traffic flow.  A room not only needs to look good, but it needs to have good traffic flow. 

Have you ever stepped into a room only to be blocked by a piece of furniture.  Not too long ago I went to a friends home.  It’s decorated very Pottery Barn style.  From the entry, you walk down a hallway to the family room where you run right into the back of an overstuffed chair.  I literally had to side step around the chair to get into the room.  While I did a little dance around the chair my mind began rearranging or “Interior Redesigning” the room.  Overall the room was laid out well.  It was just the one overstuffed chair that created a problem. 

Click on the “Good Traffic Flow” link below and you’ll see two sample layouts but first, let me explain.  The top layout is BEFORE, and you can see the open doorway that leads you into the chair and a round ottoman in another corner.  In the AFTER layout, you’ll see that by just switching the over-sized chair with the ottoman, the flow into the room has greatly improved.  One thing you can not see on the layout is the difference in height of the chair and ottoman.  Where the back of the chair visually blocked the entry, the ottoman visually lets you enter the room.  Good Traffic Flow

Traffic flow is essential for comfortable living; as well as, comfortable viewing for those of you who are planning on selling your home.  Dana Dickey says: “Control the flow! If you have a problem with traffic flow, bump into things and do not like the way your rooms feel, then a potential buyer will FEEL the same thing. Proper placement of furniture is essential when buyers are looking at square footage. Remember why you bought the house and try to change what doesn’t work.” Source: Inside Redesign LLC

How about you?  Do you have any traffic flow problems in your home?

Jill  Denton ~ Changing Spaces

5.  Interior Redesign fits any budget. 

4.   Interior Redesign works for any style.

3.  Interior Redesign gives a designer look to any room.

2.  Interior Redesign uses what you already own and love.

1.  An Interior Redesign  is completed in just ONE DAY!

Contact Jill Denton at Changing Spaces for more information about getting an Interior Redesign for one room your your entire home.

Complementary: This scheme uses two colors which are directly opposed on the color wheel (for example: Orange and Blue)  

Split Complementary: This scheme uses 3 colors. One color and two other colors that are directly adjacent to its complement on the color wheel (for example: Orange, Blue-Violet, and Blue-Green)  

Triad: This color scheme uses 3 colors that are equally spaced out on the color wheel (for example: Orange, Violet, and Green)  

Analogous: This scheme uses three colors, one that is in the center, and the two colors adjacent to it on the color wheel (for example: Orange-Yellow, Orange, and Red-Orange).

Monochromatic: This color scheme uses colors from the same Hue on the color wheel, but with varying saturation and/or lightness (for example: different shades or tints of Orange).  Jill Denton ~ Changing Spaces

Choosing a paint color can be one of the most difficult decorating decisions, there are so many choices out there, but with a few designer tips, it can be as easy as 1-2-3.

1. Pick your favorite object in the room. This can be a rug, fabric, wall art, comforter or piece of furniture. The color(s) of this object will set the mood and overall look for the room.

2. Select colors that go with the favorite object you selected. In a rug, a piece of fabric or wall art, coordinating colors will be easy to spot.  Just match one of the colors that you like.  Or you could choose an analogous, complementary, split complementary, triad or monochomatic color scheme based on the color wheel. For example, if your sofa is blue and you added analogous colors, you’d be adding other shades of blue, if you were to add shades of orange you’d be adding a complementary colors.

3. Choose accents to pull the room together.  For most people, this is either the fun part or the hard part.  Look to the color wheel for direction if you need help.  The same rules apply.  Choose accent peices, furniture, window treatments, art and accessories that are coordinating, analogous or complementary ito complete the room.

Ask yourself the following questions:

- Do you have a room you rarely use?

- Are your tired of the “look” of you home?

- Do you feel there’s no way to rearrange a room?

- Do you have a room that just doesn’t “feel” right?

- Do you want a new look but don’t want to buy all new things?

- Have your furnishings been in the same places for 3+ years?

- Have you combined households and it’s too crowded?

If you’ve answered “Yes” to any of these questions, you are a candidate for an InteriorRedesign. Contact Jill Denton at  Changing Spaces to schedule a consultation.

Altamont Photographer Bill Owens (Copyright 1969)

These days in Tri-Valley, when you mention Altamont, people think you are talking about the traffic traveling from Livermore into the Central Valley.  Many young residents and visitors are not aware that it was in fact the site of infamous Altamont Speedway Free Festival in 1969.   The much maligned concert is in some circles widely known as the end of the hippie era.  It has been 40 years since Woodstock, and the festival is celebrating with a new film, and hundreds of press articles.  But here in Tri-Valley, we are remembering the end of the 60’s differently with an exhibit of never before seen photos from Altamont by photographer Bill Owens at the Bankhead Theater in Livermore.  The exhibit will be on display during Guitar Player Live! September 11-13, 2009 at the Bankhead Theater.

The Altamont Speedway Free Festival was an infamous rock concert held on Saturday, December 6, 1969, at the Altamont Speedway in northern California, between Tracy and Livermore. Headlined and organized by The Rolling Stones, it also featured, in order of appearance: Santana, Jefferson Airplane, The Flying Burrito Brothers, and Crosby, Stills & Nash, with the Rolling Stones taking the stage as the final act.  The Grateful Dead were also scheduled to perform, but declined to play shortly before their scheduled appearance due to the increasing violence at the venue.  “That’s the way things went at Altamont—so badly that the Grateful Dead, prime organizers and movers of the festival, didn’t even get to play.”  Nevertheless, the erroneous notion is still in circulation.

Altamont Photographer Bill Owens (Copyright 1969)

Approximately 300,000 people attended the concert, and some anticipated that it would be a “Woodstock West.” Filmmakers Albert and David Maysles shot footage of the event and incorporated it into a documentary film entitled Gimme Shelter (1970). The event is best known for having been marred by considerable violence, including one homicide and three accidental deaths: two caused by a hit-and-run car accident and one by drowning in an irrigation canal. Four births were reported during the event as well.

The Altamont concert is often contrasted with the Woodstock festival that took place less than four months earlier. While Woodstock represented “peace and love”, Altamont came to be viewed as the end of the hippie era and the de facto conclusion of late-1960s American youth culture: “Altamont became, whether fairly or not, a symbol for the death of the Woodstock Nation.”Rock music critic Robert Christgau wrote in 1972 that “Writers focus on Altamont not because it brought on the end of an era but because it provided such a complex metaphor for the way an era ended”.

Land use is famously about local controversies. Neighborhood groups, often brandishing long, unwieldy names like “Citizens For A More Responsible” something-or-other, fill up municipal legislative chambers demanding justice; other distinctly local personalities may also emerge into the forefront of the discussion. In addition, land use decisions are often based on a context made up of such fine microscopic detail that it would unproductive or impractical for the state or federal government, both presumably inexpert in those details, to intervene. A local government thus enjoys relatively complete autonomy over how land within its domain is used, subject to only limited requirements issued at the state or federal level.

But one major exception to that general rule is housing. The State of California requires that General Plans contain a set of elements, which lay out a blueprint and policy direction to guide future development. Among those elements, the Housing Element is singled out as special, in that it must be updated every five years in accordance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and ABAG will project the number of housing units that the Bay Area will need to accommodate for the next several years, at four income levels (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate), and then will assign a housing share to governments throughout the Bay Area, ensuring that the region, as a whole, meets the required total. Each local government then updates its Housing Element every five years, specifying how it will accommodate its share of the regional housing need. Cities throughout the Bay Area have been engaged in this process this year.

This process ensures that local governments plan to accommodate housing units that are accessible to a range of income levels. Without such a procedure in place, it’s easy to imagine what could happen. Many cities — whose elected officials might simply translate the parochial demands of a local NIMBY group into something resembling legislation — would shirk on their obligation to ensure the production of housing units, particularly affordable units. They might, for instance, amend the zoning code to contain a set of requirements that are a proxy for wealth, ensuring that only affluent citizens can afford to live there. Other cities might freeze growth altogether, thinking only of what will happen within their city limits and ignoring what the effect would be outside. The point is that without a state mandate prohibiting that sort of behavior, it would be difficult or impossible for California to accommodate, in a just and equitable fashion, a population that is projected to increase to 60 million by the year 2050. The state has an enormous interest in ensuring that all of its citizens, of all income levels, are safely housed; but accomplishing this goal requires the cooperation of local governments, who, after all, are empowered to control land use through zoning.

The City of Pleasanton’s Faulty General Plan

So what happens when, despite the state’s requirement, a city tries to shrug off its obligation to accommodate its fair share of housing growth? Then, the State must step in — like it did yesterday, when Attorney General Jerry Brown finally took action against the City of Pleasanton’s housing cap. In 1996, Pleasanton adopted Measure GG, which instituted a housing cap — no more than 29,000 units could be built within the city. Since 2006, the City had already faced lawsuits because of this provision, and in January 2009, Jerry Brown submitted comments (PDF) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) of Pleasanton’s General Plan update. In his comments, Brown indicated quite unambiguously that the housing cap was problematic. Now, in just a dozen pages (PDF), Brown clarifies how the Pleasanton cap violates state housing law. It basically comes down to the numbers. ABAG’s projections require that the City accommodate 3,277 housing units by the year 2014. But the City is only 2,007 units short of reaching the housing cap of 29,000 units. With the cap in place, not even those 3,277 units could not be built — to say nothing of the units that ABAG projections would call for after 2014. And, in fact, the City even still has to make up missing housing units from the last RHNA planning period, which ended in 2007.

The housing cap does not permit any exceptions — for instance, an exception that would allow the City to zone for the 1,270 additional units that would be needed to comply with the current RHNA. By not allowing such an exception, Pleasanton’s housing cap is in direct conflict with the state requirement. The housing cap could be struck down on that basis, but there is still another reason to strike it down. In order for a General Plan to be valid, it must be internally consistent. Pleasanton’s General Plan, however, contains a fatal flaw of inconsistency. The 29,000-unit housing cap is contained in the Land Use Element. The Housing Element, on the other hand, admits that the housing cap is an obstacle that prevents the City from meeting its housing allocation. The Housing Element, in accordance with the RHNA, encourages the production of moderate, low, and very-low income housing units to meet Pleasanton’s need. But that will be difficult to do, so long as the City enforces the 29,000-unit housing cap — particularly since the City is now only 2,007 units shy of maxing out. So the housing cap creates an internal inconsistency that renders the General Plan invalid. Removing the housing cap would, of course, remove the inconsistency, and would also remove the conflict with state law.

The Climate Change Connection

What continues to be interesting here is Jerry Brown’s consistent emphasis on climate change. In this case, Pleasanton’s General Plan just straight-up violates state housing requirements, and the City’s housing cap could be invalidated on that basis alone. Indeed, in his formal challenge of the housing cap, Brown focuses on the state’s Planning and Zoning Law to make the case. In supplementary materials, however, Brown has embraced a policy discussion that goes beyond simply pointing out the literal legal problem. In his January 2009 comments on the General Plan DEIR, he criticized the City for not adequately considering the climate change impacts of the Plan. (Amazingly, the City had claimed that a 46% increase in vehicle miles traveled was an insignificant impact!) This is an environmental issue, not a housing issue. More recently, Brown explicitly tied the housing cap to its effect on travel patterns and air quality — adding his voice to the chorus chanting about how focused growth and smart land use patterns are a critical component of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Interstate 580 through the Tri-Valley, one of the Bay Area’s most congested freeways, is surrounded by suburban sprawl. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Michael Patrick.

It’s a classic example of what we observed in the beginning — a city, unless subject to an overarching regional or state mandate, will likely prioritize local parochial interests above the greater good. Pleasanton instituted a housing cap while thinking only about the perceived desirable effect it would have within the city limits — but it did not account for the effects of that cap on the greater region. Within about a decade, the number of jobs in Pleasanton almost doubled, reaching about 58,110 employees in 2005; that number has since grown to 61,100 jobs. But while Pleasanton has cleared space for this job growth, it has not kept up with making space for housing growth. As a result, ABAG found that in 2005, 79% of Pleasanton’s workforce lived outside the city limit, and a full 50% of the workforce endured long commutes from outside the Tri-Valley area. The City planned to continue allowing more office and commercial development, so that by 2025, Pleasanton was projected to nearly double its workforce once again, to 105,000 jobs. But all the while, the housing cap would be maintained, essentially freezing the population at about 78,200 residents for the rest of time. By not providing sufficient housing that would allow people who work in Pleasanton to also live there, the city is essentially forcing long, single-occupancy vehicle commutes — increasing emissions, adding more cars to extremely congested stretches of freeway, and pushing the region further into nonattainment. Pleasanton’s annual carbon dioxide output, which was 1.388 million tons in 2008, would increase to 1.940 million tons by 2025 if the housing cap were to be maintained. The housing cap would also prevent Pleasanton from developing vacant land near its BART station as densely as it should. Restricting growth near BART would diminish the value of this valuable asset, and it would prevent growth in the one place in Pleasanton where it makes the most sense. The housing cap, a purely local requirement, thus carries with it regionally detrimental externalities.

In this sense, Brown’s challenge — although grounded in housing requirements, rather than environmental requirements — may nonetheless be seen as the latest in a string of events that indicate Brown’s stance on the climate change crisis. AB 32 requires that emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; but in the absence of the anticipated panoply of regulations from the Air Resources Board, which will translate AB 32’s broad requirements into more focused action, cities and counties have been uncertain as to what their exact obligations are. Despite (or perhaps because of) that uncertainty, Brown has made it clear on numerous occasions that local and regional governments may not simply ignore the adverse impacts their actions could have on air quality — such as in 2007, when he scolded San Bernardino County, and also last year, when he scolded the Bay Area’s own MTC. And now, with this latest lawsuit against the City of Pleasanton, Brown reminds us of the spirit underlying SB 375, by putting on display the interplay between housing, transportation, and climate change. It is so refreshing to see that someone in our government gets it.

A couple enjoying the vineyards in Livermore Valley

So you’re going to the chapel to get married?  There are few places in the country you can plan a wedding year-round and the Tri-Valley is one of them.  Whether it is winter, spring, summer or fall you can be sure your special day will be picture perfect.

The Tri-Valley hosts thousands of weddings a year and whether it be in the brightly colored fall, warm summer, colorful spring or crisp winter the Tri-Valley offers event venues, attractions and entertainment for all.  Wineries, estates, churches, museums, galleries and golf course are a sampling of the more than 100 event facilities available to couples and their guests.

Popular Event Venues:
•    Casa Real at Ruby Hill Winery – The perfect place for old-world luxury built in the foothills of wine country and is surrounded by 54 acres of lush vineyards.  It features a dramatic entry hall, rustic ceremony room and beautiful courtyard.

•    Palm Event Center – Elegantly situated in the Livermore Valley and wrapped by expansive, verdant vines, the Palm is a luxurious winery estate perfect for any wedding ceremony or reception.

•    Wente Vineyards Restaurant and Events Center – Nestled in the rolling hills of wine country, Wente Vineyards provides a setting and experience unmatched by any other in the Bay Area offering beautiful vistas and a lush natural environment.

Once you have your special place picked out you may want to tell your guests about the many dining and activities located in the area.  These are perfect for that last minute bachelorette party, golf outing or rehearsal dinner.

A Fun Rehearsal dinner spot - Campo Di Bocce

Wedding Weekend Activities
To welcome your guests to a weekend of fun, visitors can meet in one of Tri-Valley’s historic downtowns for a delicious meal at one of the many restaurants or pubs.  To start the weekend off right, why not take part in a fun game of bocce ball with Italian cuisine at Campo di Bocce?

If the bride and her girls want to relax and enjoy a little pampering before the big day, they can visit any one of the indulgent spas of the Tri-Valley including the Purple Orchid Inn Resort & Spa or The Pleasanton Spa.  The groom and his friends may enjoy a round of golf at one of the areas pristine courses such as Poppy Ridge Golf Course, The Bridges Golf Club or Callippe Preserve Golf Course.

From intimate barrel rooms to grand event centers, the Tri-Valley offers all the details to make your special day simply breathtaking and memorable.

Best of all, the Tri-Valley, California Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) provides complimentary event planning assistance for couples including venue selection, site tours, accommodations, activity planning and more.  For a complete list of Tri-Valley event venues, restaurants and activities or to contact the Tri-Valley CVB, visit www.visittrivalleyca.com.

World's Greatest Golf Movie. EVER!

Wishing that you could be teeing up this morning instead of in your office? I sure do! Let’s lighten up our day with a  little humor for this sunny Monday  morning.

My husband & I watched Caddyshack over the weekend, and we were talking about our fave quotes! What’s are your favorites?   Gunga galunga… gunga, gunga-galunga.

Here’s a few of mine to start us off!

Carl Spackler: This crowd has gone deadly silent, a Cinderella story outta nowhere. Former greenskeeper and now about to become the masters champion … He’s on his final hole. He’s about 455 yards away, he’s gonna hit about a 2 iron I think … IT’S IN THE HOLE!

Judge Smails: You know, you should play with Dr. Beeper and myself. I mean, he’s been club champion for three years running and I’m no slouch myself.

Ty Webb: Don’t sell yourself short Judge, you’re a tremendous slouch.

Carl Spackler: Correct me if I’m wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they’ll lock me up and throw away the key.

Sandy: Not golfers, you great fool. Gophers. The little brown, furry rodents.

Carl Spackler: We can do that. We don’t even need a reason.

Let’s have some fun this morning! What’s your favorite Caddyshack Quote?

Love this video, a simple story that illustrates the forces shaping social media.

Need a place to eat, drink, work and study? I’m putting together a list of local businesses with free WiFi.

3/1/09 Update – Around Dublin blog is now assisting with this project through a blog and Facebook page. See the map here.

Panera Bread
www.panerabread.com
7030 Amador Plaza Rd
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 829-4401

Also has free coffee refills …

Osaka Ramen
www.osakaramen.com

4288 Dublin Blvd # 118
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833-2788

In the awesome Ulferts Center …

By Jeff Fisher
The High School Football Huddle

Tri-Valley became only the fourth South Dakota school to defend its Class 11B football title Friday. The Mustangs dominated from start to finish in beating Groton Area 41-3 to cap an 11-1 season. Running back Nate Kirby was named the game’s MVP.

Other teams that have won back-to-back 11B titles…Hamlin (89-91), Bon Homme (95-96) and Aberdeen Roncalli (05-06), Click here for a game story.

It’s official: according to the WalkScore.com rankings, San Francisco has been determined to be America’s most walkable city, as reported by the Chronicle. Our fair city’s score of 86 out of 100 just edged out New York’s 83, Boston’s 79, Chicago’s 76, and Philadelphia’s 74. The WalkScore algorithm does have some shortcomings (which the site frankly admits) — pedestrian conditions on Stockton Street in SF’s Chinatown could be much better than they are now, but that did not stop Chinatown from receiving a top score of 99 out of 100, a score largely based on the high density of a large variety of shops and services in a very compact area. But for anyone who has strolled through San Francisco’s downtown or neighborhood commercial districts, this news does not really come as too much of a surprise. Check out the complete listing of neighborhood scores here.

But the most revealing part of the article was not the part glorifying San Francisco, but rather, the part indicating that the Bay Area, taken as a whole, could be much more walkable than it is now. The Bay Area region fell in third place, “well below the greater Washington, D.C., and Boston regions,” according to the Chron. This reflects the fact that while the Washington, D.C. area has allowed Metro to shape dense land use patterns near stations (even for stations outside of the central core), the Bay Area has been slower to allow BART to have the same effect. We should be careful about discussing density and walkability in the same breath, as they are not equivalent. An older suburban downtown whose buildings front directly onto the street is quite walkable, if not particularly dense, and on the flip side, high-rises alone cannot make a neighborhood truly walkable if the street level fails to provide safety and amenities for pedestrians. But well-planned density that is sensitive to the street provides the extra bodies that make a walkable district that much more bustling and successful.

Courtesy Beyond DC.

Consider Bethesda, Maryland, pictured at right. Located on the D.C. Metro Red Line, Bethesda is a great example of how dense, walkable districts can bloom around rail nodes, even in an otherwise suburban setting. (Check out this Google satellite map of Bethesda. It shows how the densely urbanized streets that are within easy access of a Metro station are very clearly delineated from the suburban neighborhoods further from the line.) The Bay Area, by contrast, is adamantly low-rise, not just in the suburbs, but also in most neighborhoods in San Francisco and Oakland. In general, only the urban downtown districts make any attempt to reach for the sky — so we have not truly leveraged the potential inherent in most of the rail nodes scattered around the Bay Area. The idea of mid-rises or even shorter high-rises at places like San Leandro and Millbrae BART stations might seem unthinkable — but the Bay Area’s conception of cities, walking, and transit would be quite different if even suburban cities had permitted miniature skylines to sprout at their rail stations. It is also interesting to note that the different development patterns have given rise to contrasting effects on transit ridership. Both BART and Metro are slightly over 100 miles long, and the two systems are of comparable age (Metro is just a few years younger). And yet, while BART reported an average of 367,570 daily riders last quarter, Metrorail set a record last Friday, July 11 of 854,638 riders — a higher ridership than BART can even support as long as its service patterns require operation of four routes through a single transbay tube. What explains the pronounced difference? The fact that Metro has twice the number of stations as BART for approximately the same amount of track certainly goes a long way toward making the system accessible to more people. But another factor (though certainly not the only other factor) that explains the difference must be that Metro has helped give rise to dense, walkable cities, which feed the system with a natural ridership base that is largely missing from BART because the land use around BART stations (already too few to begin with) is often not that intense.

Courtesy City of Union City.

Efforts have been made all around the Bay Area, with varying degrees of success, to transform rail-accessible downtowns into greater and denser places, including at BART’s Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte, Hayward, and South San Francisco stations. A 450-unit TOD with retail just broke ground today at Pleasant Hill BART, and still another phase of the project will add about 300,000 square feet of office and conference space. Meanwhile, one station south of Pleasant Hill, a transit village at Walnut Creek BART proposed by BRE Properties would include a mixed use development featuring about 600 residential units, office and retail space, fourteen bays for County Connection buses, and the implementation of market-rate pricing in the BART parking garage; the project, which the City Council has greeted with some skepticism, is up for environmental review. San Leandro has compiled a strategy for transit-oriented development, and one of the largest transit village plans — including about 75,000 square feet of retail and commercial space and close to 2000 units of housing — will crown a confluence of BART, commuter rail lines, and bus routes at an intermodal Union City Station, a rendering of which is pictured directly above. On the Peninsula, Redwood City has grand plans of downtown renewal centered on its Caltrain station, but despite plans to add about 2500 homes, residential development has been somewhat slow to trickle in. Further east, along the congested Interstate 580 corridor, a few projects in the pipeline will add hotel rooms, retail space, and close to 900 rental and condo units near the infill West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station currently under construction.

Transit villages have also been planned at Oakland BART stations, but here I am more critical — in part because the potential is greater, but also because when discussing these developments in Oakland, the conversation is at least as much about urban revitalization as it is about TOD. At the 19th Street Station in downtown Oakland, a couple thousand new homes (provided through several projects discussed on this blog in the past) will help breathe new life into the neighboring Uptown and Valdez downtown subdistricts — but such a transit-rich downtown location would ideally support much denser housing than the collection of Forest City low- to mid-rises currently under construction. Meanwhile, at the Fruitvale BART station, plans to build retail and over a thousand combined units at Fruitvale Gateway and Phase II of the transit village project — both of which would supply some of the new residents and additional vitality needed to fulfill the historical prophecy of the Fruitvale District as Oakland’s second downtown — have not moved forward, leaving just the 47 residential units and a substantial amount of commercial space included in Phase I of the transit village. At MacArthur Station, plans have long been in the works to build densely over BART’s surface parking lots, but they have morphed from the originally envisioned 800 units, including a 20-story tower and a 22-story tower — to 675 units in four- to six-story buildings, joined by retail and a seven-story parking garage. Here is a rendering of that project:

Courtesy MacArthur Transit Community Partners.

In the past couple of years, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has done a better job of encouraging cities to pursue dense growth near transit nodes — although these plans, as the above discussion indicates, have not nearly risen to the level of my personal dream of miniature skylines dotting the Bay Area, linked by high-quality, frequent rail transit service. But there has been some progress, and some mixed results as well. Increasing density within walking distance of BART and Caltrain stations will make central downtown districts more walkable, successful public spaces, and ultimately, we should go further than we have to date toward maximizing the potential of these rail connections. This whole discussion began with the announcement that San Francisco proper is America’s most walkable city. We certainly can and should celebrate this fact, but let us not stop there. Regional problems have regional solutions — and we cannot overlook the importance of reproducing San Francisco’s success, to the extent that we can, in cities across the Bay Area.

This post will provide some information on the Democratic primary for the California legislature campaigns. The blurbs that follow are essentially endorsements, but I hesitate to use the word “endorsement” here, because to my mind, use of that word ought to be supported by a fuller discussion, drawing on a large range of issues. Because this blog has a relatively narrow topical focus, I wasn’t sure what the interest level would be outside of that focus; in any case, there did not turn out to be time to put together a more complete discussion.

It probably goes without saying that my that my opinions about these these candidates are based on more than just their records on transit and planning issues — in fact, that may have only been a small part of the equation. But I figured that if you are reading this blog, you are probably interested in the candidates’ perspectives on these topics — particularly because in campaigning, these issues often get lost in the shuffle, even though some of us find them to be extremely important. So that is the focus of these blurbs, as a starting point; readers are of course encouraged to research other issues they care about. This post does not pretend to be a thorough or equal discussion of all candidates campaigning for the same position — nor is this a complete list of all races. Candidates are after the jump.

Senate District 3 (Eastern San Francisco, Marin & Sonoma Counties): MARK LENO. Leno’s record demonstrates a commitment to environmental and transportation issues. Most notably, in 2007 he authored the Complete Streets bill (AB 1358), which would require the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to create guidelines for safely accommodating the movement of all users of the street, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and the disabled — and in turn, when cities and counties revise the circulation element of their general plans, they would do so in accordance with the updated OPR guidelines. He also co-authored the Safe Routes to School bill (AB 57). Leno has served as a member of the Assembly’s Smart Growth Caucus, and the SF Bicycle Coalition has noted Leno’s support of other transportation proposals, including SMART, congestion pricing, and the Bay Bridge bicycle path. As to Carole Midgen: she has done some fine work in the Senate, but her substantial noncompliance with campaign finance rules is more than a little worrisome — and seeing as how this three-candidate race has basically boiled down to a two-candidate Mark Leno v. Joe Nation race, the progressive vote should unite behind Leno. Leno is upbeat, smart, passionate about his work, blends idealism with pragmatism, and is simply a stand-up professional. I would be very happy to have him represent District 3 in the Senate.

Senate District 9 (Northern/Eastern Alameda County, West Contra Costa County): WILMA CHAN & LONI HANCOCK. A race between Wilma Chan (former Assembly Majority Leader, 16th District) and Loni Hancock (Assembly, 14th District), for Don Perata’s seat. This race is not in my district, so I admit I have not been following it as closely, at least not since Chan made campaign finance violation allegations against Hancock — and this is actually one of Hancock’s pet issues, since she authored the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. (And for whatever it’s worth, Chan has been sending out suspect mailers that misleadingly imply a Barack Obama endorsement.) Chan has been endorsed by Jerry Brown, and Hancock has been endorsed by Barbara Lee, each of whom I respect for different reasons. Both Chan and Hancock have served as members of the Assembly’s Smart Growth Caucus, and both have worked on the environment, e.g. by co-authoring AB 32, the greenhouse gas cap bill. Hancock chairs the Natural Resources Committee in the Assembly and has demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental issues, while Chan has concentrated time on other very worthy issues while she was in the Assembly, including health care and banning chemicals from toys and other goods. Given Hancock’s commitment to environmental causes, I might be inclined to vote for her if I lived in this district, but it really depends on how one prioritizes the issues. Chan has done some very good work, and I could also see her determination winning me over. Bottom line: either candidate would represent this district well in the Senate.

Assembly District 12 (Western San Francisco, Daly City, Colma): FIONA MA. So she isn’t perfect, but she is also an unopposed incumbent (and Majority Whip), so there is not much choice. But I do want to acknowledge Ma here for her commitment to improving transit — particularly in pushing for high speed rail in preparation for the bond vote this November. In spring of last year, she boarded the record-breaking 357 mph TGV run, and this year she joined other California legislators on a trip to Spain and Japan to study foreign high speed rail systems. She has become a valuable HSR ally in the Assembly, emphasizing HSR’s economic benefits, its role in reducing transportation emissions by providing a much-needed alternative mode of travel beyond automobile and plane, and the need to jumpstart this project sooner rather than later. Ma also authored AB 1221, which would allow for tax increment funding of transit villages, and AB 101, which is an amendment to the Vehicle Code that would allow footage from video cameras mounted on Muni vehicles to be used as evidence to enforce parking violations in transit-only lanes.

Assembly District 13 (Eastern San Francisco): TOM AMMIANO. Okay, so this one wasn’t so hard, since Ammiano is, after all, running unopposed for Leno’s 13th District seat, but he will be a good guy to have on our side in the Assembly. Although he is probably better known for San Francisco’s universal health care ordinance and his work on behalf of the LGBT community, Ammiano has also been a strong transit advocate throughout his time serving as Supervisor of SF’s 9th District. He is an MTC Commissioner and one of four SF Supervisors on the board of the Golden Gate District, not to mention a member of Rescue Muni. Although his district is especially sensitive on smart growth and displacement issues, Ammiano has generally taken SF’s transit-first policy to heart, discouraging road construction that would only increase car use, supporting use of tools like congestion pricing, working towards the procurement of cleaner Muni technology, and advocating for transit riders even in the face of budgetary constraint. He was also a co-sponsor of Proposition A (Muni Reform Initiative) which voters passed in the November 2007 election.

Assembly District 19 (Northern/Central San Mateo County): JERRY HILL. This is a three-way race involving County Supervisor Jerry Hill, Mayor of Millbrae Gina Papan, and Richard Holober, who is president of the San Mateo County Community College Board. From the transit and environmental perspective, Jerry Hill is a no-brainer to endorse as the successor to Gene Mullin’s seat, as he will provide a strong voice for these issues in the Assembly, and he has been the most vocal about making it a part of his campaign. Hill also has the most experience in elected office. From the transit perspective, Hill has served on the SamTrans Board of Directors, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers board, and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board. He has also served as President of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, as Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and as a member of the California Air Resources Board. As 2nd District County Supervisor, he has worked to preserve open space in San Mateo County, and he co-sponsored a Sustainable Building Policy requiring that new County buildings be constructed to LEED standards.

Don’t forget to get out and vote on Tuesday June 3! If you do not already know your polling place, click here to find out where it is.

FHA Max Limits Include 14 CA Counties* FHA Press Release *WASHINGTON – Tens of thousands of California families could be eligible this year to purchase or refinance their homes using affordable, government-backed mortgages, thanks to the economic growth package signed into law by President Bush. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will allow HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to temporarily increase its loan limits and insure larger mortgages at a more affordable price in high cost areas of the country.“The Bush Administration is expanding the pool of eligible borrowers, enabling more American families to qualify for safe, affordable FHA-insured mortgage loans. These temporarily higher loan limits are a shot in the arm for communities trying to sustain property values, bringing much-needed liquidity to the mortgage market, while helping many current homeowners who desperately need to refinance,” said HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson at a forum on how to prevent foreclosure at the Operation Hope Center in Los Angeles and a Hope Now Alliance event in Anaheim.Beginning tomorrow, HUD will offer temporary FHA loan limits that will range from $271,050 to $729,750. Overall, the change in loan limits will help provide economic stability to America ’s communities and give nearly 240,000 additional homeowners and homebuyers a safer, more affordable mortgage alternative. The maximum amount of $729,750 will only be applicable to extremely high-cost metropolitan areas such as:Los Angeles County , San Francisco County , Orange County , and Santa Barbara County . Previously, FHA’s loan limits in these very high-cost areas were capped at $362,790.The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 permits FHA to insure loans on amounts up to 125 percent of the area median house price, when that amount is between the national minimum ($271,050) and maximum ($729,750). The new minimum and maximum loan limits are based on 65 percent and 175 percent of the conforming loan limits for Government-Sponsored Enterprises in 2008, which is $417,000. The FHA used a combination of existing government data sets and available commercial information to determine the median sales price for each area. The change in loan limits are applicable to all FHA-insured mortgage loans endorsed after HUD publishes the increased loan limits tomorrow, and it lasts until December 31, 2008 .By increasing loan limits nationwide, FHA will provide much needed liquidity and stability to housing markets across the country. Already, as conventional sources of mortgage credit have been contracting, FHA has been filling the void. From September to December 2007, FHA facilitated more than $38 billion of much-needed mortgage activity in the housing market, more than $15 billion of which was through FHASecure, FHA’s refinancing product. By focusing on 30-year fixed rate mortgages, FHA helps homeowners avoid and escape the risks associated exotic subprime mortgage products, which have resulted in rising default and foreclosure rates.“This is not an easy crisis to address, and there is no silver-bullet, but I know that we can help hundreds of thousands of people keep their homes, and we can calm the waters,” said Jackson .In January 2009, FHA’s maximum loan limit will return to $362,790, unless the U.S. Congress approves bipartisan legislation to permanently increase loan limits as part of the FHA Modernization bill, which is still awaiting final approval on Capitol Hill.“In January 2009 the loan limits will return to their previous setting,”Jackson said. “That is why we need to permanently raise the loan limits to an acceptable level that more accurately reflect housing prices nationwide. We also need to make the minimum down payment more flexible and create a fairer insurance premium structure. This will allow more families to use FHA.”FHA loan limits are based on the county in which the property is located. However, for properties located in metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas, the limit is set at that of the county with the highest limit within the metropolitan or micropolitan area.The new temporary FHA loan limits for California are attached below.The full text of the Secretary’s remarks can be found on the HUD website.-###-HUD is the nation’s housing agency committed to increasing homeownership, particularly among minorities; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and people living with AIDS.The Department also promotes economic and community development, and enforces the nation’s fair housing laws. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at<http://listener.bliemail.com/forwarder.aspx?ID=a7ce4bbc-f4e6-439c-b9c3-12c87f0c7c0b|http%3a%2f%2frs6.net%2ftn.jsp%3fe%3d001GPnSaxHALMI9V0m-SS_aDrDc9GjPPLxF764nDn3D98O3HU8HasMH4X4vcljEJJroGI2weVOCxAFTcXuMM7YBwg%3d%3d> www.hud.gov and<http://listener.bliemail.com/forwarder.aspx?ID=a7ce4bbc-f4e6-439c-b9c3-12c87f0c7c0b|http%3a%2f%2frs6.net%2ftn.jsp%3fe%3d001GPnSaxHALMLfalvNA5G0OJQdZAhCv-yTc2_iTBJOIL8MsnNYM0rnG9zRKsZKhdvV6JXfosypIhVdeASJRLMIaZLaujeErR2a> espanol.hud.gov. For more information about FHA products, pleasevisit<http://listener.bliemail.com/forwarder.aspx?ID=a7ce4bbc-f4e6-439c-b9c3-12c87f0c7c0b|http%3a%2f%2frs6.net%2ftn.jsp%3fe%3d001GPnSaxHALMLY6P5Am8cR-6cv87njBipB2zQ3VIQJyrQo7OTydYfIj5xjYdLT_9otCmzUR6qNTQ3NBvoPHuTrAg%3d%3d> www.fha.gov.

Washington, DC – The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) today released the maximum conforming loan limits that will be in effect through year-end as a result of The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. That legislation permits Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise their conforming loan limits in certain high-cost areas. The new jumbo limits are a function of median home prices as estimated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).The maximum for temporary jumbo conforming loan limits, which apply to loans originated in the period between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008, are as high as $729,750 for one-unit homes in the continental United States . Two, three and four-unit homes have higher limits as well. Alaska , Hawaii , Guam and the Virgin Islands also have higher maximum limits. There are two data sources reflecting the new maximum limits. The first, on OFHEO’s Web site, available at www.ofheo.gov/media/hpi/AREA_LIST.pdf, reports only those counties and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) that are affected by the new loan limits. Data for all areas are available on the HUD Web site at https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicostlook.cfm.Seventy-one Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas are affected including 245 counties and cities not in counties. In addition, there are 21 counties outside of Metropolitan or Micropolitan areas that show increases, plus Guam and four municipalities in the Marianas Islands . The newly increased limits range from $417,500 in Greeley , Colorado to the highest of $793,750 in Honolulu , Hawaii

. In support of HUD’s calculation of county median home prices, OFHEO provided HUD rural house price indexes for 48 states. HUD used these indexes, which reflect price changes for homes outside of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, to estimate median prices in counties for which sales price data were sparse. OFHEO has made these indexes available at: /hpi_download.aspx.
 

New California Loan Limits:

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development

I’ve had so many people contact me about arranging furniture in a rectangular shaped room!  This is one hot topic!  It all comes down to space planning.  If you’ve got a good eye for space planning, do it yourself (see my other article on “How to arrange furniture in a rectangular shaped room“).  If not, call in a professional Interior Redesigner. In 2-3 hours (for an average sized room with an average amount of furniture and accessories) an Interior Redesigner can transform your rectangular shaped room. 

I have people contact me who say, “We never use that room”, “I don’t like the way it feels in the room so we don’t spend any time in there” and “You could blow that room up and none of us would miss it.”  Don’t waste your valuable space.  Let’s turn it into something you’ll love and use.  Don’t wait another day! Contact me and get that rectangular shaped room redesigned!

Jill Denton ~ Changing Spaces