Search Results

Six years after it was enacted, SB 743 – the bill that shifts environmental review of traffic from Level of Service to Vehicle Miles Traveled – is finally being implemented around the state. At the California APA conference in Santa Barbara on Tuesday, a group of panelists talked about how they are trying to make it work. The panel was put together by the consulting firm of Fehr & Peers and focused in large part on two major SB 743 projects that firm has undertaken – new traffic impact guidance for the Cal State system and an implementation plan for SB 743 undertaken by the Western Riverside Council of Governments on behalf of its member agencies, which are mostly cities. Most of the discussion wen to the question of when lead agencies can screen out projects – that is, what types of projects will not be subject to environmental review under SB 743. “We’ve had six years to talk about this,” said Jason Pack of Fehr & Peers. Now, guidelines under the California Environmental Quality Act have been revised to include language about SB 743, while the actual implementation date of SB 743 is July 1, 2020. “In the meantime,” Pack said, “who knows what you are supposed to do?” What Do You Compare Your Project To? This is probably the biggest question facing SB 743 practitioners. The Governor’s Office of Planning & Research’s technical advisory suggests doing a VMT analysis on any project that located in an area that has 15% less average VMT than the city, subregion, or region. But the recent Newhall Ranch case from the California Supreme Court shows the perils of using a regional or statewide standard (in that case, involving greenhouse gas emissions). Andrew Scher, a transportation engineer for Fehr & Peers, pointed to a Wal-Mart project in Eastvale that had high VMT-generating uses – regional retail – but it was located in a low-VMT area. “Compared to citywide, that particular transportation analysis zone is low VMT, “he said. “But adding the project to that TAZ increases the VMT per service population. That’s a potentially significant impact.” More Environmental Review On Tiny Projects? If big projects in low-VMT areas might not be analyzed, the reverse is also true: Small projects (mostly single-family home projects) in high-VMT areas might have to be analyzed. “It’s flipping the type of environmental review you do,” Pack said. “Right now we’re doing EIRs on 9-unit project in DTLA. Why are you doing EIRs when we are putting projects in low VMT areas?” At the same time, said Tiffany Wright of Remy Moose Manley, in high-VMT areas, “a lot of agencies and applicants having moment of, OMG I’m going to have to do an EIR for my tiny project!” Understand the Geographical Limits of Your Model Scher also noted that the Riverside County transportation model cuts off all trips at the San Diego County line. “When you’re calculating your VMT, model does not give us any information about those trip lengths,” he said. That provided a deceivingly low VMT estimate for trips in Temecula. So watch out for wrinkles like that. TDM and VMT Mitigation Banks? Many of the panelists noted that in more suburban areas, VMT mitigation measures are focused mostly on transportation demand management (TDM solutions). And in many cases, there is no way to beef up the TDM measures strongly enough to get the VMT down to an acceptable level. In many cases, this leads to jurisdictions declaring a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA. But WRCOG – which already collects a regional transportation impact fee and was a critical player in setting up habitat conservation banking in Riverside County – is considering another option: A VMT mitigation bank that developers could pay into, which could be used to finance VMT-lowering measures elsewhere. The trick is being able to track the progress once the project is built. Doesn’t Everybody Still Want To Mitigate LOS? Sure. But they can’t use CEQA to do it. “Doing LOS for general plan consistency, that’s where most of the jurisdictions are landing,” Pack said. But he added that without the threat of a CEQA lawsuit, LOS analyses are likely to be smaller in scope. “The giant studies are going to go away,” he said. “You’re going to do these 10 roads that the city is worried about, not these 30 that we are afraid some adjacent city might sue us over under CEQA.”

Cities around California are beginning to feel tremendous pressure from the state to accommodate new housing rather than just plan for it. And there’s a growing feeling among planners around California than the cities they work for had better be more pro-active on the housing issue so that the state doesn’t step in with even more onerous requirements. Among other things, one speaker said planners shouldn’t be “clamshells” during public hearing and should be proactive and forthright with the facts At the California Chapter, American Planning Association, conference in Santa Barbara yesterday, planner and developers from around the state provided a few tips on how cities can be more pro-active on housing – and how planners themselves can help. The conference panel was the annual leadership program put on by the California Planning Roundtable. Here are a few highlights: Do heavy lifting at the Specific Plan and EIR stage Several speakers – including Santa Monica planner Liz Bar-El and former Berkeley planning director Mark Rhoades – said one of the best things a city can do is create a realistic Specific Plan and do the environmental impact report for it. That way, developers know what will fly and can usually do it with truncated environmental review. Use the Housing Element better Everybody hates the housing element. But especially in combination with the approach above, the Housing Element can identify real opportunity sites on which the city wants housing built and can identify the constraints that the city itself places on the housing development. Accept the Era of the Ministerial “We are making a transition from a discretion-based society to a ministerial-based society,” Rhoades said. Cities are fighting this idea on the legislative level, but on the ground you have to make sure the ministerial projects are the ones you want. “If ministerial is the direction, then the thinking has to be up-front on the policy side,” said former San Diego Planning Director Bill Anderson. “So how do planners engage the public on that level?” Play the gatekeeper role carefully Brad Wiblin of BRIDGE Housing – who’s also a Berkeley planning commissioner – said developers value the way the city manager and the planning director understand their elected officials – but also sometimes see those folks playing too much of a “gatekeeper” role.” “Our first interaction is always with senior staff and they’re all expert watchers of their elected officials,” Wilpin said. “They then become gatekeeper, they believe they understand the council. But sometimes we get fended off for months before I can even meet with the council.” It’s understandable, he said, that bureaucrats want to control access, but developers also need first-hand knowledge of what will fly in front of the council. Allow experimentation One audience member asked how cities can encourage experimentation on such novel ideas as tiny units. Santa Monica’s Bar-El acknowledged that rigid zoning codes and lists of allowable uses discourage such experimentation. But she said the move toward ministerial approval might open things up. For example, she said 100% affordable projects in Santa Monica are approved ministerially, and so that might open the door to experimentation. Give developers a heads-up on possible roadblocks It’s not unusual, Wiblin said, for a developer to get pretty far down the line, only to learn that the staff planners have not pointed out an important constraint. He recalled one instance in which BRIDGE had a project all lined up with city support, only to learn that an aviation easement would cut the allowable density in half. “Always ask, ‘Is there anything else you want to tell me?’,” he said. And planners, he emphasized, actually have to answer the question. Don’t be clamshells Longtime Mountain View Community Development Director Elaine Costello pointed out that when they are in the midst of a contentious public hearing, planners often become “clamshells,” completely closing up, saying nothing, and looking down at their notes. But planners shouldn’t be clamshells, she said. “One way we can be the leaders is to get the facts out there,” she said. “One, do advance work about what the issues are going to be. The other thing is, at the hearing, have some process for where you can come back and give the facts. That does not mean stand up in the middle of during some angry person’s comments. But no clamshells.”

Mission Valley Plan Would Welcome 50,000 New Residents Heralding major changes for Mission Valley, the San Diego City Council adopted a new 30-year community plan that rezones the entire region and allows for more housing and commercial development near transit in the area surrounding the city's former major league football and baseball stadium. The council voted unanimously to adopt a Mission Valley Community Plan Update that’s been in the works since 2015 and replaces the previous 1985 plan. This overhaul shifts the community’s focus from commercial, auto-centric zoning to reorganize the region around the San Diego River, in four “urban villages” that place housing and commercial space alongside mass transit. By adding the “mixed use” designation to zoning type, the plan adds as many as 28,000 new housing units by 2050 and 7 million more square feet of commercial development. The plan accommodates for a 248 percent balloon in residential population – from 20,800 people to 72,400 people – by 2050. It also identifies new parks, roads, bridges, recreation centers, and an aquatics center. It also requires pedestrian walkways and bicycle infrastructure. “I’m a big believer in local planning, that San Diego should control what happens in our neighborhoods, not Sacramento,” Councilwoman Barbara Bry told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “I think today is a poster child for why San Diego should be in charge of what happens in our city.” Vast Majority of California Cities Behind on Housing Plans Up to 89 percent of California cities and counties may miss their deadline to update local housing plans and receive a noncompetitive planning grant for supportive housing, according to the nonprofit Hub for Urban Initiatives. AB 2162, signed into law last September, offers $165 million in non-competitive funding to create streamlining plans for supportive housing approval, meaning funds are guaranteed if jurisdictions apply and meet grant guidelines by the November 30 deadline. But there’s a catch: the jurisdictions must have updated and approved housing elements in their general plans to qualify. According to the Hub’s data, only 58 of California's 538 cities and counties have completed applications for the all-but-guaranteed funding. Another 72 have begun applications – and 408 have not begun at all. So far, the only jurisdictions awarded these funds so far are the cities of Banning, Folsom, Gonzalez, Long Beach, Monterey, Redlands, San Jacinto, Shasta Lake, and Woodland. "The more permanent supportive housing, the fewer chronically homeless persons on the streets. Period,” said Joe Coletti, CEO of the Hub for Urban Initiatives. "If they miss this deadline to get help updating their housing plans they will miss this window of opportunity to save lives and transform their towns and counties. It would be tragic." New Bay Area Commuter Rail Struggles to Cover Costs Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) commuter rail line may face service cuts by 2024 if voters don’t extend a quarter-cent sales tax initially passed in 2006. The two-year-old train line connects Sonoma and Marin to San Francisco, offering an alternative to driving for long-distance commuters. However, the $600 million line has failed to generate enough riders to offset its costs. It currently hosts about 2,800 passengers per day and recovers only 10 percent of costs through fares. By contrast, BART recovers 73 percent of costs through fares, and Caltrain recovers 66 percent. For many commuters, the line is still clunky: it has service gaps and requires multiple transfers to reach San Francisco. Still, it’s sparked transit-oriented development projects in Rohnert Park, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa. In November, voters will be asked to extend the sales tax past its 2029 expiration date. According to Randy Rentschler, legislative director of the Metropolitan Commission, even if SMART were to raise fares and cut service, it would still have to shut down if the tax expires in 2029. “We have a quarter-cent sales tax, and we’re not going to increase it. We’re only asking voters to extend it,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle. (See prior CP&DR coverage .)  California Holds Firm to Support Clean Water Act The Environmental Protection Agency formally announced long-expected rollbacks of key Obama-era water protections – but California’s sweeping new wetlands policy, passed in April, largely protects the state from federal policy changes. The Trump administration repealed a section of the Clean Water Act Thursday that protected watersheds like wetlands and shallow streams from pollution and made it harder for farmers, builders, and industry leaders to develop private land. Obama passed those protections in 2015. But EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recently said that the EPA and the U.S. Army would reinstate water rules that were issued in the 1980s, and would begin redefining which waterways can be regulated. But California’s wetlands bill explicitly secures state oversight of California’s watersheds. “We kind of locked it into place out of fear of what would happen today,” Jared Blumfield, California’s secretary of Environmental Protection, told the San Francisco Chronicle. (See prior CP&DR commentary .) Report Finds Increasing Homelessness in Bay Area Addressing the San Francisco Bay Area homelessness crisis will take a monumental cross-regional and integrated effort, according to a recent report from consulting firm McKinsey & Company. The report notes that record-high homelessness rates throughout the region are only increasing, and that 67 percent of the Bay Area homeless are unsheltered. They attribute these numbers to the affordable housing crisis, insufficient inventory across the homelessness spectrum, and a lack of coordination between the Bay Area’s major crisis-response providers. The report then proposes a few major solutions: first, they recommend measures to meet existing needs by expanding the housing supply. Such a supply increase will, they note, mean reducing the time and cost to build new units and incentivize housing production for lower-income brackets. Second, they recommend greater state-region collaboration that integrates funding, data collection, and advocacy efforts between services and across regions. They suggest creating a Bay Area Homeless Management Information System to integrate and process this data. Finally, they recommend engaging private and philanthropic capital to improve services and create new solutions. They cite the recent Partnership for the Bay’s Future – supported by Facebook, Genentech, Kaiser Permanente, and others – as one such example of a privately-funded fund to test and scale effective solutions. Quick Hits & Updates The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is kicking off a bike superhighway feasibility study, after being awarded $800,000 to fund the study from the California Department of Transportation in May. The study aims to find a preferred alternative for a 10-mile paved low-stress bikeway through the center of the county – and will be just one of a grid of bikeways along the 12 major county corridor. Major challenges to be examined are how to navigate around the San Jose International Airport, and how to circumvent bridges, freeways and rail lines. The study will kick off in October and should be complete by February 2022. The Santa Clara City Council unanimously approved a developer for a proposed teacher housing project in Palo Alto across five school districts. The developer, Mercy housing Management Group, will build an affordable facility catered toward school employees starting or in the middle of their careers. Since its proposal in January 2018, the estimated $36 million project has gained $6 million from the Santa Clara County Board, $3 million from the Palo Alto City Council, and a combined $3 million from the five school districts. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) In the latest development in the the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’ plans for a 10,000 seat arena in downtown Palm Springs , the tribe announced it will have a "comprehensive parking plan”. The announcement came in response to complaints at a community meeting that the site was previously planned for a parking study; and that such a large arena will create major difficulties for downtown parking. The San Francisco Planning Commission approved a massive housing and retail redevelopment project at UCSF’s Laurel Heights campus. The plan will contain 744 new housing units, including 186 units for seniors, a childcare facility, five acres of open space and 35,000 square feet of retail space. The project’s construction will be phased over the course of several years – drawing opposition from neighbors who object to such a protracted timeline. The San Francisco Bay Ferry and the San Francisco International Airport have teamed up to offer ferry rides and free shuttle buses to SFO on weekday mornings to residents of the East Bay. The trip begins at the Alameda Main Street Ferry Terminal or the Oakland Terminal to South San Francisco, where a free SFO Ferry Connector bus will carry riders the 20-minute drive to the airport. Overall, the trip is 75 minutes from Alameda or 65 minutes from Oakland. The reverse trip is available on weekday afternoons and early evenings. In what some local lawmakers are dubbing "the YIMBY initiative", the San Jose City Council will consider a forgivable loan program for people to build accessory dwelling units in their backyards. The program, backed by Mayor Sam Liccardo, would provide property owners a forgivable loan up to $20,000 for planning, permitting, and other pre-development costs of building. Once a house gets built, homeowners would have to restrict the unit’s rent to a low-to-moderate household income level for five years. The city council is expected to approve a $1.25 million agreement with Housing Trust Silicon Valley to initiate the program. In a two-pronged move to address the local affordable housing crisis, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved funding a new pilot program to accelerate affordable housing construction, and proposed changing a housing code to allow for a greater mix of housing types. The pilot program provides funding to help the county meet its goal of ensuring that 10 percent of all housing built in unincorporated areas is affordable, and building 132 affordable units a year for the next 20 years. The proposed housing code change will allow for more small duplex, triplex, tiny houses, and accessory dwelling units in future building. The privately-funded high-speed train from Victorville to Las Vegas is moving forward, according to a representative from Virgin Trains USA . The train will travel at speeds up to 150 miles per hour in a nonstop 75-90 minute trip that will cost $60 per passenger. The project, the first privately-funded passenger rail system in the U.S. in over 100 years, is expected to cost over $4 billion and will begin construction in February 2020. In a move directly billed as homelessness prevention, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to make a permanent rent control measure for unincorporated communities. The measure would tie annual rent increases to inflation and require landlords to have “just cause” for eviction. The rules would apply to 43,500 multifamily units built on or before February 1, 1995, in unincorporated communities like East LA, Willowbrook, and Rowland Heights. This is following on the heels of similar measures in Inglewood, Culver City, Pasadena, Long Beach, and Glendale earlier this year. A nonprofit group sued the city of Whittier saying its garage conversion laws are too restrictive and prevent homeowners from converting garages into accessory dwelling units. The lawsuit, filed by Californians for Homeownership, said the city’s rules on garage conversions violates state law. It takes particular issue with Whittier’s requirements for replacement parking. The city pushed back, saying that those state laws are still pending in the Legislature, and that requiring replacement parking is necessary to keep parking available to the city’s residents. A trial-setting conference is set for December 10. The Los Angeles Housing Authority (LASHA) has failed dramatically to reach most of its goals, according to an audit from a city controller. The audit found that, in spite of doubling its staff in the last two years, LASHA did not meet most of its goals to move people from the streets into housing, shelters, or treatment for substance abuse and mental illness. For example, last year, workers were supposed to put 10 percent of people they assessed into permanent housing – but they placed only four percent. They also fell far short of their goal to place 20 percent of people in shelters – by placing only 14 percent. The Pleasanton City Council unanimously approved updates to the Downtown Specific Plan, which update city regulations and goals for downtown properties for the first time since 2002. No major changes came for building heights or parking, both hot topics among residents. The council approved maintaining the existing commercial downtown building height limits at a 40 foot, three-story maximum with two stories encouraged. They also supported an existing working group to address parking supply downtown – and faced criticism from city commissioners who argued that they failed to address a downtown parking shortage.

I have no idea if high-speed rail, hyperloops , driverless cars, flying cars, electric scooters , or using one’s turn signal are ever going to take hold. But, one advance that I thought California’s planners could count was ride-sharing.  Until the other day.  As is well known in California, Assembly Bill 5 would reclassify many “gig workers” as employees, requiring companies — most notably ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft — to provide more benefits, more predictable schedules, and, possibly, higher pay. The passed both chambers of the Legislature and now sits on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. He’s expected to sign it.  It used to be — back in the mid-2010s — that apps were the disruptors, moving fast, breaking things, getting sued, etc. Now they’re finding that governments, with perhaps a longer wind-up, can do their damage of their own, with the flash of a pen.  I am all for workers’ rights. Anyone who puts in honest time deserves honest compensation (they also deserve plentiful, reasonably priced housing so as not to squander that compensation). I’m not, however, sure about the forced reclassification of freelance workers who often gain in personal freedom what they might lose in financial compensation. I happen to be a fan of personal freedom, but I'm also not living paycheck-to-paycheck. (Disclosure: I work freelance, and I love it. I also happen to love journalism, which could, according to the Sacramento Bee’s analysis , be devastated by AB 5.)  However you may feel about the benefits to workers, though, the impacts on the ride-hailing (or ridesharing, if you prefer; nobody calls them TNCs) companies themselves and, by extension, on the availability of rides.  The short version is, if Uber and Lyft have to pay more for labor, costs to passengers are going to rise, and, in turn, fewer people will use the services. The companies, which are bleeding cash, might even fail. Opponents of ride-hailing — and there are many, especially since Uber founder Travis Kallinack outed himself as a world-class lout — may tell them good riddance.  Proponents of good urbanism, and the poor planners who are trying to keep up with the times, face much more complex prospects.  A preface: Where ride-hailing is concerned, ambiguities abound. There’s fairly convincing research that suggests that, by making it easier for people to travel in conventional cars, it puts more of them on the road. Some studies show that ride-hailing takes passengers away from public transit . And because algorithms aren’t perfect, there’s a lot of dead-heading when rides involve the suburbs . That’s bad if you oppose pollution, congestion, and support public transit.  On the other hand, ridesharing has enabled some people to dispense with personal cars altogether. A hip young couple living in Los Angeles’s Koreatown can take the subway to work at Ernst & Young on weekdays and take Uber to see the director’s cut of The Royal Tenenbaums at Hollywood Forever on weekends. And the truly shared services — like Uber Pool — promise some pretty serious efficiencies. And rideshare can save the first-mile, last-mile problem.  Whatever the macro impact may be, planners and developers have very much bought into the promise of ride-hailing. Or, at least, they’re accommodating it.  Partly amid the promise of ride-hailing, cities are reducing parking requirements. They’re forging ahead with transit oriented plans. They’re mandating drop-off zones and rethinking their curb spaces. And developers are doing the same. What apartment developer wouldn’t want to shave off some spaces and provide an Uber discount instead? Obviously none of these advances is monumental — nothing like, say, bulldozing your neighborhood to build a freeway — but they might be collectively significant and, I think, beneficial. Ride-hailing is even built into assumptions about vehicle miles traveled and Sustainable Communities Strategies.  With AB 5, I can’t help thinking of cities in the Central Valley that, like harbors on a lake that has dried up, have planned for a statewide high-speed rail network and now have to make due with a stubbier version through no fault of their own. If the Uberpocalypse (Lyftaclysm?) transpires, cities are going to find themselves time-warped back to 2009. Granted, a lot has improved since then, including accessibility of public transit statewide. But many of those plans that were designed not just to accommodate but indeed to optimize the use of rideshare are now like tears in the rain.  Planners and developers are going to have to consider a rideshare-less world (unless, of course, the rideshare companies’ proposed ballot initiative succeeds) while, at the same time, preparing for the next mobility revolution, whatever that may be. It makes you think that maybe we should stop relying on technology altogether and just stick with cycling, buses, wheelchairs, and walking. "But what about those flying cars!?" you say?  They’re coming next year. Brought to you by Uber .

A time limitation in the Planning, Zoning & Development Code originally designed to move along housing projects applies to a Del Mar resident’s attempt to force the city to implement its scenic view ordinance.

Group Sues to Block Los Angeles Transit Oriented Development Program  A Los Angeles anti-development group filed a petition in Los Angeles Supreme Court targeting the city’s aims to increase affordable housing and density near transit stops. The group, Fix the City, objected to the city’s recent approval of a seven-story, 120-unit apartment building in West LA. The development was approved under new transit-oriented communities (TOC) guidelines created under affordable housing Measure JJJ, passed in 2016. The TOC guidelines allow developers who agree to build affordable units to construct higher and denser buildings than what’s typically allowed in city codes. Fix the City has sued Los Angeles over a number of planning proposals, including a plan to increase density along the Expo line, and an update to the Hollywood Community Plan. City planners largely consider the new TOC guidelines a success: this year to date, almost 8,000 housing units have been proposed through the program – over 1,600 of which are affordable. A spokesperson for Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti called the program a “lawful and essential” boon to affordable housing production. Study: Strict Zoning Restricts Housing Development  California cities with stricter land-use regulations see the lowest amount of new housing growth, according to a recent study from George Mason University. The study’s authors examined regulations and housing construction in 249 cities from 2012-2018. They found that the suburban areas of Dublin and Irvine, two of the least-regulated areas in the state, experienced the most rapid housing growth in that period. Their relatively lax regulations included smaller minimum lot sizes for single-family homes, higher building height limits, and higher percentages of land zoned for multifamily housing. In the state’s major cities like San Francisco and San Diego, more relaxed land use regulations are belied by strict building height limits and opposition to building from local residents. And, according to the study’s authors, these cities tend to have both urban growth boundaries and density restrictions. “In some places, you can’t build out but you can build up, and in others you can’t build up but you can build out. In a lot of California, you can’t do either one.” said Salim Furth, senior research fellow at George Mason University, according to US News. Developers Wary of Working in Bay Area  California commercial and multi-family developers are optimistic about future building, but are reluctant to build in the Bay Area, according to a new survey released by the UCLA Anderson School of Management and law firm Allen Matkins. The biannual survey projects a three-year outlook for the state’s commercial real estate industry and forecasts potential opportunities and challenges facing the office, multi-family, retail, and industrial sectors. The data showed that Bay Area residential developers have pulled back on new development in the last six months, citing an unsteady market in Silicon Valley, the East Bay, and San Francisco. One possible cause of this pessimism may be the growing movement toward rent control in the Bay Area. Governor Gavin Newsom recently backed San Francisco-based Assemblymember David Chiu’s rent cap bill AB 1482. The change may also be due to hefty construction costs in the Bay Area: according the the San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco has nearly 73,000 units “in the pipeline,” but only 8,500 of those are under construction. The authors of the study predict that “if uncertainty is causing the building of multi-family projects to wane in the Bay Area, it will only exacerbate the housing shortage there.” Report: ‘Boomerang Kids’ Prevalent throughout California  Roughly 37 percent of young Californians between 18 and 34 live with their parents, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These numbers are highest in two areas: high-income coastal suburbs and lower-income inland areas. In coastal suburbs like Mission Viejo in Southern California, rates of milllenials living with their parents are as high as 55 percent. These are mainly white, affluent young workers who can’t still can’t afford the median home prices of $700,000. Low-income inland stay-at-homers, in areas like Imperial County or Fresno and Merced, are more likely to be Latino, and are often providing essential financial support to their families. More than 40 percent of California stay-at-homers are enrolled in school. “This has, I think, surprised many of us, including myself,” Richard Fry, a senior researcher with the Pew Research Center, told Cal Matters. “Clearly in certain areas rents have gone up, and he cost of living independently has increased." Quick Hits & Updates  California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Ben Metcalf is stepping down, according to an announcement from the agency. The director says he will continue to address the affordable housing crisis in his future career. HCD’s Chief Deputy Director Doug McCauley will serve as Acting Director until a new Director is appointed. (See further CP&DR coverage .) The California High-Speed Rail Authority released its preferred alternatives for building Northern California lines. The Authority recommended Alternative 4 for the San Jose to Merced line, which will follow an existing Union Pacific Rail corridor from San Jose and Gilroy before continuing to a dedicated high-speed rail alignment through Pacheco Pass. In the San Francisco to San Jose project section, Authority staff recommends Alternative A, which includes a light maintenance facility on the east side of the tracks in Brisbane and does not include additional passing tracks in the middle of the corridor. Authority staff will seek public comments on its recommendations through September. The City of Anaheim launched a development initiative to incentivize investment and new building along the Beach Boulevard corridor. The initiative offers flexible development rules for the sale or lease of land in hopes of attracting new retail, restaurants, and residential communities to the 1.5 mile stretch. The city hopes to attract new developers, as well as streamline existing plans to begin construction as soon as 2020. The Coastal Commission criticized a proposal from the San Diego Association of Governments to place railroad tracks in a trench next to coastal bluffs in Del Mar. The bluff trench is one of several ideas being considered by the regional planning agency to safeguard tracks on an eroding coastline. Other possible solutions to avoid landslides and erosions include moving the line as much as a mile inland or tunneling up to 270 feet below ground. The Coastal Commission claims that the trench plan would violate many Coastal Act policies, and supports pursuing the various tunnel options. Most teachers in San Francisco and San Mateo County cannot afford to rent where they teach, according to a new report compiled by the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO). The report, titled “Who Will Teach Our Children?”, examines variables like median incomes, teacher pay, and average rent and home prices. The report noted that teacher salaries vary widely, depending on district, subjects taught, and years of experience. But overall, they found that even the highest-attaining teachers would end up paying more than 37 percent of their income toward the median home rates in the area. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) The number of “super commuters ” – people who drive over 90 minutes one way – is growing statewide, according to an analysis of census data by Apartment List. The analysis found that in 2017, 41 out of 58 counties saw at least moderate growth in the share of the workforce supercommuting, with particularly high rates in the Bay Area. The report cites a lack of housing in dense cities, so that people can no longer afford to live where they work. Despite protests from opponents and critics, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board narrowly voted 4-3 to name the city’s Chinatown Muni station after the late Rose Pak. Pak, who fought tirelessly for the 1.7-mile Chinatown extension before her death three years ago, has received criticism for her political tactics and controversial messages. Protestors asked that the station bear only the name “Chinatown.”  In a move to address the local housing crisis by increasing the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) offered citywide, the city of San Diego created a 42-page handbook for homeowners interested in adding ADUs to their backyards and garages. The handbook covers zoning rules, parking requirements, the city’s approval process, and the details of the city’s new subsidy program established last year. In the latest development in a showdown between Cupertino and state government, the Cupertino City Council promised to take all necessary steps to meet its production goals. Earlier this month, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) threatened to sue the city over a potential housing law violation if it failed to approve development plans at the Vallco Shopping Mall site. In May, city officials rescinded its specific plan for the Vallco Development that would have added 2,402 homes – easily bringing it into compliance with the state mandate to add 1,064 new housing units by 2023. These plans were green lighted under the statewide SB 35 housing streamlining law. But a local lawsuit, still pending, threatens to halt the project and dissolve the plans. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Citing concerns about crime and traffic, San Jose residents are pushing back against a proposal to build a four-story, 147-unit low-income senior housing project. The plans aim to serve a vulnerable population at risk of displacement in the growing affordable housing crisis. However, its proximity to single-family homes drew pushback from community members who oppose increased density and crime risks from housing at-risk populations. To get Measure A bond funding from the county, Charities plans to set aside nearly 50 units for formerly homeless seniors.

Two of California’s “Big Four” metropolitan planning organizations have recently received their housing allocation numbers from the state for the 2021-2029 cycle. Not surprisingly, almost no one is happy. That is, no one except, perhaps, outgoing Housing and Community Development Director Ben Metcalf, a longtime champion of housing production, who is leaving the department amid an increasingly dire housing supply and affordability crisis.

For some people, Greta Thunberg has jumped the shark. Perhaps literally.  In her 16 short years, Thunberg has already done a nice job of sticking it to The Man, leading school walk-outs and other protests against climate change in her native Sweden and elsewhere. Her simple and appropriately irate thesis is that adults are taking the planet her generation is going to inherent and smoking it like herring. We have mortgaged their future, and Thunberg wants to call in the debt before we’re all underwater.  The politicians against whom she rails often feign pique whenever pet projects are offended and sensible policies proposed. By contrast, Thunberg is 100 percent pissed off. As well she should be.  Thunberg is attending the United Nations climate summit in New York City this month. To protest the burning of fossil fuels, she’s sailing there from England rather than emitting 986 kilograms of carbon dioxide by flying coach. That’s actually about 40 gallons of jet fuel — or about what a fully-laden Hummer burns on a trip to Whole Foods. Collectively, though, air travel is devastating. There’s already talk about “ travel rationing ,” to limit travelers’ carbon footprints.  Thunberg's voyage has given rise, especially in Sweden, to “ flight-shaming ”: the notion that, even if they’re not pumping the gas themselves, jet-setters and leisure travelers must reckon with the share of the stratosphere that they’re destroying with every flight. Meanwhile, Thunberg is weathering backlash. Critics claim that her Columbus act is a sanctimonious publicity stunt and noting that she has support staff who’ll be joining her the old-fashioned way: by flying and meeting up with her.  I’m not about to question the media savvy or the ethical foundations of a16-year-old, especially when the offenses against which she protests could literally destroy the world. Rather than shame tourists for getting on planes in order to visit faraway places, though, I’d rather think about places themselves.  The world’s increasingly massive middle class flies for all sorts of reasons. A big reason is to visit nice places. Presumably those places are nicer than wherever it is they’re from, be it a complex of apartment towers in Guangzhou, an oversized suburban box 15 miles from downtown Detroit, or a new Hollywood apartment building that looks like a beached container ship.  What do these places have in common? Density, history, walkability, style. To name a few.  I completely support travel for the sake of travel. It’s the greatest form of education in the world, and it’s exactly the sort of thing that creates the empathy and mutual understanding – two crucial ingredients necessary to fight climate change. Imagine if 20th century urban planners had learned from the past rather than plunged headlong into the future? On the other hand, we wouldn’t need to travel so much if our cities — in the United States and in many other places — weren’t themselves so terrible.  You could pick almost any neighborhood in any city in Germany, France, Italy, or Japan and end up someplace nicer, livelier, more attractive, more charming, and more functional than all but the best neighborhoods in the United States. The Netherlands received 19 million tourists last year. That's more than the actual population of the Netherlands.  If we can create more places -- and learn to make proper sauce for frites -- the Netherlands will have fewer tourists (which is what it ). If we can rebuild our cities according to those models, with an eye towards human scale and away from the automobile, Americans won’t need to travel abroad just so they can find a decent sidewalk cafe. (Not unlike what we've done with cannabis and would-be visitors to Amsterdam coffee shops.) Crucially, but not coincidentally, great neighborhoods are greener neighborhoods. California policymakers have adopted laws like Senate Bill 375 and vehicle miles traveled metrics precisely so that residents can live their lives without spewing the remnants of Alaska crude from their tailpipes. Many European countries emit far fewer GHGs per capita than do Californians (who are already on the low end of the American spectrum, at 9.5 metric tons per year). Of course, development and redevelopment create their own carbon footprints. But that’s a negligible net contribution of GHGs. Population pressures and obsolesce of older buildings demand that many American cities redevelop anyway. We might as well redevelop well.  So put that into your emissions model: the type of city that enables a resident to walk down the block to get a cup of coffee and say hi to neighbors may also be the type of city that lures a suburbanite who might otherwise felt that the only escape from bedroom-community monotony was a jumbo jet. In a green urban future, more Americans can rely on staycations and actually enjoy the places where they live. That’s probably one reason why Greta is so exasperated: when you grow up in a gorgeous city like Stockholm, you must surely wonder why everyone else is so hell-bent on building shlock. If you believe in saving the planet through flight-shaming, you might want to consider some city-shaming too.  As for Greta, I wish her well. May a steady breeze usher her westward and pod of watchful dolphins keep the great whites and haters at bay. Whether or not travel-shaming endures, I hope Thunberg and her generation can indeed lower the boom on climate change.

While many of the bedroom communities in Silicon Valley have clung to their residential character, even amid the Bay Area’s housing affordability crisis, San Jose has of late embraced a decidedly urban vision. Google plans to build a mixed-use headquarters downtown, and city leaders have advanced policies to make the state’s third-largest city into more of a city. The city has a prime opportunity turn vision into reality than at Berryessa, a suburban neighborhood that will soon host Bay Area Rapid Transit’s first advance into Silicon Valley. The $2.3 billion extension of the Richmond and Daly City BART lines, anticipated to begin service in December, will bring the passenger rail system 10 miles south from its current terminus in Warm Springs/South Fremont. The extension will include a new stop at the Milpitas Transit Center before it ends at Berryessa, just northeast of downtown San Jose. In anticipation of BART, San Jose is currently working on the Berryessa BART Urban Village Plan, which would add around 4,800 housing units, 3 million square feet of commercial space and several acres of parks and trail connections to a 270-acre site just near the Berryessa station. The extension is the first phase of a project that will ultimately bring BART service to Downtown San Jose, to the rail hub at Diridon Station and to Santa Clara. That second phase -- expected to cost $5.5 billion and be completed in 2026 -- would connect with Caltrain at Diridon and close the loop of rail service around much of the Bay Area.

From  Central Park West  to  San Diego’s hip North Park neighborhood , cities are removing parking spaces, replacing them with bike lanes, and getting pushback from residents and business owners.  In urban neighborhoods across the country, well-capitalized electric scooter companies are invading,  sometimes met with support from policymakers  who see them as a useful transportation mode and  sometimes met with resistance from residents and politicians  who view them as a safety hazard and little more than metal street litter.  What’s really going on here? Depending on how you look view transportation, bikes and scooters are the key to future, clean urban mobility or a sideshow that distracts from maintaining mobility across large metropolis. But I think the basic problem – the reason we’re having a hyper-emotional discussion about these transportation modes on both sides – is that we’re not framing the issue right. The problem isn’t that bikes and scooters are necessary or that they’re a menace. The problem is that, in urban locations across America, we need an intermediate mode of travel between cars and walking – an easy to way to travel between a half-mile and two miles. In the transit business, this is called the “first and last mile” problem. Cars are a hassle and walking is too far, so these intermediate modes need a right of way, whether they are bikes, scooters, Segways or vehicles that haven’t been invented yet. On urban streets, we know how to accommodate cars that go between 25 and 45 miles an hour, which often also wind up parking on the street. We also know how to accommodate pedestrians (though we don’t always do this well), who tend to travel at about three miles an hour. What happens when somebody shows up in a small vehicle that travels 10 to 15 miles an hour? They either travel in the street, where they’re too small and too slow to navigate amidst car traffic comfortably; or they travel on the sidewalk, where they are too big and too fast to travel amidst pedestrian traffic comfortably. And where do they park? What’s happening is that cities are taking space away from cars – parking spaces – in order to give it to these intermediate vehicles a thoroughfare. (The most persistently amusing example of the problem this creates is  police cars parking in bike lanes ). In the scooter controversies, mostly what’s happening is that scooter parking is taking up already limited space on sidewalks that is supposed to be reserved for pedestrians, leaving  many people enraged that it is harder to walk .  It’s time to reframe the scooter-bike discussion so that it’s not so much about taking things away from people and, instead, is focused on providing the right of way for a new transportation mode that is now necessary for certain urban neighborhoods. This isn’t that hard for urban planners and transportation experts to do, but it can’t be a set of random experiments. It needs to be the result of the kind of systematic analysis that planners are good at. What are the neighborhood characteristics that lend themselves to intermediate vehicles? How dense are they? Where are they located? What kind of mix of land use and businesses do they typically have? This kind of information will help build a case for the need for intermediate-vehicle thoroughfares in certain neighborhoods. In Houston, that means places like Downtown, Uptown, Midtown, and Montrose. And, yes, doing this right does mean understanding that existing modes of travel, principally cars and pedestrians, have to share space with intermediate vehicles.  For scooter parking, this is easier than it looks, because geofencing acceptable locations to store the scooters is a pretty easy trick technologically. (I think one of the funniest aspects of this debate is when scooter-haters complain that scooters shouldn’t be allowed to park in the public right of way because that’s unfair. Like we don’t already do that with cars.) For rights of way, it probably is true that on-street parking will have to be removed to make room to give intermediate vehicles some traveling room. But as my  former UCLA professor Donald Shoup has made a habit of pointing out , resistance to reprogramming parking space comes partly from the fact that cities have consistently underpriced desirable street parking. Maybe if we priced street parking right, people would look for alternatives and removing the parking wouldn’t be such a big deal.  What’s going on here is that we are reaping what we have sown – a century of over-investment in rights-of-way for cars and under-investment in rights-of-way for pedestrians. Motorists are used to getting their way and don’t like sharing. Pedestrians get scraps and don’t like having to compete for those scraps. In urban locations, it’s time to throw out these old models and reorient our public rights-of-way to give all modes of travel the space they need for urban neighborhoods to thrive.  A version of this blog appears on UrbanEdge , published by the Rice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research.   Prior CP&DR Coverage:  Scooters Propel Cities Toward New Regulatory Approaches

CP&DR Vol. 34 No. 8 August 2019

Vast Majority of Coastal Estuaries Washed Away, Paved Over  Using a first-of-its-kind mapping technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that 85 percent of coastal estuaries along the West Coast have been destroyed by development. The NOAA study, the most detailed coastal estuary research ever conducted, combined efforts from eight government and environmental science labs and compared results with historic digital water elevation models. The resulting data found that nearly 750,000 acres along the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California have been diked, drained, or cut off from the sea. Notably, the data showed that the largest losses have occurred in California. For example, along the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta, 96.8 percent of the more than 380,000 acres of vegetated wetlands is gone. Researchers also found that only 15 percent of the historic San Francisco Bay marshland habitat remains. The most pristine estuary remaining in California is Drakes Estero in Marin County, which has lost only 2.7 percent of historical tidal habitat. Scientists hope that this data will open new avenues for restoration, as well as identify low-lying areas most at risk of flooding from seas. “Given how valuable estuaries are to so many different species, it’s important to understand how much they have changed and what that means for fish and wildlife that depend on them,” Laura Brophy, director of the estuary technical group at the Oregon Institute for Applied Ecology and the lead author of the study, told the San Francisco Chronicle.  Insurers Flee from Homes in Fire-Prone Areas  Nearly 350,000 Californian homeowners have been dropped by their insurance providers in the wake of two deadly fire seasons, according to new data released by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara’s staff. The data showed that the number of Californians dropped by insurance has increased by 6 percent in the last year alone, and by an average of 10 percent in the areas affected by 2018 fires. Remarkably, in the high-risk Nevada County, insurance providers dropped 38 percent of homeowners from their plans. And the staff anticipates that these numbers will grow: many insurance providers will likely wait until homeowner’s insurance is due to expire before discontinuing coverage. The commissioner’s staff also found that changing insurance providers will be costly: new premiums from non-traditional providers or the California FAIR plan will likely double or triple insurance costs. Lara told the Sacramento Bee that he is working with lawmakers on a proposal to require insurers to guarantee renewals if homeowners reduce risk in their homes. He also plans to fight for state insurance subsidies for low-income rural Californians. “We need to take proactive steps to protect our consumers,” he said, according to the Sacramento Bee. Environmental Groups Sue to Support Endangered Species Act In the first legal response to the Trump Administration’s recent rollback of protections under the Endangered Species Act, seven environmental and animal protection groups filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court. The suit, filed by the nonprofit Earthjustice on behalf of several groups, argues that the administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to analyze the effects of the new rules. They also claim that the administration unreasonably changed requirements that might have prevented changes to protect listed species. Under the administration’s changes, officials will have to publicly attach a cost to saving an animal or plant and blanket protections for newly listed species will be removed. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Interior criticized the lawsuit, claiming that the groups “seek to weaponize the Endangered Species Act”. But advocates of the Act claim that the lawsuit is a necessary bid to maintain crucial protections. “In the midst of an unprecedented extinction crisis, the Trump Administration is eviscerating our most effective wildlife protection law,” Rebecca Riley, Legal Director of the nature program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Los Angeles Times. PPIC: Support for Environment Slips Slightly but Still Strong  The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released its latest “Californians and the Environment” report, revealing strong – yet slightly declining – statewide support for major environmental policy proposals. For instance, survey results show that an overwhelming majority of Californians (75 percent of adults, 76 percent of likely voters) favor requiring all automakers to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars. This comes just after last months’ agreement between California lawmakers and four major automakers to adopt more-stringent carbon emission reduction goals that contradict federal standards. Still, this majority has declined somewhat since the question was first asked in 2002, when responses revealed 81 percent adults, 79 percent. Similarly, support for changing land use and transportation planning so people can drive less remains high (74 percent, 68 percent), but this number has also dropped in the past 10 years: when the question was first asked in 2008, 81 percent of adults and 79 percent of likely voters favored this policy. In both cases, this change may come down to stronger partisan polarization: for instance, Democrats (87 percent) are nearly twice as likely today to support changing land use and transportation planning as Republicans (45 percent). PPIC’s surveys also found majority support for specific policies like SB 32 (67 percent, 63 percent) and for SB 50 (62 percent, 53 percent). United Nations Recommends Addressing Climate Change via Land Use Land use planning will be central to combatting global warming, according to the most recent United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report. The report examines how land and its uses can either exacerbate or mitigate the major effects of global warming. The report notes the abundant opportunity for the land to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, because forests can reabsorb the carbon dioxide that human activities emit. Additionally, the report outlines opportunity to develop new agricultural approaches to both feed a growing population and and minimize the use of natural resources. The report cites a 2017 study, which concluded that land-based climate solutions could deliver a third of the greenhouse gas reductions needed by 2030 to keep the world on track to the meet the goals of the Paris accord. The report notes that forests are already absorbing 22 percent of carbon from human emissions – and future land use planning has the “We’re currently getting a free subsidy from nature on our economic activities,” said Louis Verchot, a forester at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Palmira, Colombia, who helped write the report. “ tells us that the land is already doing a lot of service for us, but also that we can do a lot with land." Quick Hits & Updates  In the latest in a growing statewide trend toward rent control measures, the Culver City City Council approved a temporary rent control measure to boost tenant protections. In a 4-1 vote, the Council capped increases to three percent in buildings built on or before February 5, 1995. Tenants in these properties will also have just-cause rights, meaning that they can’t be evicted without reasonable conditions. This measure is a temporary, year-long stay while the council debates a more permanent measure. Backers of a 2020 ballot measure to reform  Proposition 13 opted to support a new tax plan that they believe has a better chance of passing. Proposition 13, a 1978 measure that places limits on property taxes statewide, has faced criticism for starving local municipalities of much-needed tax revenue. However, instead of moving to dramatically change the measure by removing limits on all properties, backers have opted to support a bill that eliminates limits on taxation for most high-dollar commercial and industrial businesses and land. Following a growing number of cities to adopt rent caps, the Sacramento City Council approved a temporary rent control and tenant protection measure. In homes built before February 1, 1995, the Sacramento Tenant Protection and Relief Act will cap rent increases at six percent per year, prohibit landlords from evicting tenants without just cause, and create a process for reporting any undue evictions. To stave off potentially hasty evictions, the council also moved the effective date for the act from October 12 to September 12. A coalition of 21 states led by California Governor Gavin Newson sued the Trump Administration for easing restrictions on coal-fired power plants. In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eliminated the agency’s Clean Power Plan and replaced it with a new plan with looser restrictions for deciding upgrades for such power plants. The coalition’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that the new rule violates the federal Clean Air Act because it doesn’t meaningfully replace power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions.  Long commutes in California can be explained by high land use and housing costs, according to a recent analysis published by the Journal of Transport Geography. Researchers used the 2012 California Household Travel Survey to examine “long commutes”, or commutes over 50 miles one way. Their analysis finds that the probability of a household decreases with an increase in the job-housing ratio, and with the median home value of the area where the household resides. In other words, people commute long distances because they can’t afford to live in higher-cost, job-rich areas. The report highlights the importance of providing affordable housing and mixed development options to mitigate the environmental impacts of long-distance commuting. The California Department of Housing and Community Development announced its first Planning Grants Program awards, totaling more than $2.3 million to local governments that are working to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. Awardees include nine cities: Shasta Lake, Woodland, Long Beach, Monterey, Gonzales, San Jacinto, Banning, Redlands, and Folsom. The Planning Grants Program was created in 2018 under Senate Bill 2, which provides funding to plan for housing, implement plans, and create processes to accelerate approvals and production.  The Department of Housing and Community Development approved Claremont’s Housing Element, the seventh city to gain state approval of its Housing Element since Governor Gavin Newsom met with mayors of noncompliant cities in February. To reach compliance, Claremont rezoned eight areas for multifamily development, opening the potential for 200 affordable apartments. The city also adopted a homeless services plan. Under state law, 41 cities remain noncompliant with housing plan standards. Twenty-four Sacramento transportation projects received nearly $56 million after the Sacramento Area Council of Governments board unanimously approved the 2019 funding round. The award will cover transportation projects at various stages of implementation: from repairing existing infrastructure, to bringing funds to already-approved projects, to supporting ongoing planning and project development. Projects include street repair, transit repair, and light rail modernization projects in cities across the region. A U.S. District judge dropped four of five south Orange County cities from a lawsuit filed on behalf of homeless people and three local advocacy groups. The original lawsuit, filed by advocacy groups in February against San Clemente, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano, argues that those cities have not done enough to provide homeless services, and have violated constitutional rights by criminalizing homelessness. However, the judge ruled that multiple claims against separate municipalities cannot be filed together, and kept only San Clemente as a defendant in the current suit.  In the largest employee ethics fine in Los Angeles city history, former L.A. Department of City Planning Director Michael LoGrande is facing a $281,250 fine for lobbying elected officials. In the ongoing investigation into his leadership of the department, LoGrande admitted to violating the city’s “revolving door law” by lobbying fellow planning department officials for clients of his former land use consulting firm LoGrande & Co. LoGrande resigned in 2016 after five years in charge of the department. The fine, which LoGrande has agreed to pay, still has to be approved by the city’s Ethics Commission. The Department of Housing and Community Development announced the SB 2 Planning Grants Technical Assistance  Accelerating Housing Production webpage. On this page, cities and counties will find resources, tools, and California's first-ever, statewide peer-to-peer sharing map. The new page is designed to help cities and counties accelerate housing production and streamline housing approvals.  After an in-depth review of the tricolored blackbird, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the species does not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In recent years, advocates of the species, found throughout much of California and parts of Oregon, Washington and Nevada, have raised concerns about its long-term conservation. However, after an extensive review, the Service determined that the Tricolored blackbird does not warrant conservation efforts, partnerships, and public and private land management activities. The Service will continue its work with partners to help the species remain resilient. California has the fifth-most homes at risk from sea-level rise and 10-year floods by 2100, according to a nationwide analysis combing housing and sea level rise data from Zillow and Climate Central. The study finds that increased flood risk will affect 143,217 homes – following only Florida, New Jersey, Virginia, and Louisiana for most homes affected. The study identifies the number of homes in low-lying coastal areas, projecting future exposure to ocean flooding.  Some of the state’s biggest development projects – including mega expansions from Sutter Health and Kaiser Foundation hospitals and Stanford University – won’t be subject to property taxes . Under California law, these nonprofits can apply for tax exemptions for providing public benefits that offset lost tax revenues. However, local officials are raising questions about whether these tax-exempt projects are wise investments. Most prominently, Santa Clara County has pushed back against Stanford University’s campus expansions, and have held them accountable to build more affordable housing. Facing fines and a lawsuit from the state for its rejection of a 425-unit multi-use project, the San Bruno City Council is reconsidering the proposed development. In July, the Council rejected the Mills Park project after three years of negotiations and $3 million spend on the approval process. In response, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recently sent the city a letter claiming the rejection was unlawful, because the project met San Bruno’s general plan, zoning and design review standards. Furthermore, the letter threatened action should San Bruno fall out of compliance with state housing production goals – which will happen if the Mills Park project is not approved. A new San Diego housing organization, self-dubbed “ Yes In God’s Backyard ,” (YIGBY) is proposing new affordable housing development in major religious centers. The movement, founded by advocates from San Diego’s Regional Task Force on the Homeless, aims to take advantage of underutilized land at churches and other places of worship. Because these centers already own the land, it eliminates land costs and speeds up the construction time usually spent securing funding. The group is seeking to secure five major projects by the end of the year.