The bill that was, arguably, the most important (successful) land use bill of 2019 had nothing do with land use. Assembly Bill 5 , which cleared the legislature earlier this month and was swiftly signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, could severely constrain the ride-hailing industry and could upend a great many assumptions that planners and developers have baked into their plans.

San Diego Representative Introduces Federal Smart Growth Bill Congressmember Scott Peters introduced a new bipartisan federal bill to increase funding to build homes near transit. The bipartisan Build More Housing Near Transit Act proposes a change in the rating criteria for the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Program, which uses Capital Investment Grants to fund transit project. The bill requires housing feasibility assessments near transit stops and prioritizes changing land use policies to accommodate market rate and affordable housing. By supporting building near public transit, the bill aims to both address the national shortage of 7.2 million affordable homes and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Rep. Peters, a centrist Democrat who represents San Diego, Poway, and Coronado, uses the San Diego affordability crisis in San Diego to exemplify the urgency of the measure. The act is endorsed by the American Planning Association, the National Association of Home Builders, Habitat for Humanity, and many others.”The Build More Housing Near Transit Act would ensure that limited federal transit dollars are used not only to finance important transit projects, but also enable additional transit-served housing for more Americans,” said Mike Kingsella, Up for Growth Action Executive Director. “The enhanced criteria for New Starts evaluations proposed by this legislation would mean more homes, using less land, with fewer cars on the road.” Huntington Beach Sues State over Housing Laws — Again  For the fifth time in the past year, the Huntington Beach City Council voted to sue California over two more housing laws, including one that removes charter cities’ ability to opt out of certain housing regulations. California sued the city earlier this year for non-compliance with state housing laws, and Huntington Beach fought back with a series of housing mandate challenges. Now, Huntington Beach is challenging the newly-passed Senate Bill 1333, which bars charter cities from opting out of state housing mandates, as well as the July-approved AB 101, which requires that the attorney general use a court order against cities in violation of housing plan mandates. Huntington Beach claims to be protecting itself from state overreach. “These lawsuits, like the other lawsuits we filed against the state, are about asserting the city’s constituiontally protected charter city authority to zone and plan for housing at the local level,” City Attorney Michael Gates told the Los Angeles Times. High Speed Rail Names Preferred Route into Bay Area  Despite community backlash, the California High-Speed Rail Authority unanimously approved a route to connect the San Joaquin Valley with San Jose. The route, chosen from four alternatives, crosses western Merced County grasslands and tunnels through Pacheco Pass. High-speed trains would share upgraded tracks with Caltrains between San Jose and Gilroy. The state’s analysis found that this alternative displaces the fewest homes and businesses, would have the least impact on waterways and habitats, and would cost tens of billions of dollars less to build than the originally-envisioned elevated-track option. However, communities along the San Francisco Peninsula expressed concerns about switching from elevated tracks to an at-grade railroad crossings. Residents also worried about increasing traffic in an already-busy rail corridor in neighborhoods like San Jose and Gilroy. Many also voiced concerns about the potential effects on the Grassland Environmental Area in San Joaquin Valley. The state will now conduct environmental impact reports for all four alternatives.  Light Rail Extension Meets Surprise Opposition in San Bernardino Co. In a surprise move against a decade-old project, the head of the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency’s head recommended withdrawing commitments to bringing the Gold Line light-rail project to Montclair. At a recent board meeting, SBCTA Executive Director Ray Wolfe came out against bringing the first light-rail to the Inland Empire from L.A. County. He cited the costs of the line – which the Gold Line Construction Authority said amounts to about $546 million total – and recommended siphoning existing funds to smaller projects. Montclair Mayor John Dutrey immediately objected to the statement, and pointed out that SBCTA will not have to pay for that section of the line. Still, the SBTCA is $15 million short of funds for the line’s final leg to Montclair. Additionally, Dutrey said that the cities of San Gabriel Valley, Claremont, Montcliar, and others have been waiting for this line for fifteen years, and have adapted their construction of residential units around expectations of the line. He committed to lobbying the state for more funds. However, the SBCTA is also considering cheaper alternatives to the light-rail project, including the Arrow passenger rail service already under construction from San Bernardino to Redlands. A staff report of all alternatives will be drawn up and brought to the SBCTA’s Transit Committee in October. SANDAG Releases Spending Plan The San Diego Association of Governments released a long-awaited $600 million spending blueprint outlining proposed transportation projects for the next five years. Major projects include mapping out a high-speed rail line between Oceanside, Escondido, and Carlsbad, designing express lanes along state Route 78, stabilizing the Del Mar Bluffs, and adding new Coaster trains. What’s not among key proposals, however, are the highway expansions promised under the 2004 voter-approved Transnet tax hike. Supporters of the plan say that abandoning the expansions are necessary to meet an ambitious new transit vision. But its critics said that voters won’t approve any new tax hikes if the promises of the 2004 measure aren’t fulfilled. Poway Mayor Steve Vaus proposed to amend the plan by nixing the new Coaster trains in favor of expanding routes 78, 52, and 67. The board is scheduled to vote on approval of the funding blueprint on September 27. It’s still unclear whether the vote will require a majority or a two-thirds vote to pass. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Quick Hits & Updates  The California Air Resources Board (CARB) updated its Sustainable Communities Strategy evaluation guidelines. The update responded to target updates adopted by the Board in 2018, to better assess CARB’s regional targets for greenhouse gas emissions under SB 375. The September update includes a draft SCS Program Guidelines and Evaluation Report, open to public comment until October 3. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) To engage partners for the development of a bold new transportation vision, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) launched its new "Vision Lab." The Lab will be a collaborative space for agency staff, elected officials, working groups, and industry leaders to design the fully integrated regional transportation system. SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Plan will include a “5 Big Moves” transportation scheme that covers complete corridors, transit leap, mobility hubs, flexible fleets, and the next operating system. To support development of the 2021 Regional Plan, SANDAG established a Vision Advisory Panel to help make use of new technologies to reduce commute times and build a usable and efficient system.  Plans for a campus expansion at UC San Diego will come true three years earlier than expected, after the university raised a record $2 billion in private donations. In 2012, the campus launched a massive capital campaign to achieve its vision of a more vibrant experience for its 40,000 students – and gave itself a decade to come up with the funds. Expansion plans include a new campus entryway, a Target, a Whole Foods, as well as new research and medical centers. Following a multimillion-dollar property tax assessment break granted to the San Francisco Giants’ Oracle Park, San Francisco assessor Carmen Chu is suing both the baseball team and the city’s Assessment Appeals Board. Chu assessed the 42,000-seat stadium, on land leased from the Port of San Francisco, at $415 million for 2015, $421 million for 2016, and $430 million for 2017. However, the team believes the stadium is worth just $298 billion, down $9 million compared to 2015. And, though the Assessment Appeals Board agreed that the stadium has increased in value, it estimated lower values than Chu did – so she filed a lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court. In a bid to lower Westwood Village’s 20 percent business vacancy rate, a Los Angeles City Council committee approved drafting amendments to the Westwood Village Specific Plan. The Plan, which hasn’t changed meaningfully since 1989, has faced criticism for prioritizing commuters who drive to the Village over students and local residents. Major amendments include eliminating the limit on fast food restaurants and easing parking requirements for retail spaces. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) San Diego Mayor Kevin Falcouner vetoed a proposal to require housing developers to build more low-income units. The veto came just hours after the City Council voted, 5-4, to approve the same proposal. Supporters of the requirements say that the policy will help the city confront its housing and homelessness crises. Opponents called the requirements a “tax on builders” that could worsen the housing crisis by making new housing projects potentially unfeasible – and the mayor agreed. Votes from six council members are required to override a mayoral veto, so one of the opposing council members would have to change the vote for the regulations to take effect. Short-term vacation rentals in Santa Monica will continue to be restricted after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined an appeal from Airbnb and Homeaway . In March, Santa Monica passed an ordinance limiting short-term vacation rentals. In response, the two companies filed a lawsuit against the city claiming that the ordinance violated the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment. The court rejected their argument in March, and denied their appeal last week. The Marina Coast Water District sued Monterey County and California American Water over the county’s approval of Cal Am’s desalination plant permit. The district claims that by approving the permit, county officials violated the California Environmental Quality Act, water code, and planning and zoning law. The agreement allows the company to pump 16 million gallons of Salinas Valley groundwater per day to the plant. In a bid to mitigate the local affordable housing crisis with backyard homes, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo announced plans to ease the permitting process for accessory dwelling units. ADUs are increasing in popularity: city officials said they processed about 40 applications for ADU permits in all of 2016, and now they process an average of 40 permits per week. The city hopes to increase these numbers further with the streamlined process, including a newly-dubbed weekly “ADU Tuesday,” on which residents can get express appointments for approvals within 90 minutes. The city is also launching an online ADU portal that qualifies homeowners’ properties and allows them to begin the permitting process. The BART Board of Directors approved moving to a new $227 million headquarters in Downtown Oakland before their current lease expires in 2021. BART officials touted the new building as a long-term cost save to avoid the 60 percent rent rise after the lease expires at the current Kaiser complex location. But BART Board Director Debora Allen said that not all options had been considered – including negotiating a new five-year lease, constructing a new complex on an existing BART-occupied property, or looking for a less expensive area for relocation. The agency will release sales tax revenue bonds to pay for the new building. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) voted to maintain the city of Coronodo’s new 2,000 percent housing quota increase. SANDAG was examining the county’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) plan, as passed down from the state. The state's RHNA handed Coronado an increase from 60 to 1,001 new units in their goal for Cycle Six. Coronado pleaded for a smaller goal, arguing that 71 percent of their land is owned by the Navy, the Port, and California Parks and Recreation – none of which can be developed. But SANDAG maintained the state mandate to increase their housing stock by 10 percent before 2029. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) A San Francisco Superior Court judge declined to block construction of a homeless navigation center on the Embarcadero , denying residents’ claims of “irreparable damage". The residents’ group, Safe Embarcadero for All, asked for a temporary restraining order to stall construction of the 200-bed shelter. The group cited an August incident where a man attacked a resident near the forthcoming shelter However, the judge ruled that the construction itself causes no harm, since the supposed neighborhood damage would only arise once the shelter is occupied. The California Department of Housing and Community Development announced that 14 California cities have received a total of $3.15 million in SB 2 planning grants. SB 2, or the Building Homes and Jobs Act, was passed in 2017 to establish a $75 recording fee on certain real estate documents to be used for planning grants in its first year, and for affordable homes in subsequent years. The planning grants can be used for updating local planning documents, updating zoning ordinances, conducting environmental analyses or for local improvements to expedite local planning and permitting.

A set of three homes in Dana Point do not operate as a sober living facility but rather as an unlicensed addiction treatment center and therefore can be prohibited under the city’s municipal code, an appellate court has ruled.

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.