Building Your Communication Pipeline with Public Works

As industry professionals, we know that the General Plan and zoning ordinance govern the density, intensity, and allowable uses for each parcel located within a local jurisdiction and fall under the auspices of the planning department. However, the provision of service systems such as water, sewer, roads, and other public infrastructure critical to a city’s growth fall under the purview of the Public Works department. In a time when cities and counties are facing housing shortages, failing infrastructure, and preparing for the effects of climate change, local governments are charged with meeting ongoing demands for services, maintaining infrastructure, and continuing to support new development.

the two fields have vastly different training, approaches, and culture, making coordination a frequent challenge.

Public works professionals and Planners must meet the needs of the communities they serve, but the two fields have vastly different training, approaches, and culture, making coordination a frequent challenge. Having witnessed this issue with a multitude of jurisdictions across the Bay Area and Northern California, we are inspired to share some best practices that can strengthen the communication pipeline between Planning and Public Works Departments, which can improve application processing, long-range planning, and create efficiencies.

The Early Bird Gets Traction

Getting buy-in from Public Works and other departments is essential to any project or plan’s success and timely completion. While a proposed development project may be of importance to the Planning Department and decision makers, its value may not be immediately apparent to Public Works. Also, they may not be aware of state mandates for completeness review and approvals. The same can be said for General Plans and Specific Plans. It is important to begin the communication process early and to establish protocols, set expectations up-front, identify constraints, and clarify the roles and responsibilities of Planning and those of Public Works. Public Works staff have many responsibilities and it may take multiple tries before you get the response you need. By starting early, you ensure that this does not hold up the project or application processing.

The tone is set by leadership from the top down to create an environment of collaboration and establish communication between the two departments.

Uplevel Your Communications

In an ideal world, Planning and Public Works’ leadership routinely communicate on which projects are forthcoming and what kind of engagement will be needed. The tone is set by leadership from the top down to create an environment of collaboration and establish communication between the two departments. Whether or not leadership takes that initiative, each Planner can set the tone and decide how they interact with counterparts in Public Works. Consider a conversation that touches on at least the following:

• What is the best way to communicate? (email, phone, in-person?)

• Are there regular constraints on your calendar?

• The state gives us 30 days to provide a completeness determination. Within that constraint, how much time do you need to review?

• Would it be helpful to receive a calendar invite with the deadline?

• Is there something our department can do to make it easier for you to respond within the state mandated deadline?

• Would it be helpful to know in advance if we are anticipating an application?

Remember, Public Works professionals are also balancing many competing demands. Approach these exchanges with kindness and an intent to understand. Also, keep in mind that you need them to buy-in. It may not be obvious why your work matters to them, and it is up to you to create that understanding.

Regular Check-Ins

Establish regularly scheduled check-in meetings as an ongoing opportunity for communication. Everyone is stretched thin and involved in too many meetings, but this is one to add to the schedule. Even if it is only a half hour long on a monthly basis, a standing meeting is a critical building block to foster bonds and build awareness of projects in the pipeline. Even if there is “nothing to talk about,” take 15 minutes to give a status update and ask for any updates from the Public Works team. This is an opportunity to build awareness and trust. If you don’t have important agenda items, keep it short. Be sure to create dialog but also respect everyone’s time.

Co-Location

In many jurisdictions, staff are compartmentalized within their department and there is little to no overlap or opportunity for water cooler chat. Co-locating engineers and planners in adjacent or shared spaces creates more than just physical proximity. It creates interdepartmental connectivity through regular interactions that can support a team feel. Even if temporary, co-locating in a shared space can be effective in removing barriers to communication and building bridges to foster connections.

Let’s get digital

There are a number of software programs available that help facilitate interdepartmental review and communication. While sometimes clunky and confusing, these programs will (hopefully) get better over time and can be used to help facilitate review and communication. Even if you only have access to Microsoft Office 365, programs like SharePoint and Planner are great tools (included in the Office suite) that can help facilitate communication and review. While not great for sharing plan sets, Microsoft SharePoint is a great tool to allow for collaborative document writing and review. Microsoft Planner can be an effective way to assign tasks to project team members. It can even send regular reminder emails until the task is checked off as complete. Using these tools can help foster communication and collaboration with effective results and fewer meetings.

Throw your ego out the door and keep your eye on the deadline.

Professional Empathy

Take the time to recognize what challenges your counterpart is experiencing. Recognizing their challenges and timelines can help defuse tension and open the door for them to understand your challenges. A simple, “Hi, I know you are slammed with your projects, but we are required to complete this step by this specific date,” communicates the urgency of the matter while recognizing their challenges and perspective. If you are wondering why you “have to be the bigger person,” the answer is that, as the project manager, it is your job to get the project through on time. Throw your ego out the door and keep your eye on the deadline.

Hard Ball

If you work with someone who is chronically missing deadlines (no judgement), give them a deadline that is a few days earlier than you actually need. Some people only get to things when they are overdue. For the overworked and overwhelmed, it is helpful to set a meeting to discuss their comments on the due date. Send a reminder a day or two before with a casual, “Hey, just checking to make sure you had a chance to look at the document before our call tomorrow. If not, no worries, I’ll walk you through it.” Be friendly, but make sure the message is clear that you aren’t letting them off the hook if they haven’t had a chance to review. The purpose of this meeting is to pin them down. If you are using paper plan sets, meet in person. If your team is using Bluebeam or other digital review software, use Teams or Zoom so that you can get them moving on their review. Further, it helps to call out some specific issues ahead of time. For example, “I’m hoping you can weigh in on whether the plans have sufficient information for you to review the water and wastewater connections for the 180 new units.” Or, “the Specific Plan calls for an additional 1,000 units in the area, we need your help in understanding infrastructure capacity.”

We all serve the public, and our goal is to ensure a positive future for the cities and counties we serve.

Remember

We all serve the public, and our goal is to ensure a positive future for the cities and counties we serve. We can’t do it without building interdepartmental relationships and working together. Be kind, be sincere, say thank you, and remember we are all human. It may take time for your efforts to bear fruit. As Planners, we are project managers. By implementing best practices and clearing the communication pipeline with Public Works, we can foster long-term relationships to create better plans, make development review more effective, and allow us to better serve our jurisdictions.

M-Group can help!

If you are struggling to communicate with your Public Works team, M-Group provides short Public Works-focused presentations on planning topics such as State housing laws, the Permit-Streamlining Act, ministerial review, and CEQA. These presentations help Public Works staff understand timelines and requirements that can serve as a critical building block for mutual understanding.

By Heather Gurewitz, AICP, Senior Planner

How Schools are Overcoming Financial Barriers to Meet Housing Needs

Introduction, Impediments to Student Housing

Colleges and schools are building housing to address a growing affordability crisis in the Bay Area and elsewhere on the West Coast. High housing costs directly impact these institutions’ ability to attract and retain staff, and the resulting attrition comes with steep financial consequences. For instance, attrition has been estimated to cost school districts in San Francisco and Oakland over $11 million and $12 million annually, respectively (1).

However, financing new housing remains a significant obstacle for many colleges and schools because they do not have the internal capacity to function as developers and landlords. Moreover, increasing reliance on debt to finance new housing can raise long-term sustainability concerns. Rising construction costs further complicate matters, even as new state laws streamline the entitlement process.

Yet, high occupancy rates and long waitlists signal that demand for affordable housing is higher than ever, particularly in high-cost areas. For instance, staff housing built by Santa Clara Unified School District has been occupied at near full capacity — with an extensive waiting list — since its construction in 2002, particularly for much sought-after two-bedroom units (2). This is also true for student housing. Despite opening a new housing project in 2023, students at Santa Rosa Junior College are encouraged to apply early because limited supply is prioritized for low-income students before being allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis (3).  In response, schools are adopting innovative financing strategies to build housing. From public-private partnerships (P3s) that leverage the tax-exempt status and bond funding available to institutions to donor-driven campaigns and grant funding opportunities, developing and operating housing often requires a uniquely complex combination of funding and collaboration. Partnerships with public and private entities are becoming increasingly critical because they bring expertise and resources that schools may lack (4).

Schools are adopting innovative financing strategies to build housing. From public-private partnerships (P3s) that leverage the tax-exempt status and bond funding available to institutions to donor-driven campaigns and grant funding opportunities, developing and operating housing often requires a uniquely complex combination of funding and collaboration.

The following examples from the Bay Area and other parts of the West Coast illustrate how schools are being resourceful in addressing challenges tied to developing staff and student housing.

Public-Private-Partnerships using Low-Interest Bonds – Santa Rosa Junior College

A public-private partnership (P3) is a collaboration between public institutions and private developers to help finance and manage projects. These partnerships have become a leading strategy for financing campus housing because they allow schools to consolidate resources and risks with outside parties (5). Schools avoid the full financial and operational burden of housing projects, while developers gain stable, long-term investment opportunities. This happened at Santa Rosa Junior College (SRJC), who partnered with a non-profit developer, National Campus and Community Development Corporation (NCCD), to build on-campus housing.

Opened in the Fall of 2023 at a cost of $75 million, Polly O’Meara Doyle Hall houses 330 students in dormitories with shared amenities. Aligned interests between the school and developer were pivotal to the project’s success. Rather than directly financing the project, SRJC made their land available while NCCD secured tax-exempt bonds through the California School Finance Authority (6). Low interest rates (4.5%-5.5%) over the 40-year life of the bond — paired with high-demand for housing offer NCCD low-risk investment while they retain ownership of the project. Once the bonds are fully repaid, ownership transfers to the college. A model that NCCD has replicated at Orange Coast College, Napa Valley College, and California College of the Arts (7).

For SRJC, this partnership provides facility and operational savings from leveraging NCCD’s expertise, while bond provisions ensure the college maintains control over programming that is aligned with its academic mission.

Polly O’Meara Doyle Hall at Santa Rosa Junior College – Photo Credit: HPI Architecture

Tax-Exempt Land Leases – San Mateo County Community College District

Public-private partnerships are also being used to build housing for school faculty and staff, particularly in high-cost areas. Schools are taking advantage of their tax-exempt status to provide affordable rents to employees (8). Tax exemptions available to public schools and private colleges eliminate liabilities that often inflate project costs. By leasing their land to developers, both parties avoid the tax risk associated with traditional housing projects. This reduces hard costs and enables substantially lower rents.

By leasing their land to developers, both parties avoid the tax risk associated with traditional housing projects. This reduces hard costs and enables substantially lower rents.

This is exemplified by the Employee Housing Program offered by the San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCD), which successfully developed affordable housing on the Cañada College, Skyline College, and College of San Mateo campuses. Apartments built on previously underutilized SMCCD land offer rents that are nearly half the local market rate (8). The projects are tax exempt under California’s Welfare Exemption because they directly support the educational objective of the district (9). Because the project was developed at a much lower cost than what is typical of traditional housing, the rents are still able to cover operating costs, reserves, and debt without relying on the district’s general funds. Inspired by similar efforts in the Santa Clara Unified School District, this type of public-private partnership is becoming a common strategy for developing both staff and student housing in high-cost areas (10).

That said, complications sometimes arise in meeting eligibility requirements. In high-cost areas, staff incomes may exceed the thresholds needed to qualify for very low-income and low-income housing funds. For instance, teachers in San Francisco have faced difficulties accessing housing intended for them because their incomes exceed 30 and 60 percent of the area’s median income (1,11).

In addition, some jurisdictions may request payment in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) to help offset lost property tax revenue. In California, properties qualifying for the Educational or the Welfare Exemption are exempt from property taxes. Local governments may negotiate PILOT agreements with property owners to compensate for lost tax revenue needed to cover city services. These agreements are not mandated by state law, but they are permissible and may be necessary in some low-income areas that struggle to fund services (12).  

Faculty Housing at Skyline College in San Mateo County – Photo Credit: Haley Lan

Donor-Driven Financing – Jesuit Housing at Gonzaga University

Smaller private schools may not have access to the same public funding available to public schools. Instead, some private institutions are drawing on donors to fund housing — particularly when the new buildings are meant to serve a specific purpose.

At Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, the school launched an unprecedented fundraising effort to fund several university initiatives. This included the construction of the Della Strada Jesuit Community, a facility that provides housing for priests serving the university, its preparatory school, and other local ministries. Located near the center of campus, it connects students and faculty to the spiritual mission of the university.

Opened in 2017 at a cost of about $13 million, the 36,074-square-foot facility has 22 living quarters and includes offices, a chapel, and supportive spaces for the Jesuit priests (13). The funding for Della Strada was made possible by a significant contribution from an alumnus, inspired by his own experiences learning from the Jesuit community.

The donation came as a part of 'Gonzaga Will,' conceived seven years prior as the largest fundraising campaign in the school’s history. Ultimately, the fundraising effort greatly surpassed expectations of an already ambitious goal — $250 million — raising over $355 million from more than 40,000 donors (14).  

Private schools, though exempt from property taxes, may not have access to the same funding mechanisms as public schools and may find it effective if they can tap into their donor networks to support housing initiatives.

Private schools, though exempt from property taxes, may not have access to the same funding mechanisms as public schools and may find it effective if they can tap into their donor networks to support housing initiatives.

Della Strada Jesuit Community at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington – Photo Credit: BAR Architects & Interiors

Grant Funded Housing – Project Homekey at Imperial Valley College

When partnerships and donations fall short, grant funding can help fill the gap — particularly to address acute housing needs of disadvantaged students. Grants are highly competitive, but shovel-ready projects can help institutions act quickly when funds become available. Imperial Valley College (IVC) in Imperial, California, successfully applied for State Project Homekey funds to address the urgent needs of students experiencing housing insecurity.

Grants are highly competitive, but shovel-ready projects can help institutions act quickly when funds become available.

Project Homekey was established by the state in June of 2020, dedicating $846 million to convert vacant hotels and other properties to housing to combat homelessness (15).  In partnership with the City of El Centro, IVC used these funds to develop Lotus Living Tiny Homes, a 26-unit community for students experiencing housing insecurity built on an acre of vacant land near the IVC campus provided by the city (16).

Securing funding did not come without challenges. IVC applied for a local Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) grant but was initially unsuccessful. Soon after, the City of El Centro informed IVC of available Project Homekey funds, however the application needed a quick turnaround. With only three days to complete the application, IVC drew from their HEAP application, with much of the necessary information already prepared and ready to submit.

This also expedited construction and reduced costs once funds were secured. Less than three months after the city filed the Homekey application, an interdisciplinary team of city officials, technical experts, and IVC leadership quickly brought the project to fruition (17).

Lotus Living Tiny Homes near Imperial Valley College in El Centro, California – Photo Credit: Back Porch Tiny Homes

Conclusions

Every school faces unique circumstances in securing the funds to build housing. Public schools can leverage their tax-exempt status in partnership with developers and draw on a wide range of funding mechanisms available at the state level. Private schools can also leverage tax-exemptions but may not qualify for the same funding as public schools — to bridge the gap, they can draw on strong donor networks to support their mission.

Schools in economically disadvantaged areas can capitalize on grant opportunities by being prepared with shovel-ready projects when funding becomes available. While every project is unique, success often depends on a combination of creativity, collaboration, and strategic planning to overcome financial hurdles.

By Lorrin French, Assistant Urban Designer

Sources

1.      Christopher, Ben. “To Attract Teachers, Pricey School Districts Are Becoming Their Landlords.” CalMatters, 1 Mar. 2017, http://calmatters.org/education/2017/03/to-attract-teachers-pricey-school-districts-are-becoming-their-landlords/.

2.      Creating Workforce Housing: Kemp Models of Excellence. Urban Land Institute, 2012, https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/One-Pager-Casa-del-Maestro.pdf

3.      On Campus Housing | Housing. https://housing.santarosa.edu/campus-housing.

4.      Jones, Carolyn. “California Is Giving Schools More Homework: Build Housing for Teachers.” CalMatters, 13 Aug. 2024, http://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2024/08/affordable-housing/.

5.      HGA. “Creating Campus Value Through Developer-Led Student Housing.” HGA, 19 Nov. 2021, https://hga.com/creating-campus-value-through-developer-led-student-housing/.

6.      Staff Summary - Sonoma County Junior College District Project. California School Finance Authority, 2020, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/meeting/2020/20200924/staff/4.pdf.

7.      National Campus and Community Development Corporation. https://nccdevelopment.org/. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.

8.      Teacher Housing in California – Education Housing Partners, Inc. – Thompson Dorfman LLC. https://www.thompsondorfman.com/teacher-staff-housing/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

9.      Welfare Exemption for Low Income Rental Housing and Supplemental Clearance Certificate Requirements for Limited Partnerships. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/welfarelowinc.htm. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

10.  HGA. “Creating Campus Value Through Developer-Led Student Housing.” HGA, 19 Nov. 2021, https://hga.com/creating-campus-value-through-developer-led-student-housing/.

11.  2024 Maximum Income by Household Size. San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, 30 Apr. 2024, 2024 AMI-IncomeLimits-HMFA_0.pdf.

12.  PILOT Agreements and Their Potential Impact on a Low-Income Housing Development’s Welfare Exemption. California State Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, 30 Jan. 2014, https://ahcd.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ahcd.assembly.ca.gov/files/Draft%20White%20Paper%28v10%29.pdf.

13.  New Housing Built for Jesuits at Gonzaga, Gonzaga Prep | The Spokesman-Review. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/sep/30/new-housing-built-for-jesuits-at-gonzaga-gonzaga-p/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

14.  Martin, Arcelia. “The Della Strada Jesuit Community Becomes a New Home for 20 Jesuits.” The Gonzaga Bulletin, 29 Nov. 2017, https://www.gonzagabulletin.com/news/the-della-strada-jesuit-community-becomes-a-new-home-for-20-jesuits/article_3ddf73f0-d57e-11e7-b428-230b36b9bbe2.html.

15.  Homekey: California’s Statewide Hotels-to-Housing Initiative. National Alliance to End Homelessness, 19 July 2021, https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CA-H2H-Case-Study_7-19-21.pdf.

16.  Lotus Living Tiny Homes. Enterprise Community Partners, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/homekey/Homekey-COVID-Response-EL-CENTRO.pdf.

17.  Kirby, Kayla. “Tiny Home Project Completed, 26 Homeless Students to Receive Keys and Move in Soon.” The Desert Review, 7 May 2021, https://www.thedesertreview.com/education/tiny-home-project-completed-26-homeless-students-to-receive-keys-and-move-in-soon/article_1a244042-af98-11eb-afa2-7397f28a33f2.html.

A Tale of Two Stadiums: How Land Use Makes a Difference Between the Giants and the Dodgers

When I was a kid, trips to Dodger Stadium were celebrated and memorable events that seemed larger than life. Watching the Dodgers play shaped my perception of what it meant to find community in sports.

In school, I sparked conversations and met some of my best friends through the “LA” logo on a hat or backpack. As those friends and I became teenagers, we made our own trips to Dodger Stadium. We would coordinate schedules, pickup locations, and split parking fees days in advance. And after all of that planning, we would still find ourselves stuck in traffic leaving the stadium. In those moments, I wondered why so much planning was needed to get to Dodger Stadium. Tens of thousands of people gathering anywhere is bound to cause congestion. Was there no better way?

Discovering Oracle Park

That question was answered during my first Giants game in San Francisco. The interior of Oracle Park, then called AT&T Park, was similar to what I was used to with Dodger Stadium. Both ballparks had covered concourses lined with concession stands and designs that highlighted the beauty of the surrounding landscape. The difference was outside the stadium; mixed-use developments and multiple forms of transit were within walking distance. The streets felt lively. People walked past the stadium, maybe unaware of the game until they entered the area. After the last pitch, thousands of fans walked to the adjacent transit options or the dozens of nearby bars and restaurants. I began to wonder how two stadiums centered around the same game could offer such different experiences for baseball fans.

Dodger stadium’s Origin

Dodger Stadium is a monument representing the priorities of mid-20th century America. In 1957, the City of Los Angeles granted 300 acres of land in Chavez Ravine to Dodger President, Walter O’Malley. The future stadium site was close to downtown Los Angeles but isolated from the rest of the city by mountainous terrain. The Dodgers committed to build a privately funded, 56,000-seat stadium using colors and materials that captured Southern California in the ‘50s. When completed in 1962, Dodger Stadium was a state-of-the-art facility designed for the comfort of Angelinos, and their cars. Sixteen thousand parking stalls strewn across 31 lots were included, to accommodate a rising middle class with access to private automobiles. Cars allowed a fast, efficient, and private connection from jobs in traditional urban cores to newly developed suburbs. Compounded with federal funds to match state highway investments, automobiles consumed more physical space and importance in American culture.

Accessibility Redefined at Oracle Park

While Dodger Stadium was under construction in Los Angeles, San Francisco officially welcomed Candlestick Park in 1960. The “Stick” was a publicly financed effort to attract the New York Giants to San Francisco - the bid was successful. While the stadium was under construction, the San Francisco Giants played two seasons at Seals Stadium in the Mission District, where the site proved too small for a major league team. Reflecting the trend of sports stadiums of the time, the Giants sought a site outside the city center. Candlestick Park was eight miles from Downtown with no major transit connections to the rest of the region. Like their rivals in Los Angeles, many Giants fans found the only viable way to Candlestick Park was the automobile. This continued for 39 years, until the Stick’s harsh weather and deferred maintenance caused the Giants to search for a new home.

Oracle Park was the first privately funded Major League Baseball (MLB) ballpark since Dodger Stadium 38 years earlier.

In the late 1990s, the Giants settled on a site in the up-and-coming China Basin neighborhood of San Francisco, much closer to downtown than the far-off Stick. The technology boom in the late ‘90s created a demand for housing, office space, and amenities in the City. The large industrial lots in the China Basin granted stakeholders the flexibility to meet these demands. Pacific Bell Park, since renamed Oracle Park, opened in 2000. It honored China Basin’s industrial roots through its brick facade, clock towers, and steel field lighting structures. Oracle Park was the first privately funded Major League Baseball (MLB) ballpark since Dodger Stadium 38 years earlier. Still, the project’s conditional use permit ensured a design that enhanced the community even when no games were scheduled.

A Hub of Connectivity for Fans and Residents Alike

Oracle Park transformed a port and warehouse district constructed on landfill into a multi-use venue with publicly accessible plazas and promenades. Several bars, restaurants, and shops are within walking distance. Multiple Muni lines stop at Oracle Park, providing access to other neighborhoods of San Francisco. A ferry terminal behind the stadium brings in fans from the North Bay and Oakland. One block away is a Caltrain station that connects the Peninsula, San Jose, and Gilroy to the City.

This level of accessibility is what separates Oracle Park and Dodger Stadium. Though both are designed around baseball, each stadium offers a vastly different experience. Fans leaving Dodger Stadium regularly sit in traffic to leave Chavez Ravine while fans leaving Oracle Park have a number of restaurants, bars, and transit options within walking distance. The success of Oracle Park and China Basin was replicated in the adjacent Mission Bay neighborhood. Numerous offices and mixed-use housing developments have grown where factories and warehouses once were. The neighborhood’s promise spurred a $1.4 billion investment from the Golden State Warriors in the form of the Chase Center. The 18,064-seat venue opened in 2019 with retail and office space on-site to offset the construction cost. The Chase Center capitalizes on the same transit access and walkability Oracle Park enjoys.

Both Dodger Stadium and Oracle Park are relics of the period when each was designed and constructed. In the late 1950s, the automobile was more accessible than ever. Several local, state, and federal policies made the automobile the best transit option for newly suburban homeowners to access the city center. The automobile was a crucial component of Dodger Stadium’s design. But by the 1990s, owners of sports franchises wanted to return to the urban core - and the Giants led the way in the Bay Area. The stadium was designed to blend with the surrounding area rather than isolate itself. Over time, the neighboring parking lots and empty parcels were replaced with mixed-use developments, further adding to the cohesiveness of the China Basin.

A vision for the future

While modern stadiums have the advantage of refined designs and technological advancements, older ballparks have a charm that is hard to replicate. Dodger Stadium is the third oldest ballpark in the MLB. For 62 years, it has successfully united baseball fans nationwide. But that doesn’t mean the Dodgers can’t innovate. Rather than searching for a new stadium to keep guests entertained, the team should consider diversifying the use of its property. If Dodger Stadium is isolated from the rest of the City, the Dodgers should consider bringing the city to the stadium. Excess parking lots can be transformed and redeveloped with commercial and office space that entertains before and after games. The Chase Center could serve as the blueprint. Surface parking lots can be consolidated with garages to make space for uses that attract jobs and tax revenue. The Dodgers continue to make history in a stadium that has seen so much. Dodger Stadium, and other isolated venues, should continue to develop and foster connections with fans. That starts with a stadium designed to be a neighbor rather than a stranger.

By Jelani Mora, Assistant Planner

Looking for Land in a Busy City? You Can Use GIS...and Ai

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing the way our society looks and interacts with data. AI, combined with the expanding tools of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), allows for dramatically more efficient data visualization and cost-effective analysis.

As part of my Masters of Urban Planning Capstone project at San Jose State University, I was tasked with identifying the acreage of surface parking lots in our North San Jose study area. This meant finding parking lots on nearly 4,000 acres (over six square miles) of land or identifying hundreds of pools from the view of an airplane window.

Rather than use Google Earth or spend many hours exploring the site area, I made a map using ArcGIS Deep Learning Model, specifically the Parking Lot Classification Tool. This analyzes a raster image file (a digital image file, like JPEGs or TIFFs), pixel by pixel, creating a separate layer designating areas as parking lots as appropriate.

In simple terms, the model looks for color patterns in the picture and provides a data output for visualization, similar to tasking a person with sorting a bag of colored beads. All the grey (parking lot) goes in one pile, and all the others in another pile. It took me just a few hours of developing and modifying a task, then I let the computer run for a few days, to determine that approximately 16% (640 acres, 1 square mile) of the project area is covered by surface parking.

Parking Lot Identification

The mapping process, much like a GIS map itself, is made of layers. Before starting in ArcGIS Pro, I conducted background research. There are many different models, some Deep Learning models are trained to detect objects like cars or to detect pixels for classification, while others detect change over time.

To begin, I used a TIFF file, or a high-quality raster image file, provided by the City of San Jose. In ArcGIS Pro, I imported the raster file and the study area boundary layers, matching the image to the shapefile. After this was the most difficult part: training the model for more accurate results. In order for the program to recognize the various grey patterns and shades of the parking lots – as opposed to the grey of streets or rooftops - I developed training samples for the Parking Lot Classification model. This required creating a new feature class and manually outlining small parking lot section polygons over the aerial image raster file layer.

View fullsize

Figure 1: Parking Lot Classification Model Training Sample Polygons

Once exportation of the training data was complete, I used the Classify Pixels Using Deep Learning tool. After about 70 hours of background runtime using a gaming PC, the preliminary map was complete, more accurately identifying parking lots in purple.

To clean up Figure 2 to Figure 3, I used the Dissolve and Smooth Polygon tools to combine the yellow and purple layers and smooth out the jagged edges of the polygons to create the final parking lot map below.

View fullsize

Figure 4: Map of North San Jose with parking lots shown in a yellow color (Map produced by Hannah Meeks, Fall 2023 URBP 295, City of San Jose Open GIS Data Portal: Santa Clara County 2022 Imagery basemap. Valley Water Open Data Portal: Rivers for Study Area Boundary. Self-Created: Highway Shields.

Applying AI to Planning Practice

The study area is primarily made up of industrial/commercial facilities, home to many large tech companies such as Samsung, Cisco, and PayPal. There is a small amount of mixed-use commercial and residential development as well.

The parking lot analysis showed that a tremendous amount of the study area was dedicated to vehicle parking: land that is essentially storage, and un-activated outside of rush hour or folks grabbing lunch.

As transit options continue to improve, and the private car (or pickup truck, or SUV) loses its primacy in the Bay Area, parking lots represent development potential. The transformation of existing parking lots provides fantastic infill opportunities. This could mean civic or public space – including desirable green spaces – as imagined by Gensler’s architecture firm, Los Angeles cultural center The Mod, as seen in this Curbed article Parking Garages Are Getting a Second Life as Places for People.

View fullsize

Figure 5: Modular buildings inserted into existing parking garage. Image source Curbed

View fullsize

Figure 6: Parking garage used as public space. Image source Curbed

It could also mean much more affordable housing. Not just specially-built affordable housing, but simply dramatically reducing the cost of market-rate housing. According to NPR, parking spaces “can add major costs to building new housing: a single space in a parking structure can cost $50,000 or more.”

Finally, parking spaces too often contribute to urban heat islands. As described in my colleague Laylonni Laster’s article, “heat islands are areas where structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure that absorb and re-emit solar heat are highly concentrated and natural landscapes are minimal…Materials, such as pavements or roofing, tend to absorb and emit solar energy rather than reflect it…Therefore, these materials can contribute to the increase in local temperatures and foster heat island development.”

Urban heat islands pose serious health risks, including heat exhaustion and heat-related illnesses for vulnerable communities, including seniors, and elevates energy consumption, which increases air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. The pavement decreases water quality as polluted runoff collects in streams and rivers and impacts aquatic life.

Each of my telltale grey pixels was an area that contributed to urban heat and the health risks they incur. Identifying – and eventually removing - these parking lots can help promote climate change initiatives by policymakers with the addition of plants, trees, and other green spaces to reduce climate change effects.

How does GIS answer planning questions?

When I first began this GIS Deep Learning project it felt overwhelming, but as I researched and accomplished each step, it was attainable. Our project would never have discovered the impact of surface parking lots in this area without the Deep Learning tool. For GIS technicians, it is important to understand when we must execute the GIS steps ourselves versus when we need additional GIS tools in order to solve the community’s needs.

AI is not a solution to all urban planning problems, not by a long shot. But what careful application of computer learning can do is increase the efficiency of some tasks, and deliver more careful analysis to a community’s elected leaders. By taking advantage of built-in processes like the Deep Learning tool, M-Group can work with jurisdictions to provide efficient GIS solutions to communities to ask questions they might not have believed they could afford to ask.

By Hannah Meeks, Assistant Planner

Pushing Fairness Forward: How "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" Can Be Used to Strengthen Communities

This Fair Housing Month, M-Group will begin working with communities to implement their Fair Housing Action Plans. These push for more integrated communities, ones that allow equal opportunities to work at a decent job and send one’s children to a good school. It is a dramatic step towards fairness, moving beyond the individual towards community-level strategies. It is exciting work; to be executing on commitments to help our most vulnerable neighbors in the Bay Area.

After all, what is fair about housing in California these days? More and more Californians choose between high housing costs or displacement – up to and including leaving the state. Many of our neighbors skip meals or stay in abusive relationships in order to keep a roof over their heads. Thousands have no roof at all.

And at the same time, it often feels like the deck is stacked against everyone. Other neighbors may complain that the state is forcing their neighborhoods to change, and housing developers gripe about red tape and interest rates preventing them from building new homes. In my work on housing issues over the past several years, I have noticed that if anyone is happy with housing in the state, they are surely staying quiet.

New federal and state laws have forced cities and counties to think critically about what fair housing means for the people whom they serve. The new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) guidance, required for the Sixth Cycle Housing Elements, has pushed planners to make actual commitments to improve fair housing within their boundaries. Speaking strictly for myself, this was my favorite part of the process for each of the eight housing elements I worked on this cycle. We analyzed the real and deeply felt housing issues in a community and made concrete promises to provide solutions over the 8-year planning period.

For some jurisdictions, this meant committing to building affordable housing on publicly-owned land. In others, it meant providing more resources to families suffering from homelessness due to climate-related fires and displacement. Sometimes, creative problem-solving was necessary and others just required giving firm dates to longstanding City Council priorities.

Is any of this enough? Is any of it fair? I have to acknowledge the federal definition of fair housing, which prevents discrimination on an individual or family level. I also have to acknowledge the great sacrifices and hard work that have led to federal and state fair housing law, and the generations of my predecessors who could not rely on the protection of the law. All the same, looking at the current housing crisis in California and nationwide, it seems that the law has not yet brought us to fairness.

The Fair Housing Act is about preventing exclusion and the further immiseration of our most vulnerable neighbors. New AFFH requirements go further, often in the Fair Housing Action Plans that M-Group is currently working on.

It isn’t the beginning of the work, and it is certainly not the end. This work is part of a complicated process. We want to help Californians stay in neighborhoods they want to be in, and to leave neighborhoods where they don’t feel safe. We want more housing to be built for people who want it, and more homes to be free of leaky roofs if they cover people who want to stay. We want shelters, workforce housing, missing middle housing, public housing, and all sorts of housing types for all sorts of Californians. We want sustainable housing, whether that means electrified kitchens or homes safe from wildfires, or something even more.

Sometimes people say that you can’t make everyone happy and that those tradeoffs mean that someone out there will feel jilted or put upon. But as I take on these Fair Housing Action Plans for a variety of jurisdictions, I realize that it might be easier to view these not as competing demands but as a collaborative effort. For even if it seems obvious that some housing needs are more urgent than others, it doesn’t always feel that way on the ground. In a community, though, we are all in this together. New neighbors are today’s strangers, but they are tomorrow’s babysitters, firefighters, sourdough bakers, and language instructors. The more neighbors we have - and the fewer we push out - the more opportunities we all have. Maybe fairness is not zero sum, but rather builds on itself. Maybe fairness comes one action, one household, one integrated neighborhood, at a time.

If fairness comes from multitudes, which I think it does, then fair housing is abundant housing. This means that there is plenty of work to be done.

By Asher Kohn, AICP

The Secret Weapon in the 6th RHNA

The Bay Area Greenprint: The Secret Weapon For Addressing Climate Change In The 6th RHNA And How To Use It

Homepage screenshot www.bayareagreenprint.org

As planners embark on finding the appropriate housing opportunity sites for the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), it is critical to consider the influence that climate change will have on these new developments, the public health and safety of future inhabitants, and the surrounding ecosystems. Although evaluating the impacts of climate change requires on-the-ground site assessment and thoughtful conversations with neighbors, businesses, and city leaders, there is an online planning tool that can help jumpstart your work in building resiliency into your new housing development decisions. The Bay Area Greenprint is the region’s premiere environmental assessment tool whose user-friendly features are highlighted in a previous post, Bay Area Greenprint - An Exciting and Efficient New Tool for Bay Area Planners. In fact, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has found the tool so useful that the agency is using the Bay Area Greenprint’s environmental data in their new Site Selection tool to assess the environmental viability of city and county housing opportunity sites, and you can too! 

The potential impacts of climate change and the plausible solutions to address global warming are all around us. The Bay Area Greenprint provides a one-stop-shop for climate data across several categories, including Carbon and Air Quality, Water, Agriculture, Urban Greening, and Wildlife that can be applied for both open space preservation and urban infill decisions. Understanding these opportunities and tradeoffs can provide planners with essential strategic direction when considering new development and conservation decisions for the 6th RHNA cycle. As jurisdictions continue to build out in accordance with their general plan, the edge areas of open space around the built-up areas offer a chance to conserve lands for resiliency against the effects of climate change from sea-level rise, for wildlife resiliency, and contribute to carbon sequestration. On the flip side, the infill opportunity sites across the region can play their part in making sure we are creating safe and healthy places for people to enjoy their urban lifestyles even under a shifting climate.

When evaluating the landscape for urban edge housing opportunities, perhaps you’ve wondered about the contribution of vegetation to sequester carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide? Or you’ve heard the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has recommended the evaluation of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems to local groundwater management plans. These new and other Bay Area Greenprint layers can provide a quick evaluation for your project area to ensure new development plans prioritize preserving valuable ecosystems that will be more resilient towards mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Considering the quality of life for new residents is especially challenging to predict under a warmer climate. However, the Bay Area Greenprint offers recommendations to help planners prioritize tree planting to address the urban heat island effect and mitigate air pollution. It can also ensure new development plans incorporate access to parks, bike lanes, and regional trails. Having easy access to outdoor amenities in every neighborhood can help foster community and promote more active and healthy lifestyles as well as reduce automobile emissions. Another important layer in the tool helps inform planners and developers about the threat posed by environmental gentrification that occurs when the urban amenities you plan for in a neighborhood end up leading to the displacement of the existing residents you were trying to help.

This information and much more is just a click away in Bay Area Greenprint! It was created to be a ‘living tool’ that responds to the needs of users and will continue to play this role in the future. Your feedback, thoughts, and recommendations go a long way towards helping other planners with the same questions you’re wrestling with. To learn more about how to take advantage of this free easy-to-use tool, check out the recent Bay Area Greenprint webinar. Feel free to get in touch with Adam Garcia (agarcia@m-group.us) for any questions you might have about navigating this useful environmental planning tool.

Could Increased Remote Work Mean Big Changes for Cities?

Companies across the nation have been forced into remote work by the COVID-19 pandemic. “But history has shown that pandemics inevitably bring about significant changes in land use and social fabric,” says journalist Brian Barth. Barth explores how cities might adapt to post-pandemic shifts that affect municipal tax income, transportation systems, land-use patterns, and zoning concepts in his APA article Increased Remote Work Could Mean Big Changes for Cities.

RACIAL EQUITY SERIES - Part 2

Centering Equity in Community Engagement

Community engagement is a key tenet of planning processes. Successful engagement ensures that the project or plan has the support of the public, builds trust between local government and the community, and can decrease the risk of potential lawsuits. However, community engagement can be costly and time intensive. Ensuring equitable representation from communities of color, non-English speakers, and low-income communities at public meetings and workshops continues to be a challenge for planners. Communities of color and low-income communities are more likely to be disenfranchised in democratic processes due to barriers to accessing meetings and other opportunities for providing input.

Challenges to Equitable Engagement

Most planners want to create plans and approve projects that will benefit the community but ensuring that diverse voices are equitably represented is no small task. Getting input, particularly from communities of color and low-income communities, can be challenging. Common barriers to participation include distrust of government and the accessibility of opportunities for providing input.

Input from the community may be de-emphasized because technical expertise tends to be valued over local experiential knowledge. Furthermore, the community has little decision-making power in conventional planning processes. This lack of authority over the future of their neighborhoods is disempowering and discourages individuals from participating in government processes. Budget and politically driven timelines are other common constraints that limit the extensiveness of outreach efforts.

Community-Driven Planning

Community engagement can be seen as a continuum with increasing levels of engagement. There are five levels on the engagement spectrum:¹

1. Inform: This is the lowest level of engagement. Local government initiates an action and informs the community of the action. This is typically done through one-way streams of communication, such as news articles and pamphlets, and limited to the project’s timeline.
2. Consult: Information is gathered from the public to inform government-led actions and programs. Outreach is conducted through focus groups, surveys, and public comment periods.
3. Involve: At this stage, community members are given more decision-making power and help shape government priorities and plans. Methods of engagement could include advisory boards and workshops.
4. Shared Leadership: The community and local government share in decision-making and co-create strategies that address community priorities. Engagement is typically done through co-led community meetings and advisory boards.
5. Community-Driven: This is the highest level of engagement on the continuum. At this stage, the community initiates and directs the strategy or action with the technical assistance and support of the government.

Source: M-Group 2019

The key difference between community-driven planning and conventional planning is that in the former, strategies and decisions are a joint effort between the local government and the community. Neighborhood scaled plans and projects are most suited for community-driven planning. For strategic and regional planning, a shared leadership approach may be more suitable.

To achieve a higher level of engagement, local government staff need to have the skills and tools to effectively collaborate with the community. Preparation could include trainings for staff on racial equity, cultural humility approaches, communication strategies, and non-traditional methods of engagement. Understanding where power and privilege are held in existing structures can give planners a better sense of which areas in the planning process need to be improved.

Strategies for Effective Planning

Strategies that prioritize community concerns and lower the barriers to public participation, ensuring decision-making is guided by the community and reflects a diversity of voices, can help planners move towards a higher level on the community engagement spectrum. Suggested approaches to bolster inclusivity at all levels of the engagement spectrum include:

1. Encourage Intersectional Dialogue: Create space for the community to share their stories and knowledge rather than limiting responses to a specific question. Encouraging intersectional dialogue instead of looking for siloed answers acknowledges the lived experiences of the community, gives value to collective knowledge, and encourages collaborative problem solving.

2. Prioritize Community Expertise and Concerns: Attend meetings and events hosted by community-based organizations (CBOs) to see what issues are being discussed and how they’re being discussed. Include equitable representation from the community on advisory boards.

3. Work with CBOs and Community Leaders: Forming relationships with CBOs, such as advocacy and faith groups, that serve diverse cultural communities or specific groups that planners are looking to get input from can provide representative insight. CBOs will have a good sense of the needs and priorities of the population they serve and can also connect local government to other community leaders and CBOs. Hosting “meet and greets” can be a good way to get to know the CBOs working in the community beyond the most visible groups.

4. Subsidize Public Participation: Taking three hours of your day to attend a public meeting and voice your concerns within the span of two minutes while juggling work and children is not an easy ask. Public participation is a key tenet of planning so we should give it the same weight when budgeting and scoping a project. Making it easier for people to participate at public meetings, such as by providing childcare, transit passes, or meals, can alleviate some of the barriers to participation.

5. Accessibility of Public Meetings: Evaluate how easy it is for a lay person to participate in a public meeting. How are meeting times and agendas being communicated to the public? How easy is it to attend a meeting in-person or virtually? Ensure that people affected by a plan are aware of opportunities to provide input and that the avenues for providing input are easily understood and accessible.

6. Reach Non-English Speakers: Work with leaders in the non-English speaking community to understand the best way to reach non-English speakers. Communication material for projects and plans that will impact this population, particularly neighborhood-scale projects, should be translated. Hosting meetings and conversations in a non-English speaking community’s native language and having leaders of immigrant communities facilitate and lead these discussions can create a more comfortable setting for participants.

7. Expanding Decision-Making Opportunities: Include people of color and organizations that represent people of color in decision-making bodies (e.g. steering committees, working groups) as well as official advisory committees (e.g. technical advisory committees). There should be more than one or two representatives to avoid putting the onus of representation on a singular person.

8. Work with Youth Groups: Young people will be the ones impacted by plans – particularly long-term plans – but don’t have the opportunity to vote. Engaging youths can build a culture of civic engagement and trust from an early age. Young people that are involved in planning processes and feel a sense of ownership over their neighborhoods are also likely to be future community leaders.

9. Different Methods of Engagement: Combine traditional community engagement methods, such as workshops and visioning sessions, with strategies that are more proactive and targeted at specific groups, such as coffee chats, which are more informal and personal, and focus groups. In addition to in-person engagement, provide a variety of outlets for people to contribute to the planning process, such as online comment forms, surveys, and social media posts.

10. Benchmarks for Success: Develop measurable benchmarks for defining the success of community engagement efforts. Throughout a process, schedule regular check-ins with CBOs and residents to gauge their perceptions on the effectiveness of the process.

Source: M-Group 2015

Source: M-Group 2015

Engagement during a Pandemic

California has been sheltering in place for the past five months, posing new challenges to public meetings and community engagement methods. Cities for the most part have transitioned to using online video conferencing for public meetings and workshops. Using online platforms has both pros and cons to expanding access to opportunities for public comment. On one hand, people who may not have previously been able to attend meetings can now do so from the convenience of their homes due to the flexibility of virtual meetings. On the other hand, technology can be challenging to use, intimidating for people unfamiliar with the program, and inaccessible for those with unreliable internet or phone service.

Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, can be another avenue for getting input from a wider audience and has the benefit of providing multimedia content on a familiar platform. In a post-COVID world, local governments should consider continuing to use online forms of public engagement in tandem with in-person methods to expand opportunities for participation.

When using technology as a substitute for in-person community engagement, several things to consider include:

• Are the tools easy to use?

• Are the inputs and outputs for how to interact with the tool clear?

• Can it be accessed by non-English speakers, non-verbal communicators, and people with low literacy?

Equality to Equity

To achieve equitable development, we need a systematic approach that prioritizes inclusivity and equitable representation in planning processes. Being able to effectively engage with historically marginalized communities requires planners to have the tools and knowledge to connect with these groups. This starts with acknowledging past injustices and existing barriers that inhibit people from participating in democratic processes. Community engagement is a long process that requires  continuous relationship building, but by reaching out and working in partnership with CBOs, increasing the accessibility of public participation, and sharing decision-making power with the community, community engagement can become a pathway for working towards a more equitable future.

---

¹Community engagement spectrum adapted from Urban Sustainability Directors Network’s (USDN) "Guide to Equitable, Community-Driven Climate Preparedness Planning".

---

References

Bergstorm, Danielle, Kalima Rose, Jillian Olinger, and Kip Holley. 2012. The Sustainable Communities Initiative. PolicyLink.

Curren, Ryan, Nora Liu, Dwayne Marsh, and Kalima Rose. 2015. Equitable Development as a Tool to Advance Racial Equity. Government Alliance on Race and Equity.

Logan, Warren, interview by YIMBY. 2020. Making Urbanism Antiracist (June 23).

Urban Sustainability Directors Network. 2017. "Guide to Equitable, Community-Driven Climate Preparedness Planning."

RACIAL EQUITY SERIES - Part 1

Racist and Discriminatory History of the Planning Practice in the US

The planning profession has a long, entangled history with the segregation of Black Americans and other communities of color. Historic disinvestment in communities of color, environmental justice, and meaningful engagement of communities whose voices have been silenced or ignored in the past continue to be issues that the profession is reckoning with and working to rectify.

This article looks at the history of urban planning policies during the New Deal and post-war period and the impacts on racial inequality today. This is part of a series examining racial equity in U.S. planning practice.

Suburbanization and Urban Renewal

Redlining

Urban planning policies have played a significant role in creating and perpetuating racial segregation and wealth inequality that we still see today. During the New Deal in the 1930’s, federal policies were designed to segregate the U.S.’s housing stock by providing housing for white middle- and lower-class Americans in new suburban developments. African Americans and other communities of color who were equally able to afford these new houses, were excluded from purchasing these homes and limited to housing developments located in the urban city center (Gross 2017).

To see how your city was redlined and how these boundaries align with current streets and neighborhoods, this interactive map overlays redlining maps published by the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) of the New Deal era and overlays them over modern street maps.

The most infamous land use practice was the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) policy of redlining. Redlining was the process where neighborhoods were graded by the government to determine which areas were safe to insure mortgages. Neighborhoods were ranked into four categories: A (Best), B (Still Desirable), C (Definitely Declining), and D (Hazardous). These rankings were primarily based on the racial makeup of the neighborhood.  Neighborhoods that African Americans and other communities of colors lived in were given a D rating and outlined in red, hence the term “redlining”. Neighborhoods that may have been predominantly white but were adjacent to an area where communities of color lived would receive a lower ranking than a white neighborhood further away.

Redlined communities were far more likely to be denied loans and mortgages from banks, thereby preventing communities of color from gaining equity through homeownership. Additionally, housing covenants were often used to restrict non-white people from buying property in more highly ranked neighborhoods where it was easier to secure loans (Gross 2017). This resulted in long-term disinvestment in communities of color.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 deemed it unlawful for housing lenders to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status, making redlining illegal. However, the impacts of discriminatory housing and land use practices continue to have an effect today.

Urban Renewal and Infrastructure Projects

The redlining-guided racial distribution of the American population and New Deal policies set the scene for urban renewal efforts in the following decades. Urban renewal was a movement intended to improve the living conditions in urban areas, including lack of housing, general sanitation, inadequate transportation, and crime (Encyclopaedia Britannica n.d.). Early policies focused on improving public health in cities, which later transitioned into a greater emphasis on suburbanization and slum clearance. Several key federal policies implemented during this time period, including the Housing Act of 1949, the Housing Act of 1954, and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, paved the way for large-scale urban renewal projects and demolitions that disproportionately displaced Black and Brown communities. Approximately two-thirds of those displaced were people of color (Small 2017).

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and the creation of the Highway Trust Fund financed the construction of 41,000 miles of interstate highway by 1970, providing greater auto connectivity across the country. Freeway construction was commonly used as a slum clearance strategy by planners and engineers, which demolished and divided primarily low-income Black communities (Patterson and Harley 2019). Racial borders established by discriminatory housing and planning practices took on a visceral form through freeways that often served as boundaries between white and non-white communities.

Impacts on Today

Generational Wealth

Though African Americans and other communities of color were allowed to purchase homes in the suburbs after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, houses were no longer affordable to working-class families as they had been in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Suburban homes that African Americans were prohibited from buying in the 1940’s through the 1960’s cost approximately twice the national median income when they were first built. They currently sell at six to eight times the national median income (Gross 2017). Because homeownership has traditionally been a key factor in the accumulation of generational wealth in the U.S., barring people of color from home ownership and limiting home ownership in areas that were disinvested has profound impacts on racial wealth inequality today.

Public Health

Disinvested communities have less access to resources and services, and what services they do receive tend to be of poorer quality. This can manifest in their ability to access health services, or grocery stores, and in public school quality. Low-income neighborhoods and communities of color disproportionately live in areas with less tree canopy coverage and are also disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards and other health stressors. Neighborhoods that are closer to highways and other large, heavily trafficked boulevards have higher rates of asthma and worse health outcomes due to increased exposure to air pollutants (Alameda County Public Health Department 2015).

West Oakland and I-880

West Oakland is predominantly lower-income and people of color. People of color make up 85 percent of the West Oakland population with Black people making up the largest racial group at 49 percent of the population. Contrastingly, 66 percent of Alameda County are people of color and 12 percent of the county’s population is Black (Alameda County Public Health Department 2015).

West Oakland also has some of the highest air pollution-linked emergency department admittances and hospitalization rates in Alameda County. Asthma emergency room visits are nearly double the countywide rate. In Oakland, a white child in the affluent Oakland Hills has a life expectancy that is 12.4 years longer than a Black child born in West Oakland (Alameda County Public Health Department 2015).

West Oakland, a historically redlined neighborhood and one of the few places in the East Bay where African Americans were allowed to own homes, saw the construction of several major urban renewal infrastructure projects in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The newly constructed freeways physically separated the neighborhood from the rest of the city. Cypress Freeway, an elevated freeway section of I-880 constructed in 1958, bisected the community, effectively facilitating the clearing of existing housing and cutting off residents from downtown. Freeway construction and urban renewal projects are estimated to have demolished over 5,000 housing units in West Oakland (Patterson and Harley 2019).

In 1989, the Cypress Freeway collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Caltrans planned to rebuild the freeway along the original alignment, but this decision was met with public outcry. Through a combination of well-organized community activism, a changing political and cultural landscape, and environmental laws that gave the public more power to oppose large public works projects, the community effectively opposed the project’s alignment (Burt 2009). I-880 was rerouted around West Oakland and the original route was converted into a landscaped boulevard in 2005, now known as Mandela Parkway.

Looking Forward

Modern planning practices have largely taken a race-neutral approach to public policy, decision makers are increasingly putting an impetus on racial equity. In 2016, Senate Bill 1000 was passed, requiring cities and counties in California that have disadvantaged communities to include environmental justice goal and policies in their General Plans.

This mandate sets a framework for prioritizing vulnerable communities and opens up the conversation to a more focused examination of groups that have been both consciously and unconsciously silenced. Ensuring that community voices are not only heard but also given power in the decision-making process and increasing diversity within the planning profession continue to be challenges that need to be addressed if we hope to create plans that are truly for the community.

REFERENCES

Alameda County Public Health Department. 2015. "East and West Oakland Health Data Existing Cumulative Health Impacts."

Alameda County Public Health Department. 2015. "Persistent Poverty Story Map."

Burt, Cecily. 2009. "West Oakland Citizens Band Togeter to Fight Freeway after Loma Prieta." East Bay Times, October 12.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. n.d. "Urban Renewal." https://www.britannica.com/topic/urban-renewal.

Gross, Terry. 2017. "A 'Forgotten History' of How the U.S. Government Segregated America." NPR, May 3.

Patterson, Regan F, and Robert A Harley. 2019. "Effects of Freeway Rerouting and Boulevard Replacement on Air Pollution Exposure and Neighborhood Attributes." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, October 23.

Small, Andrew. 2017. "The Wastelands of Urban Renewal." Citylab, Feburary 13.

The Challenges of Small Cell Wireless Preemption

Today California cities and counties face preemption battles from multiple sides. The State Legislature has recently enacted preemptive bills in the areas of housing, ride-sharing, municipal broadband networks, and tax and expenditure limitations.¹ The American Planning Association article The Double-Edged Sword of Preemption in the November 2019 issue of Planning offered insight into the housing preemption laws in California, particularly in relation to the Vallco Shopping Center reuse project in Cupertino, CA.

In this article we discuss another recent preemption topic affecting California local governments, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “small cell” order that attempts to help the wireless industry rapidly install their latest 5G wireless technology.² As preemption actions become more common, local governments need to continue to find new tools to challenge laws that are not in the best interest of their community.

State-Level Preemption

Preemption is often achieved by state legislatures who enact new laws that nullify local ordinances.  The current wave of preemptive laws has its roots in the 1980s and 1990s when tobacco industry and gun lobbyists levied the power of states over local governments to further their own industry interests.  A review of major court decisions informs us that cities are considered “creatures of the state.” As Lauren Phillips summarizes, “citizens do not have a constitutional right to local government,”³ although local government is more familiar with and able to react to the needs of local communities, and in turn to individuals.

Active areas of preemption currently cover a wide range of issues including: housing policy, workplace equity, employment benefits, fair wages, anti-discrimination, sanctuary cities, rent control, fracking, ride-sharing, short-term rentals, plastic bag and straw bans, soda taxes, 5G wireless technology, e-cigarettes, gun control and even local elections.⁴ Historically, preemption laws were a reaction to local laws already in place. However, the new preemption trend involves states enacting legislation before local governments have even contemplated the topic.⁵ 

Another factor is the “implied preemption” of local governments overwhelmed by the number of lawsuits by private interest groups that are not always seen to be in the community’s best interest. The breadth of issues and level of activity by corporate interests (either individually or under the umbrella of the American Legislative Exchange Council, “ALEC”) and private interest groups creates a difficult atmosphere for local governments that want to encourage community involvement and innovation.⁶

“Preemption is the use of state [or federal] law to nullify a municipal ordinance or authority… States [and the Federal Government] can preempt cities from legislating on particular issues either by statutory or constitutional law.” NLC Report

Federal-Level Preemption

An additional layer of preemption can come from quasi-legislative sources, such as the FCC. The FCC’s 2018 Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order focused on “small cell” wireless equipment installation: the application process timelines (“shot clocks”), application fees, whether local aesthetic or undergrounding requirements constitute an effective prohibition of service, and a finding that a failure to act within the shot clock timeframes “constitutes a presumptive prohibition [on the provision of services],”⁷ leaving local governments exposed to industry lawsuits. This ruling attempted to reduce uncertainty and costs for wireless providers rolling out 5G networks on small cell equipment, but also created uncertainty and loss of control for local governments.

The FCC ruling affects multiple areas of city and county government. Physical assets such as rights-of-way are affected by the temporary increase in construction activities and the long-term aesthetic impacts of the equipment.⁸ Citizens are very concerned about aesthetics and the health effects of radiofrequency radiation as small cell equipment proliferates.⁹ The high-band “millimeter waves” used for 5G require equipment every few hundred feet, meaning that communities will need small cell equipment installed throughout their neighborhoods to create a fully functional network.¹⁰ City and county staff will need to review each small cell siting application, the majority of which will be placed in public rights-of-way.

Local governments must dedicate increasing amounts of staff time for small cell project review with short notice and cost tracking to ensure application fees are a “reasonable approximation of the locality’s reasonable costs.”¹¹ Local governments must decide if they want to have their fee structures possibly audited by the FCC if they exceed the amounts stated in the 2018 small cell ruling, which are: $500 in non-recurring fees for 1-5 facilities, with an additional $100 for each additional facility; or $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole; and $270 per facility per year for all recurring fees, regardless of local market rental value.

Some local governments may choose to lose money on their actual costs or market-rate right-of-way rental fees in order to stay clear of an audit or legal challenge. This conundrum brings us to the largest issue for city and county governments: the increased threat of legal action by the FCC or wireless companies.

The variety of language used by FCC Commissioners in their separate statements accompanying the 2018 ruling is enlightening. Commissioner Carr focuses on “winning the 5G race” against China in his statement, which leads him to believe that he needs to “[get] government out of the way.”¹² He also believes that this order “ensure[s] that no city is subsidizing 5G” without offering much proof of research on reasonable costs of staff review time or other local government costs for such applications. Commissioner Rosenworcel’s statement, in contrast, indicates very mixed feelings about the order’s effect on local governments:

“Instead of working with our state and local partners to speed the way to 5G deployment, we cut them out. We tell them that going forward Washington will make choices for them—about which fees are permissible and which are not, about what aesthetic choices are viable and which are not, with complete disregard for the fact that these infrastructure decisions do not work the same in New York, New York and New York, Iowa. So it comes down to this: three unelected officials on this dais are telling state and local leaders all across the country what they can and cannot do in their own backyards. This is extraordinary federal overreach.”¹³

Commissioner Rosenworcel offers innovative alternatives: having the FCC develop model codes for small cells with public and industry input and creating incentives for small cells in a wide set of federal departments. Regarding rising costs, she points out the role of tariffs on Chinese goods that form the bulk of network equipment. Lastly, she encourages the use of competition within the industry by updating FCC rules on siting equipment.

Tools for Local Governments

What tools do local lawmakers have to push back against unwanted preemption?  One of the biggest tools is consensus building, both with state lawmakers and with other local governments.  Consensus building with state lawmakers centers on the utility of preemption generally and how it can be wielded in cooperation with local governments rather than against.

Maresa Strano and Lydia Bean of New America summarize Richard Briffault’s “[identification of] two areas of potential political consensus: the idea that localism has democratic merits but should not be unlimited, and that strong cooperation between different levels of government produces better outcomes.”¹⁴ Local Solutions Support Center (LSSC) highlights the success of the coalition ‘Local Maryland’ in working with state legislators to pass a state minimum wage bill that did not preempt local ordinances, so acting as a wage floor instead of a wage ceiling.  Other highlights in the LSSC report included local government coalitions in Florida and Texas to fight against unnecessary preemption by the state. State legislators in Colorado have chosen to repeal some preemption measures in 2019 covering minimum wages, oil and gas drilling and tobacco products.¹⁵ The National League of Cities (NLC) encourages local governments to reframe the preemption narrative as “cities help the state.”¹⁶Angelina Panattieri of the NLC specifically states that “cities have an image problem” when it comes to leadership on wireless technology and need to reach out to policymakers to “counter the lobbying by wireless companies” for preemptive actions.¹⁷ Strano and Bean agree in their report Punching Down that coalition building is important but list their number one strategy as “pursue legal remedies.”¹⁸ Legal remedies are most convenient for home rule cities and counties with strong standing in their state constitutions, such as in California.  Charter cities and counties have especially strong standing under our [California] state law.¹⁹ Molly Cohen suggests that “[local governments] should consider banding together with either local or large nonprofits, advocacy groups, or unions seeking a similar goal” even in their court battles.  She also states that drafting very narrow laws that fit “alongside” state areas of preemption can help avoid some battles altogether.²⁰ The National League of Cities has created a coalition of governments that are currently suing the FCC in Federal Court over the small cell wireless ruling.²¹ Many other cities and counties have also sued the FCC independently. These cases have been consolidated as City of Eugene, Oregon, et al v. FCC, et al, case number 19-70344, and the most recent arguments were heard by the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit on February 10, 2020. On the same day, wireless carriers argued that the FCC order had not gone far enough by not requiring “deemed granted” status of applications that were not acted upon within FCC shot clocks.²² California local governments have had to contend with the “deemed granted” sanction since the passage of AB57 in 2015 (§65964.1)²³, but it is worth watching to see what stance the Ninth Circuit judges take on lessening or increasing the FCC’s preemptive power. California cities and counties should still look to improve their cost-tracking procedures and their small cell ordinances with aesthetic requirements that are “objective and published in advance,”²⁴ if they wish to avoid preemption by the FCC or other sources.

“[Dillon’s Rule] affirms the previously held, narrow interpretation of a local government's authority, in which a sub-state government may engage in an activity only if it is specifically sanctioned by the state government…Home rule is a delegation of power from the state to its sub-units of governments (including counties, municipalities, towns or townships or villages). That power is limited to specific fields, and subject to constant judicial interpretation…“ NLC Website

California cities and counties should still look to improve their cost-tracking procedures and their small cell ordinances with aesthetic requirements that are “objective and published in advance,” if they wish to avoid preemption by the FCC or other sources.

---

CITED ARTICLES:

1.      DuPuis, Nicole, Trevor Langan, Christiana McFarland, Angelina Panettieri and Brooks Rainwater, “City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State-by-State Analysis,” NLC: February 2018, https://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/NLC-SML%20Preemption%20Report%202017-pages.pdf

2.      Lai, Claire S., “How Do Municipalities Comply with the FCC’s New Rule on Small Cell Wireless Deployment?” Meyers Nave: January 30, 2019, https://www.meyersnave.com/event/municipalities-comply-fccs-new-rule-small-cell-wireless-deployment/

3.      Phillips, Lauren E., “Impeding Innovation: State Preemption of Progressive Local Regulations,” Columbia Law Review 117, no.8 (December 2017), https://columbialawreview.org/content/impeding-innovation-state-preemption-of-progressive-local-regulations/

4.      Partnership for Working Families, “Mapping State Interference,” https://www.forworkingfamilies.org/preemptionmap and Grassroots Change, “Preemption Watch,” https://grassrootschange.net/preemption-watch/#/map.  Accessed February 18, 2020.

5.      Briffault, Richard, “The Challenge of the New Preemption,” Stanford Law Review 70, no.6 (June 2018), https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/06/70-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1995.pdf

6.      Phillips, “Impeding.”

7.      Federal Communications Commission, Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 9088 (2018), ¶13 https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf

8.      Rutngamlug, Ray and Amanda Witt, “California Supreme Court Incommodes Wireless Access to Rights of Way,” SheppardMullin: December 20, 2019, https://www.fcclawblog.com/2019/12/articles/fcc/rights-of-way/

9.      “Cellular Phone Towers,” American Cancer Society, last revised November 5, 2018, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html

10.   Nordrum, Amy, Kristen Clark and IEEE Spectrum Staff, “Everything You Need to Know About 5G,” IEEE Spectrum, January 27, 2017, https://spectrum.ieee.org/video/telecom/wireless/everything-you-need-to-know-about-5g

11.   FCC, Accelerating, ¶11.

12.   FCC, Accelerating, 111-113.

13.   FCC, Accelerating, 114-116.

14.   Strano, Maresa and Lydia Bean “How Red States are Steamrolling Blue Cities,” Washington Monthly, December 4, 2019, https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/04/how-red-states-are-steamrolling-blue-cities/

15.   Haddow, Kim, Anthony Gad, and Katy Fleury, “The Growing Shadow of State Interference: Preemption in the 2019 State Legislative Sessions,” Local Solutions Support Center & State Innovation Exchange: August 2019, https://www.supportdemocracy.org/s/LSSCSiXReportAugust2019.pdf

16.   DuPuis, “City Rights,” 24.

17.   Panettieri, Angelina, “Five Takeaways from the FCC’s Small Cell Preemption Order,” NLC CitiesSpeak: September 26, 2018, https://citiesspeak.org/2018/09/26/five-takeaways-for-cities-from-the-fccs-small-cell-preemption-order/

18.   Bean, Lydia and Maresa Strano, “Punching Down: How States are Suppressing Local Democracy,” New America: last updated July 11, 2019, https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/punching-down/part-two-how-to-address-preemption

19.   Cantú Montoy, Hilda, “History of Municipal Home Rule,” League of California Cities: 2007, https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Resources-Section/Charter-Cities/History-of-Municipal-Home-Rule-2

20.   Cohen, Molly, “A Lawyer’s Playbook to Fight State Preemption,” CityLab: July 19, 2017, https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/07/a-lawyers-playbook-to-fight-state-preemption/533862/

21.   “FCC Sides with Wireless Industry on Policy that Erodes Local Control, Lowers Standards for Deployment of Wireless Small Cell Equipment,” League of California Cities: October 1, 2018, https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2018/October/FCC-Sides-with-Wireless-Industry-on-Policy-that-Er

22.   Reid, Jon, “5G Infrastructure Fight Between Cities, FCC to Continue in 2020,” Bloomberg Law, January 3, 2020, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/5g-infrastructure-fight-between-cities-fcc-to-continue-in-2020

23.   Assem. Bill 57, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess., ch. 685, 2015 Cal. Stat. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB57

24.   FCC, Accelerating, ¶86.

RELATED ARTICLES OF INTEREST:

• https://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/Restoring-City-Rights-in-an-Era-of-PreemptionWeb.pdf

• https://www.nlc.org/resource/small-cell-wireless-technology-in-cities

• https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019-ca-supreme-court-decision-t-mobile-v-san-francisco/

• https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92292747

• https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632723920/in-battle-pitting-cities-vs-states-over-minimum-wage-birmingham-scores-a-win

• https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/

• https://apnews.com/7f6ec7bb40b366e8e4e150830d226157

• https://www.epi.org/publication/black-white-wage-gaps-expand-with-rising-wage-inequality/#epi-toc-19

• https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4382&context=californialawreview

• https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/06/70-Stan.-L.-Rev.-2029.pdf

Sidebar #1: (definition of preemption): “Preemption is the use of state [or federal] law to nullify a municipal ordinance or authority… States [and the Federal Government] can preempt cities from legislating on particular issues either by statutory or constitutional law.”  From NLC report below: https://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/NLC-SML%20Preemption%20Report%202017-pages.pdf

Sidebar #2: (home rule vs. Dillon’s rule): “[Dillon’s Rule] affirms the previously held, narrow interpretation of a local government's authority, in which a sub-state government may engage in an activity only if it is specifically sanctioned by the state government…Home rule is a delegation of power from the state to its sub-units of governments (including counties, municipalities, towns or townships or villages). That power is limited to specific fields, and subject to constant judicial interpretation…” from NLC website: https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-delegation-of-power

Sidebar #3: (emphasizing the conclusion):  California cities and counties should still look to improve their cost-tracking procedures and their small cell ordinances with aesthetic requirements that are “objective and published in advance,” if they wish to avoid preemption by the FCC or other sources.

CANNABIS: The Land Use Concerns of Cultivation

California counties have taken a variety of approaches to the cultivation and sale of cannabis, particularly after the legalization of adult-use cannabis sales almost 2 years ago.  We are starting to see patterns emerge for potential best practices in cannabis cultivation regulations at the county level.  Discussions center on the interaction of cannabis crops with neighboring agricultural crops, whether it be existing wine vineyards and avocado orchards or newly introduced industrial hemp fields.  There is the unknown of “terpene drift” of oils from cannabis cultivation sites onto adjacent properties. Conversely, there are the known possibilities of “pesticide drift” and cross-pollination that can cause the destruction of cannabis crops from failed laboratory testing or lowered product value over successive generations.  Additional environmental effects to consider include the large quantities of water needed for cannabis cultivation and the amount of volatile organic compounds released during the harvesting process that can contribute to ground-level ozone formation when combined with nitrogen oxide emissions. 

In Santa Barbara County, the planting of very large fields of outdoor cannabis cultivation (some up to 100 acres) in designated American Viticultural Areas has led to intense discussions of the impacts of terpene drift onto wine grapes.  Volatile organic compounds are known to affect wine grapes as they grow because of the porosity of their skins.  “Smoke taint” from fire exposure and “eucalyptus taint” from Eucalyptol terpene drift are documented through research.  Cannabis terpene emissions measure at much higher rates than those of Eucalyptol, so there is understandable concern about the proximity of cannabis farms to vineyards.  A second concern is the potential use of odor abatement systems that employ a mist of essential oils (also volatile organic compounds) at the edges of outdoor cannabis fields to remove detectable odors from the air.  Professors in the Department of Viticulture and Enology at UC Davis are currently securing funding and approvals to research these issues and provide measured standards for decision-makers.  They hope to generate preliminary data by the end of this year.

The current situation in Kern and Humboldt Counties highlights the differences between cannabis and industrial hemp, the latter defined by its low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content and therefore lack of psychoactive effect.  Kern County has become the largest region of industrial hemp growers in California in the short amount of time since the legalization of hemp at the federal level in 2018.  The County Board of Supervisors has been very open to new industrial hemp farms and cannabidiol (CBD) oil processing plants, while banning the cultivation of cannabis.  The county is in the process of reconsidering its ban on medicinal cannabis dispensaries with an initiative on the ballot in March 2020. 

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, on the other hand, recently moved to extend the existing industrial hemp cultivation moratorium until December 2020.  Cannabis growers there have lobbied heavily against the allowance of industrial hemp, as industrial hemp and cannabis are two varieties of the same plant that cross-pollinate readily.  Growers looking to produce cannabis for its THC content must have unpollinated female plants to exclusively produce the needed flower buds.  Industrial hemp plants can either be male or female plants, meaning that male hemp plants could potentially pollinate female cannabis plants miles away, causing unusable seeds and a lower THC content in the next generations of the cannabis crop.  

Researchers at Virginia Tech and University of Tennessee, Knoxville are working as a team to investigate pollen drift using air-sampling drones and genetically-engineered switchgrass and hemp plants.  They hope to provide predictive data for pollination based on weather conditions, in turn informing legislation regarding agricultural setbacks to prevent unwanted pollination, pesticide drift and herbicide drift.

Each county has the legislative authority to decide its own agricultural priorities that will in turn determine what uses are allowed, as well as minimum setbacks and maximum overall sizes.  It’s helpful to know that researchers are investigating these specific topics to inform the land planning discussion.

RELATED ARTICLES OF INTEREST:

Environmental Concerns:

Amid ‘Green Rush’ of Legal Cannabis, California Strives to Control Adverse Effects on Water

The Environmental Downside of Cannabis Cultivation

Emissions from cannabis growing facilities may impact indoor and regional air quality, new research shows

Terpene Effects:

Can Cannabis and Wine Coexist?

Letter from UC Davis as pages 23-27 of public comment letters here  (November 6, 2019 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting)

UC Davis Professor Oberholster's home page

Hemp Cross-Pollination:

Cross-pollination drives growing disputes between marijuana, hemp farmers

Kern quickly rises to become California's top hemp-producing county

Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Amendment

Humboldt county: Video clip of December 10, 2019 vote on hemp moratorium

Approved minutes may be downloaded here

Virginia Tech research

BAY AREA GREENPRINT - AN EXCITING AND EFFICIENT NEW TOOL FOR BAY AREA PLANNERS

With so much innovative technology and trailblazing research, the Bay Area has become inundated with environmental land use data. But a dataset is only as good as its accessibility and interpretation. That is why, over two years ago, a coalition of organizations in the Bay Area sought to create a free online tool to harness the region’s spatial data to help practitioners incorporate nature’s values and benefits into their unique land-use decisions. This tool is called the Bay Area Greenprint.

While greenprints have been springing up all over the country to help practitioners and planners make data-driven conservation decisions, BayAreaGreenprint.org builds on local innovation and principles of inclusivity for stewarding our cities and open spaces. It provides consultants, planners, infrastructure and conservation practitioners, as well as community members, a way to efficiently sort through mountains of information. It gives a more complete understanding of the costs and benefits of decisions made around natural and agricultural lands, hazards, urban greening, climate change, and policy and development. The Bay Area Greenprint website presents this data in several formats, including an exhaustive web map, a sleek slider tool to explore how nature’s values overlap, and a custom reporting function to assess geography in seconds. The map layers are vetted and gathered from local research, regional reports, national models and other sources that provide the best available knowledge on a given environmental land use topic. To help users explore the data and be confident in its use, each layer links to a glossary definition with an explanation and the linked source of the data, while the methodology details how the tool was created. Viewing and interacting with the information under a single platform can begin to tell the user a comprehensive story of what’s there — indicating if there are groundwater basins or proposed regional trails, for example.  It can show climate change risk or urban greening opportunity, what policies are in place to protect the land, and conversely, what policies are missing. This makes the Bay Area Greenprint a powerful tool for land use planners, helping them define their strategies and priorities.

In support of the open and democratic exchange of ideas, the Bay Area Greenprint is available for free to anyone who would like to use it. While this tool is a game-changer for practitioners, it does have some limitations. It can’t provide “the answer” of what exact land to protect or how to mitigate, but it can offer guidance based on the user’s own priorities. The Bay Area Greenprint recognizes the complexity of these decisions and is flexible enough to be useful to planners, decisions-makers, and curious residents at any scale.

In a rapidly-changing world, the Bay Area Greenprint must keep pace with changes to stay relevant. To do so, it relies on philanthropic investor funding to keep it breathing and provide for annual updates that reflect current datasets. Initial funding for the tool’s creation was provided by the S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation to support the creative and collaborative efforts, a vital peer review process before launching, and initial web hosting. Additional funding to improve the Bay Area Greenprint’s functionality and add new layers was garnered from private donors, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to enhance the Priority Conservation Area program, and Stanford’s Natural Capital Project to showcase their latest research.

M-Group is proud to support the Bay Area Greenprint endeavor by contributing the expertise and services of M-Group Environmental Planner, Adam Garcia (agarcia@m-group.us), who has helped lead the outreach and spatial analysis of this tool.

Check out the tool for yourself at BayAreaGreenprint.org.

DON'T LEAVE $$ ON THE TABLE

By Michelle Audenaert, AICP Associate Planner at M-Group

A great opportunity is available to California cities and counties through November 30, 2019.  The Department of Housing and Community Development, “HCD,” is offering a non-competitive grant to accelerate housing production through encouraged Priority Policy Areas.  Cities and counties can request up to $160,000; $310,000; or $625,000 depending on their recorded populations of less than 60,000, between 60,001 to 199,999 or over 200,000 respectively.  Grant monies have been gathered through a $75 real estate transaction fee enacted by State Bill 2 in 2017.

Cities and counties may use the funds for a wide variety of activities such as updates to plans or zoning ordinances, planning and building process improvements (including new permit software), and new ordinances that allow for by-right housing permits or objective design standards.  Applications that focus on Priority Policy Areas will require less paperwork and possibly have a shortened review time after submittal. 

Another aspect to note is the minimal requirements for official reporting.  These SB2 grant applications only require one report at close-out to trigger reimbursement of the funds, which must be spent by June 30, 2022.  At the conclusion of each project activity, jurisdictions can submit funding reimbursement requests to HCD.  Entities that are concerned about internal funding availability may incorporate several smaller projects into one application to allow for earlier multi-part reimbursements.

APPLICATION COMPONENTS

Cities and counties wishing to apply for SB2 grant funding must have an HCD-compliant housing element and have submitted Annual Progress Reports for 2017 and 2018.  Once these pieces are in place, applications must include a list of application activities, certification that these activities fall under State or Other Planning Priorities, a project narrative and a budget.  A standard resolution authorizing staff to enter into a contract with HCD must be ratified before the application deadline. “The application must demonstrate a significant positive effect on accelerating housing production through timing, cost, approval certainty, entitlement streamlining, feasibility, infrastructure capacity, or impact on housing supply and affordability.”

Priority Policy Areas:

(a) Rezone to Permit By-right housing;

(b) Objective Design and Development Standards;

(c) Specific Plans or Form based Codes Coupled with CEQA Streamlining;

(d) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) or Other Low-Cost Building Strategies;

(e) Expedited Processing;

(f) Housing Related Infrastructure Financing and Fee Reduction Strategies.

State Planning Priorities:

1) Promote Infill and Equity

2) Promote Resource Protection- ag lands, natural lands, recreation lands, locally unique landscapes

3) Encourage Efficient Development Patterns

Other Planning Priorities:

4) Affordability and Housing Choices

5) Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing Stock

6) Climate Change/ Climate Adaptation – flood, fire, vulnerable populations

NEXT STEPS

Given the short timeframe for application submittal, focusing on the adoption of HCD’s standard resolution at the City Council or Board of Supervisors and on determining project focus is key.  The application paperwork is not overly complicated, and HCD has indicated a desire to work with cities and counties toward mutually indicated goals (through an “over-the-counter process”).  Once this initial non-competitive grant round has ended, HCD has the option to open a new round of applications that would be competitive for remaining funds. Don’t miss out on this chance for funding for your city’s or county’s projects.

M-GROUP planners are well-versed in the SB2 grant process, having provided support for the following grant applications:

·         City of Cotati: $160,000 funding approved

·         City of Sebastopol: $160,000 in process

·         County of San Benito: $160,000 in process

·         City of Petaluma: $310,000 application in process

Contact M-GROUP today to get your jurisdiction’s grant application started.

408.340.5642 x111

Identifying and Managing Wildfire Risk in California

by Lisa Davison, Environmental Planner at M-Group

Home surrounded by wildland that survived a fire due to good defensible space. Source: 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, April 2016

California experienced one of the most devastating wildfire seasons in 2017, with a total of 7,117 fires burning 505,956 acres. The fires in Sonoma and Napa counties burned 146,647 acres and destroyed nearly 8,000 structures in October, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the acreage burned in 2017. The fires in Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles counties burned 303,561 acres and destroyed 1,120 structures in December, and accounted for approximately 60 percent of the acreage burned in 2017.

California is at great risk from wildfires because of its particular combination of weather, topography, and native vegetation. Southern California has the added risk of the Santa Ana winds that appear in the spring and late fall. Fire risks have increased with drought conditions, population growth, and increased development within the wildland-urban interface.

This article describes the various entities that are responsible for identifying and managing wildfire risk in California in order to minimize the loss of life and property from wildland fires in the future.

State-level Responsibilities

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the California Building Code serve as the building blocks for identifying and managing wildfire risk at the state level.

CAL FIRE Mapping

CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. CAL FIRE’s Statewide and County maps (adopted November 2007) depict Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs)[1] that are within the State Responsibility Area (SRA). The SRA identifies where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. The FHSZs in the SRA are further classified as being Moderate, High, or Very High.

[1] The FHSZs identify fire hazard, not fire risk. “Hazard” is based on the physical conditions that give a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30 to 50-year period without considering modifications such as fuel reduction efforts. “Risk” is the potential damage a fire can do to the area under existing conditions, including any modifications such as defensible space, irrigation and sprinklers, and ignition resistant building construction which can reduce fire risk.

In addition, CAL FIRE has prepared recommendations for Very High FHSZs in those areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Only lands zoned as Very High FHSZ are identified within the LRA. In 2008, CAL FIRE transmitted those recommendations to all local agencies with identified Very High FHSZs. However, this process has its limitations. First, because CAL FIRE only transmits the areas identified as Very High FHSZs to the local agencies, there could be some Moderate or High FHSZs within the LRA that are not being identified. Second, the CAL FIRE zoning designations do not go into effect until they are adopted by ordinance by local agencies. Last, the maps were created in 2008 and reflect outdated information. CAL FIRE is currently in the process of updating the FHSZ maps (Feb 2018).

Currently, CAL FIRE is investigating methods for estimating the likelihood of fire occurrence across the State in the coming decades. As part of this effort, CAL FIRE has created a map of annual fire probability for the period 2026-2050. This map is intended for use in the quantification of GHG benefits of fuel reduction activities funded under the 2016-17 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Forest Health Program. 

Strategic Fire Plan for California

The 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California (revised April 2016) was developed by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CAL FIRE. The plan’s vision is to support a natural environment that is more resilient and ensure that man-made assets are more resistant to the occurrence and effects of wildland fire. The plan identifies goals and objectives that are critical to reducing and preventing the impacts of fire, which revolve around both suppression and fire prevention efforts.

The first goal of the plan relates to the identification and evaluation of wildland fire hazards and recognizing the life, property and natural resource assets at risk. One of the objectives under this goal is to provide regular updates to the Very High FHSZ maps. Another objective under this goal is to update existing data for values and assets at risk utilizing GIS data layers and other mapping solutions.

California Building Code

To help manage wildfire risk at the state level, the California Building Code (CBC) contains standards for building materials, systems, and or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings. For example, the 2016 CBC establishes minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building located in any FHSZ within SRA or any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire. (A Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area is a geographical area identified by the state as a FHSZ, or other areas designated by the local agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires.)

However, the 2016 CBC standards have limitations. The standards only apply if: 1) the building site is located on land designated as a FHSZ or as a Wildland Interface Fire Area; and 2) the application for the building permit was submitted on or after July 1, 2008. Therefore, these standards do not apply to structures located outside of these designated areas. Additionally, these standards do not apply to structures for which building permit applications were submitted prior to July 1, 2008, regardless of their designation.

Local-level Responsibilities

Local agencies are responsible for identifying and managing wildfire risk within their jurisdictions. Cities and counties have multiple tools at their disposal to reduce wildfire risk, such as the General Plan, zoning ordinance, California Government Code, local fire departments, and Hazard Mitigation Plans. With new levels of concern regarding wildfires, local jurisdictions can evaluate their General Plans and zoning ordinances to locate weaknesses and bolster mitigation strategies related to wildfire hazards. Local jurisdictions can also create overlay zoning or overlay districts for areas prone to wildfires that mandate heightened development regulations and landscape wildfire mitigation compliance measures.

Local jurisdictions may rely on the support of regional agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which runs the Resilience Program to support local governments in planning for wildfires and other natural hazards. ABAG’s Mitigation and Adaptation Plans project supports the ongoing development of hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plans at the local level.

In addition, local government agencies receive guidance from State agencies, such as CAL FIRE and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The local government agencies can then implement recommendations through the enactment of ordinances. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the local agencies to identify and manage wildfire risk within their jurisdictions.

Individual-level Responsibilities

In order to reduce risks associated with wildland fires at the individual level, California Government Code Section 51182 identifies specific strategies to be undertaken by a person who owns or leases an occupied dwelling or structures in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, brush-covered land, or land within a Very High FHSZ. Strategies include maintaining defensible space around the structure, removing dead portions of trees near structures, and maintaining the roof clear of leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials. As stated in the California Government Code, local agencies having jurisdiction over the property can provide oversight to ensure that these mitigation strategies are implemented.

Conclusion

Wildland fire is a natural part of California’s landscape. The responsibility for identifying and managing wildfire risk in California is shared by the State, local jurisdictions, and individual property owners.

As a starting point, areas of significant fire hazards must be accurately mapped, routinely updated and property owners informed of risks. Local jurisdiction must impose restrictions through their land use regulations and long-range planning efforts to ensure that high risk areas are protected. Individual property owners must maintain defensible space, remove dead portions of trees, and keep roofs clear of vegetative materials.

Moving forward, dialogues will continue to take place within communities to identify wildfire-related risks and propose actions to reduce these threats. These discussions will propel local communities towards their own solutions to prepare for and reduce wildfire-related risks.

References

2016 California Building Code, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 7A – Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/chapter/content/9997/, Accessed October 24, 2017.

CAL FIRE, California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps, Accessed October 23, 2017.

CAL FIRE, FRAP Projects, Fire Probability for Carbon Accounting, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/projects/fireprobability, Accessed February 9, 2018.

CAL FIRE, Incident Information, Large Fires 2017, http://www.fire.ca.gov/index, Accessed February 9, 2018.

CAL FIRE, Incident Information, Number of Fires and Acres, http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_stats?year=2017, Accessed February 9, 2018.

CAL FIRE, Wildland Hazard/Building Codes, http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_wildland, Accessed October 24, 2017.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones, http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/codedevelopment/pdf/Wildfire%20Protection/FHSZ%202007%20fact%20sheet.pdf, Accessed October 24, 2017.

Headwaters Economics, Land Use Planning to Reduce Wildfire Risk: Lessons from Five Western Cities, January 2016, https://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/solutions/lessons-five-cities/, Accessed November 13, 2017.

State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, Revised April 2016, http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/hot_topics_resources/fireplanrevison_final_04_06_16.pdf, Accessed October 24, 2017.