This article was originally posted by Perkins Coie LLP in California Land Use and Development Report, May 10, 2022.
By Cecily Barclay and Kaela Shiigi
The Court of Appeal held that absent a distinction between short- and long-term rentals, both are permitted under city zoning ordinances, and any ban on short-term rentals that changes the status quo is an amendment that requires Coastal Commission approval. Darby T. Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 (2022).
The City of Manhattan Beach enacted zoning ordinances banning short-term rentals in 2015 and instituting an enforcement mechanism in 2019 without seeking the Coastal Commission’s approval. The City had originally intended to seek Coastal Commission approval but withdrew its application after the Coastal Commission expressed that it did not support a full ban on short-term rentals in the Coastal Zone. The City justified not seeking Coastal Commission approval by claiming that the existing zoning ordinance from 1994 already banned short-term rentals.
A property owner petitioned for a writ of mandate to enjoin the City from enforcing the 2015 and 2019 ordinances after the City tried to enforce the ban on his property. He claimed that the City should have sought Coastal Commission approval.
The Court of Appeal held that the City ordinance banning short-term rentals was invalid because the City failed to obtain the Coastal Commission’s approval. The court reasoned that the City’s zoning ordinances prior to 2015 allowed short-term rentals because the code did not distinguish between short- and long-term rentals. This meant that rentals of residential properties for any time period were allowed. The court also rejected the City’s argument that short-term rentals should be treated as hotels under the City code, concluding that the homes that are typically rented out as short-term rentals did not fall under the code’s definition of a hotel.
The court also dismissed the other arguments the City relied on to justify the ban. The court rejected the claim that the concept of permissive zoning applied, under which zoning ordinances prohibit any use they do not expressly permit, noting that the City’s pre-2015 ordinances did permit short-term rentals. It likewise rejected the argument that the court should defer to the City’s interpretation of its own ordinances, finding that their plain language did not support that interpretation. The City’s 2015 ban on short-term rentals amounted to an amendment of the City’s existing ordinances to ban short-term rentals, which required Coastal Commission approval.
Cecily Barclay, Partner, focuses her practice on land use and entitlements, real estate acquisition and development, and local government law. She is a lead author of Curtin’s California Land Use and Planning Law. Barclay holds a JD from Harvard Law School and a BA from UC Berkeley.
Kaela Shiigi focuses on environmental and energy law issues. Prior to her career in law, she was an environmental scientist at AECOM. Shiigi holds a JD from the UC Berkeley School of Law and a BS in environmental sciences, also from UC Berkeley.
[Next City Ed. note: This is the third in a series of three articles by Pan about city public transit systems and the benefits and obstacles of how they integrate with regional transit providers. The first two stories covered the Twin Cities and Sacramento.]
I hardly traveled outside of San Francisco on my own growing up.
My parents, working-class Chinese immigrants, managed to get a monthly San Francisco Muni pass for me so I could get to school. I used that pass on weekends to explore the city, but rarely ventured outside of the city limits.
One of the few times I did so was in high school on a sunny and warm Friday morning. My 17-year-old self paid $13 one way to travel 65 miles over three hours on four transit agencies to get to Western Railway Museum, a Solano County museum with historic rail vehicles from around California.
I would head over to the museum by transit again in a heartbeat if I still lived in the Bay Area. However, taking public transit over such a long distance might not even work for those who do live in the Bay Area because of how time-consuming, expensive, and confusing it can be.
All of this may change in the next several years, as 27 Bay Area transit agencies work to coordinate their fares, schedules, and wayfinding, and as the California legislature considers a bill to withhold their state funding if they don’t. And to fund it all, the MTC may request a ballot measure from the legislature, after abandoning an effort in 2020 for $100 billion because of the pandemic.
“It really is about, in the most bold vision, having a harmonious system where the rider doesn’t really notice what system they’re on. It’s a Bay Area system, and it’s clear how you connect from A to B,” says Rebecca Long, who directs legislative affairs for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s federal metropolitan planning organization.
Regional transit coordination is a fraught topic because every agency wants to have as many riders as possible, which translates into more funding. “There’s quite a lot of money at stake that agencies see as their own,” says Ian Griffiths, who runs Seamless Bay Area, an organization advocating for a unified regional transit system. “They see regional coordination as being potentially a risk to their ability to [collect] revenue.”
The regional transit coordination bill, if passed, requires free transfers between every agency, except to and from Muni’s cable cars. “Rather than having to worry about, ‘Should I take this mode, or this mode,’ [Getting from point] A to B should cost a fair amount, and it should be easy to understand, easy to pay, and there should be no surprises,” says Griffiths, whose organization supports implementing fares based on distance traveled.
To meet that provision, the MTC will revamp transfer discounts to riders using the regional fare payment card Clipper when the new version rolls out next year. Riders transferring from BART to any agency will only pay the difference in the connecting agency fare, while riders transferring from any agency to BART will pay BART fare, less the fare they already paid to the connecting agency.
“So let’s say the bus fare was $2.50, you’d be reducing that amount entirely from your trip in each direction,” Long says. “That’s a really big deal … and the operators have agreed to that.” Altogether, the change will cost agencies $30 million, with MTC footing part of the bill.
But until then, riders will have to utilize a mishmash of transfer discounts to get between different agencies, if they exist. Otherwise, California Sen. Josh Becker, D-San Mateo and the author of the bill, says that “people who are transferring between systems are still paying double, triple.” The MTC also partnered with most Bay Area transit agencies during the height of the pandemic to launch a discounted fare program for low-income adults.
Both fare and transfer discounts are only available on Clipper, itself a decades-long effort to make riding across multiple transit agencies seamless. It’s accepted on all except one transit agency: Dixon Readi-Ride in northeastern Solano county, who chose not to participate because of administrative costs and equipment compatibility.
Wayfinding has been a decades-long issue, too. In the early 2000s, the agency built a regional trip planner, where riders could figure out what routes to take to get to where they needed to go. It was not perfect by any means; I remember planning trips from my childhood apartment in San Francisco’s Nob Hill to Stonestown, a mall located in the southwest corner of San Francisco, and the planner returned a trip result that would take an hour to complete, instead of a more direct route that takes about 45 minutes.
Today, many agencies provide transit schedule data to companies such as Montreal, Quebec-based Transit, who build navigation apps for people with computers and smartphones. But not every agency is able to provide such data to these companies, and not everyone can use the apps.
So the MTC is working to implement a consistent brand for maps and directional signage, which the bill also requires. They hope to work with a consultant starting this summer to deploy pilot wayfinding in the North and East Bays, which are home to many transit systems, in late 2024 or early 2025.
Although the MTC developed wayfinding standards now in place at BART and some Muni Metro stations, as well as major transit hubs such as Salesforce Transit Center in Downtown San Francisco, they coexist with other signage developed by individual transit agencies. “You still have all of the other very different operator-specific signage, maps, terminology, that creates a pretty confusing environment, especially for a new rider,” Long says.
In addition to signage, Golden Gate Transit, which connects Sonoma and Marin Counties with San Francisco and the East Bay, decided to renumber their routes, in part because some of their route numbers were numbered the same as other routes operated by other transit agencies, such as Muni.
“As San Francisco started to bring back routes to their system, we had a Golden Gate Transit Route 30 [which runs between Downtown San Francisco and San Rafael] operating a block apart from a Muni Route 30 [that runs between San Francisco’s 4th and King Caltrain station and the Marina District],” says Golden Gate Transit Planning Director Ron Downing. “We had a couple complaints from people that were using [a trip planner] and they weren’t sure which route 30 they needed to board in the Marina District.”
Before they could renumber any routes, however, they needed to ask neighboring Marin Transit, which Golden Gate Transit used to operate under contract until the late 2000s, to free up a series of numbers. After they secured the series, they implemented the renumbering in December 2021, one of which involved renumbering the 30 into the 130. “That’s different enough for the passenger to know it’s different [from] the Muni bus,” said Downing. The agency has not received any complaints about the renumbering, which was praised by neighboring agencies.
The agency also used this opportunity to renumber several other routes so riders could understand how far they can get from San Francisco based on how high the route is numbered, with some exceptions. But route changes they undertook over the years made it difficult to adhere to the numbering standards.
Aside from fares, mapping, and wayfinding, Bay Area transit agencies working across different disciplines have been getting together many times a week to talk about how they can better work together. One of the changes discussed is coordinating schedule changes so they all take place on the same day, perhaps in August and January.
A version of this article was originally published inNext City, May 6, 2022. Republished with permission.
Henry Pan 潘嘉宏 (they/ them/ theirs) is a Minneapolis-based freelance journalist who reports primarily on transportation issues. Prior to 2017, Pan worked with several organizations now operating with Seamless Bay Area, which supports SB 917 (Becker), the Seamless Transit Transformation Act. They hold a bachelor’s in urban studies and planning from San Francisco State University.
Public and civic spaces like parks are destinations where people can coexist and enjoy nature. These are places where all people, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, can visit to relax and connect with the natural environment. Civic spaces are vital to our daily lives because they allow different communities to come together and address the problems of social isolation and economic segregation.
The City of San José recognizes that these are valuable places and is committed to providing all residents with access to superb park and open space. One of those, the Guadalupe River Park, has the potential to become the city’s finest civic asset.
Located a few blocks west of Downtown San José, the Guadalupe River Park sits along the banks of the Guadalupe River and between Interstates 880 to the north and 280 to the south. Spanning more than 2.5 linear miles and encompassing over 254 acres, the Park is known as the “Central Park of San José.” Its long trails and paths make it a favorite among dog walkers, runners, and cyclists, and its Rotary Playground is a popular attraction for young families. The Park also houses multiple sports courts. One of which is a futsal court sponsored by the San José Earthquakes, a Major League Soccer franchise whose stadium is near the north end of the Park.
For the spring 2022 semester, San José State University’s Master of Urban Planning students partnered with the Guadalupe River Park Conservancy to study the Park and learn who is now using the Park and how, and to develop a set of programs for enhancing the visitor experience for all community members.
The guiding principles the students used to frame their research came from the Reimagining the Civic Commons (RCC) initiative. San José is an RCC “Expansion City.” RCC’s mission is to transform shared civic assets to foster engagement, equity, environmental sustainability, and economic development in cities across the country. The ultimate goal of the initiative is to increase financial investment in civic assets as a way to combat the alarming trends of increasing economic segregation, social isolation, and distrust.
RCC relies on four “outcomes,” or goals, to measure the value of civic assets. These include civic engagement, socioeconomic mixing, environmental sustainability, and value creation. These four goals are used to measure the value of civic assets based on a variety of indicators included within each goal.
Our spring 2022 class aimed to capture the stories of park users through a mixed-methods approach that divided the class into four teams, with each team assigned to one of the Park’s quadrants: Arena Green East, Arena Green West, the Trails, and the Gardens.
The teams conducted direct observation surveys to record the number of park users, their approximate age, race, if they were actively exercising, and their proximity to other park users. Through a set of survey questions provided by RCC, survey respondents were asked a series of questions related to RCC’s four goals. We asked about park users’ level of civic engagement, whether they felt safe when visiting the Park, the frequency and duration of their park visits, and much more.
To streamline the data collection process, the class leveraged Esri’s Survey123 platform to enable location-based analysis. Our research effort built off the work of a previous MURP class (fall 2020) which conducted the exact same study during peak pandemic conditions and smoke-filled skies during an unprecedented wildfire season.
Before conducting any surveys, the class needed to better understand the Park and its current condition. To achieve this, we participated in multiple walking tours through the park with Conservancy staff and also interviewed professionals working on different programs related to the Park.
One of the class’s first interviews was with Vanessa Beretta, senior development officer for the Homelessness Response Team (HRT) at the City of San José. Meeting with her was an essential first step as the Park currently has one of the highest concentrations of the City’s roughly 6,000 unhoused persons. She provided critical insights into how the City collects data on unhoused persons, the various services available to individuals, how the City’s HRT is funded, and the most significant challenges the City faces when it comes to addressing the homelessness crisis.
We also interviewed local artists who painted murals in the Park, City of San Jose staff who are closely familiar with the Park, and Conservancy staff who are intimately familiar with the Park’s facilities. By reaching out to professionals experienced with different aspects of the Park, the class was able to gain a deeper understanding of the Park’s various elements. The discussions with practitioners helped us draw more specific conclusions based on the survey results.
These are our key findings:
The Guadalupe River Park draws visitors from outside San José. Nearly a quarter of those interviewed do not live in the city.
Youth aged 18 and under, particularly teens, were the most underrepresented of park users.
Between 2020 and 2022, the number of park users who drove to the Park increased by more than 10 percent, and the number of survey respondents who came to the Park other than by car decreased by 15 percent.
From 2020 to 2022, the number of survey respondents who had volunteered at the Park rose by 9 percent.
Mirroring the MURP class findings from 2020, park users generally felt safe during the day, but perceptions of personal safety were significantly lower at night.
Many of the survey respondents attributed safety issues in the Park to the unhoused.
As part of this class effort, students were required to record podcast episodes related to different aspects of Guadalupe River Park. Topics range from “the value of public art” to “how park fees are assessed by the City of San José” to “how local vendors acquire business permits for tabling at community events.” Our podcasts are available on SoundCloud and can be found on the CommunityCasting Channel.
“ILG and [its] partners are offering a series of regional planning commissioner trainings throughout [California]. The sessions [are] free of charge [and are designed] exclusively for city and county planning commissioners … both new and experienced.
“These interactive training sessions will help planning commissioners better understand the basics of planning documents, CEQA, and public engagement principles. [They] will also define the role of planning commissioners and give tips on how to work effectively with staff and the governing board. In each training session, [time is reserved] to network and discuss local planning challenges and opportunities, specific for each given region.
“[The trainings will give] participants the opportunity to engage with experts in the field and learn from fellow planning commissioners about best practices, emerging trends, and lessons learned.
“All sessions will run from 9:30 am to 4 pm, with coffee and networking beginning at 9 am.
“Please click on your region below for more information and to register.
Introducing a paper by the California Planning Roundtable, May 2022
For good reason, California is directing most future growth closer to jobs where people can take shorter commutes by multiple means, including transit, to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gases generated to slow climate change and its impacts. This means that California’s metropolitan areas will mostly grow up with infill and redevelopment of underdeveloped properties rather than grow out by sprawling onto greenfield lands. If planned correctly, more affordable housing opportunities and lower cost travel options will be available to more California households of different incomes, sizes, and ages.
Good planning, however, calls for complete communities with quality sustainable infrastructure — water and waste, energy, digital, storm management, sidewalks, and streetscapes — and public facilities (schools, libraries, parks and open space, health services, public safety, and shelter) to serve this growth and to remedy past deficiencies to prepare for growth. The former may be called “basic infrastructure” and the latter “social infrastructure.” As we grow housing opportunities with infill development, we need to plan and fund Infrastructure for Infill.
The challenge lies not in recognizing the need, but in organizing to address it. Without adequate infrastructure, plans will not be fulfilled and turned into actual development, neither because of system failures, unacceptable impacts, and increasing costs, nor because of public opposition. Infrastructure for infill development, more so than for greenfield development, involves coordinating many existing and new interests, including property owners, renters, businesses, workers, and governments.
Infrastructure itself comes in different sizes, conditions, and types. Who benefits and who pays for it is not always clear or fairly apportioned. Those who feel that they have already paid — or are still paying — are not as willing to tax themselves to pay more unless they feel their services are also improved. Unlike new planned communities with private facilities, there are no homeowners’ associations to fund and manage maintenance. The public realm has much broader responsibilities.
Older and vulnerable communities facing greater costs to upgrade often include populations and households with fewer financial means and the capacity to fund those costs. The greater good may require cross-subsidies to address these inherent inequities.
Some mechanisms exist but are not always adequate. Either they are too narrowly applied, do not generate the scale of funding needed, or have approval requirements designed for limited property ownership and voters (as in community facility districts) or require a supermajority of voters jurisdiction-wide. That can be a challenge when the need is for a subset of the jurisdiction and some of the voters being asked to approve new taxes and fees already have adequate infrastructure and facilities. In addition, legacy facility standards are often inappropriate for infill contexts where land is expensive, uses are mixed, and ownership is disaggregated and varied. Common suburban standards, where land costs much less, may not work in urban contexts.
California’s communities, residents, and businesses need the State to provide local governments and their communities with more tools to fund infrastructure for infill if it expects them to support California’s growth strategy. State and federal attention understandably is placed on big regional infrastructure, such as regional transportation, energy, broadband, and water/sewer systems. However, as the State takes a more direct role in regulating housing, land use, and mobility to further sustainability, resilience, and equity policies, it also needs to take a more direct role in providing localities with the tools they need to provide the smaller — but in aggregate, just as important — infrastructure needed to maintain and create the balanced communities that Californian’s want and deserve.
The California Planning Roundtable has prepared a paper making this case: Infrastructure for Infill (7 pp, 832 kb). Contributors to the paper are William Anderson, FAICP; Marc Roberts, Woodie Tescher; Tom Jacobson, Ann Cheng, and Al Zelinka.
Much has changed about day-to-day life as a result of the pandemic, and while headlines blare a return-to-work and back-to-normal, the way we plan cities and towns is being profoundly influenced. Trends that were apparent before Covid-19 such as reducing spaces for cars in favor of more walkability are accelerating. Other emerging concepts, such as the proliferation and permanence of parklets and the surge in demand for parks and green space, are also gaining favor.
Many towns are facilitating change in increments. In the case of Fairfield, California, the increment is a potential redesign of several blocks of a street and central grid.
A growing community of 120,000 between San Francisco and Sacramento, Fairfield has been like most California second-tier and suburban locales in its reliance on autos. In the U.S., streetscapes comprise the largest portion of public land, but a movement gaining tailwinds over the past two years is causing local residents, business owners, city leaders, and planners to re-think the use of this public resource.
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) released research in February shedding more light on parking. In data compiled with the Mineta Transportation Institute, SPUR’s San Francisco Bay Area Parking Census found:
The nine-county Bay Area has 15 million parking spaces, enough to wrap around the planet 2.3 times.
20 percent of incorporated land in the region is devoted to driving and storing cars.
There are approximately 2.4 spaces for every car and approximately 1.9 parking spaces for every person in the Bay Area.
Fairfield, in Solano County, is part of the Bay Area.
Said the authors, “There is far more parking than we need. This excess parking has become an accepted part of the urban landscape and makes residents more likely to drive, increasing carbon emissions and worsening climate impacts, air pollution and respiratory disease, rates of injury and death from collisions, and traffic congestion.”
Fairfield is underway — with a several square-block test case around the downtown intersection of Texas and Madison Streets — to re-evaluate its approach to urban streetscapes and walkability. With input from local citizens, shop owners, and constituents, the concepts may evolve into longer-range plans with extended coverage. Our current proposals to the city show narrower streets, patterned paving, and traffic-calming, as well as a transformative array of pedestrian-friendly improvements such as wider sidewalks, outdoor furniture, additional landscaping, and bike accommodation.
Increasing the sidewalk space will enable the creation of pedestrian-centric gathering spaces, art or mural installations, outdoor dining, and easier and safer walking paths and bikeways that can knit the community together. By selectively changing paving, narrowing specific streets, and introducing visual cues, the city can also slow down traffic and create a safer environment for the interaction of cars, bikes, and pedestrians.
Fairfield’s plans to add trees and pockets of greenspace will enhance eye appeal and offer shade, adding to walkability. The benefits of greenspace on public health are widely known, but a 2015 Ontario Public Health Study found specifically that tree-lined streets and well-connected parks deliver real value. While researching general health and tree density in Toronto and controlling for demographics, the study authors found “that having 10 more trees in a city block, on average, improves health perception in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $10,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $10,000 higher median income or being seven years younger.”
The pandemic led many people to “get outside,” quoting our company’s landscape design maxim. That, in turn, is leading more cities to refocus their urban planning toward a better, people-centric, “new normal.”
Casey Case is President of Gates + Associates, a landscape architecture and urban design firm in Walnut Creek, CA, creating sustainable, extraordinary places in California and the Western U.S. She holds a BS in landscape architecture from UC Davis.
“Many … meetings don’t need to happen [says Donna McGeorge, author of The 25 Minute Meeting: Half the Time, Double the Impact]. You can share information, says McGeorge, [via] email or … run polls, get opinions, and send video clips [without taking] up ‘nearly as much time as six personnel in a meeting.’
“Yet sometimes meetings are necessary. Meetings are best when you need an active conversation that involves bouncing ideas off each other …, says McGeorge.
“While the default for meeting is usually an hour, McGeorge says the ideal is 25 minutes, … the optimal amount of time for people to focus. [And there’s] Parkinson’s Law, which work expands to fill the time allotted. If you give a meeting an hour, chances are you’ll find topics … to fill the void.
“French agricultural engineer Max Ringelmann described the tendency for individual productivity to decrease as the size of the group increases. McGeorge recommends having no more than seven people … ‘to get the input from every one of them,’ she says.
“McGeorge says successful meetings require the three Ps: purpose, people, and process.
“Start the meeting by determining what you’ll have accomplished by the end of the meeting. Next, make sure you’ve got the right people and tell them what they need to do. The final P is ‘process,’ which means having an effective way of running a meeting. McGeorge recommends ‘scan, focus, act.’ Scan for 12 minutes, going around the room, with everyone giving a one-minute update. The convener then focuses the information by providing feedback on the themes they’ve heard. Then, use the final minutes to come up with action items that can solve the problems. [Twenty-five minutes creates] ‘a sense of urgency for getting things done.’”
Wednesday, May 31. Special Program 10:00 to 11:30 a.m.
Is your night experience in cities poetic or fearful? Though architects and planners design the world around us primarily for the daytime hours, half of our lives are spent in the dark. Some individuals, such as culture lovers and clubbers, choose to go out at night, while others, like shift workers, must do so as part of their jobs. And let’s not forget the wintertime, when most of us experience cities after the sun sets early. However, regardless of the reasons that we traverse cities at night, well-designed illumination is vital to accessing our cities during these darkened hours. It connects us to fresh air and social interactions, while boosting local economies and augmenting safety and a sense of welcome. Join noted lighting urbanist Leni Schwendinger as she leads a panel of international lighting and urban design leaders to explore the perceptions, realities and creative possibilities of the city at night.
Thursday, June 2. Lunchtime Forum 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.
The California State Senate has proposed spending $18 billion on climate change resilience this year, outstripping the Governor’s office in the scope and scale of their ambitions. Bay Area Senator Robert Wieckowski, representing the 10th Senate District of southern Alameda and northern Santa Clara counties, has championed these efforts from his position as the chair of the budget subcommittee on Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy. Come hear Senator Wieckowski as he discusses the Senate’s bold climate vision and how he and his colleagues are working to turn it into reality.
CEQA, adopted in 1970, is the state’s key environmental protection statute. It requires state and local agencies to analyze proposed construction projects, publicly report potential environmental impacts and undertake all feasible measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts. Though the law established California as a world leader in environmental protection, many have argued that its abuse is an impediment to environmentally-friendly projects and directly responsible for the state’s housing crisis, as CEQA-related processes serve to delay, downsize, or even block new development, transportation, and infrastructure projects. The reality is as complex as the law itself. While some groups view CEQA as an outdated and counterproductive law in dire need of drastic reform, others see it as a critical shield for protecting the vulnerable, from California’s wildlands to its underrepresented communities. Take part in a discussion CEQA’s goals, successes, and failures, and what it might take to reform the embattled law while maintaining or even strengthening environmental protection.
Thursday, June 9. Partnering Event with ULI, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Over the last five years, Housing the Bay has examined the drivers of our housing crisis, highlighted public and private sector solutions, and elevated the voices of a broad range of people from across our industry and North America. This year, ULI will continue to bring you the most compelling ideas and innovations for generating more housing and increasing affordability, with a clear-eyed focus on how we can go big. Join ULI and partners on June 9, 2022, for a full day of inspiring speakers, invigorating discussions, game-changing ideas, and tangible actions we can get to work on right away. Bring your mind, your energy, and your commitment to building the Bay Area we need and deserve to what is certain to be the Bay Area housing event of the year. Presented by ULI San Francisco.
Thursday, June 9. Lunchtime Forum 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.
In 2016, the City of San Diego implemented the Affordable Homes Bonus Program (AHBP), which allows developers to build additional housing if they also dedicate a portion of the new development to be affordable. The program, which builds on top of California’s existing Density Bonus Law, has enabled a substantial increase in the production of market-rate and deed-restricted affordable homes in San Diego. The newly released report, Home Run for Homes: Celebrating Success of San Diego’s Affordable Homes Bonus Program, dives into how the AHBP is able to succeed in the face of skyrocketing housing costs. Come hear from the program’s architects, in conversation with experts from the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, about how the AHBP could be more widely implemented to tackle California’s ongoing housing crisis.
Opened in 2018, and stretching across four blocks in downtown San Francisco, Salesforce Transit Center is the Bay Area’s largest regional transportation hub. Though the facility serves seven different transit operators whose networks extend as far as Hercules, Palo Alto, and Santa Rosa, buses are the only public transit mode currently available. That will all change, however, when the transit center’s train platforms open later this decade as part of the Downtown Rail Extension: an ambitious, six-track infrastructural expansion that will facilitate access to Caltrain and, eventually, California High-Speed Rail. Join SPUR and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for a behind-the-scenes tour of Salesforce Transit Center. We’ll take a look at the center’s current operations before descending underground to explore the train box, a key component that, when finished, will make the facility the true Grand Central Station of the West. In partnership with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.
Tuesday, June 14. Lunchtime Forum 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.
As home prices soar throughout the state, one of the most prominent groups impacted are educators. Teachers and staff working in public school systems across California are struggling to find affordable housing in and around the communities in which they work. That scarcity forces long commutes or, in some cases, the decision to cohabitate with colleagues in order to stay within close proximity to the school where they’re employed. And as housing affordability challenges create acute staffing challenges, more school districts are considering building workforce housing on land they own. Join us for a comprehensive overview of the potential for school district land across the state to be designed and developed for affordable housing for the education workforce, and hear from a developer about what it takes to get this done. Co-presented by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
Tuesday, June 21. Lunchtime Forum 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.
Housing prices in communities across the country are on the rise, reducing the number of affordable homes available for middle- and low-income families. Legislators and policy experts throughout the United States have been tirelessly working to alleviate the widening housing crisis through the implementation of new zoning policies, the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and by investing in the development of our cities’ urban cores. However, as described in her new book, Fixer Upper: How to Repair America’s Broken Housing Systems, Brookings’ Senior Fellow Jenny Schuetz argues that most discussions about how to address the housing crisis miss a key notion: that the nation’s housing systems have been constructed to be fundamentally unequal in nature. Join us to explore the arguments posed in her book and learn what it will take to create more affordable, and more widely available, housing stock across the country.
Wednesday, June 29. Lunchtime Forum 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.
California’s housing crisis is now decades old, but its not for lack of good ideas, good planners, or serious resources. How do we build the type of grand bargains and big coalitions needed to make change? How do we even build the political will to change our housing system? A recent book by author Alex Schafran, Where We Go From Here, explores how new approaches to the real estate economy, to homeownership and resident control, and to questions of race and geography can help us design a better housing policy in the Golden State. Join us for a provocative exploration of what a new social contract for housing in California could look like.
Gerry Beaudin, AICP, is now City Manager, City of Pleasanton, where he had been the Director of Community Development, 2015-2019. He most recently was assistant city manager for the City of Alameda for just under three years. From 2000 to 2015, Beaudin held a series of increasingly responsible planning positions in Calgary, Toronto, Los Altos, South San Francisco, and Mountain View. He holds a master of science in planning from the University of Toronto and a BA in geography from Queen’s University, also in Ontario.
Jamie Bourne has joined Good City Company, where she is currently Assistant City Planner for the cities of San Carlos and Portola Valley. She just moved back to the Peninsula after seven years in Washington State. Local planners may remember her from her two years with Neal Martin & Associates, 2005-2007. Bourne holds a master’s in environmental analysis and urban and regional planning from UC Irvine.
Dahlia Chazan, AICP, has joined Caltrain as Deputy Chief, Caltrain Planning, leading the Caltrain Planning Department. She had worked for Arup for 10 years, most recently as associate principal leading the integrated planning team; she was serving as planning lead for the planning and engineering contract on Link21, the new transbay rail crossing. Before that, she was at Placeworks (formerly DC&E) for more than six years. Chazan holds a master’s in urban and regional planning, a master’s in environmental policy (both from the University of Michigan), and a BS in ecology, behavior, and evolution from UC San Diego. She chairs SPUR’s Oakland Board and served on our Northern Section Board as East Bay Regional Activity Coordinator (RAC) from 2013-2015.
Mari Hsu, who had been associate editor for Northern News and SJSU Student Representative to the Northern Section Board, is now an Associate Transportation Planner with Green DOT Transportation Solutions, Chico. They grew up in a part of Appalachia that relies solely on personal cars, and access to public and active transit is near and dear to their heart. Now the holder of an MUP from San José State University, Hsu centered their Masters Planning Report on mobility justice and community engagement around bus rapid transit implementations in the East Bay and San Francisco. Hsu also holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from Bryn Mawr College.
Alex Eisenhart, a transportation communications professional, is the new Communications Director for Northern Section. He holds a master of science in transportation management from the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University and a BA in media arts production from Emerson College (Boston). Eisenhart has worked in communications for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrain/SamTrans, City of Dublin, and San Mateo County Health Department. He brings to the Board his passion for storytelling, transportation, and sustainability. A self-proclaimed aviation geek, Eisenhart can list the entire fleet and route hub of every major U.S. airline.
Xue Ling, AICP, is the new Mid-Career Planners Group Director for Northern Section. Ling is an associate planner with the County of Santa Clara and lives in Saratoga. Between 2011 and 2019, she worked as an urban planner and landscape designer with SOM (San Francisco), HOK (San Francisco), and SWA (Laguna Beach). Ling holds a master of urban and regional planning from UC Irvine and a BS in urban planning from Tongji University, Shanghai. She also serves on the APA California Board as the Awards Coordinator for APA California.
Elizabeth Owen, upon completion of her master’s degree in urban and regional planning from UCLA this June, will be joining Arup as a Graduate Transportation Planner in their San Francisco office. Owen has held a number of land use and transportation internships since 2018. She holds a bachelor of urban studies and planning from UC San Diego, and was a student representative to APA California’s executive board, 2019-2021.
Christina Ratcliffe, AICP, is now Planning and Development Services Director for the City of Vallejo, where she had been planning manager. Ratcliffe was community and economic development director for Martinez, 2017-2020, and community development director for Benicia, 2015-2017. Before that, she worked in the planning departments of Orinda, Alameda, Berkeley, and Saratoga, in addition to nine years with consulting firm PMC. Ratcliffe holds a master’s in city and regional planning (UC Berkeley) and a BA in urban studies (San Francisco State). She served on the Northern Section Board as Professional Development Director (2003-2006 and 2009-2010). Ratcliffe is excited to continue building the Vallejo team and shepherding its many great projects. At home, she enjoys relaxing with family and friends and hiking with her mutt.
Timothy Rood, AICP, is now Community Development Director for the City of Hercules, where he will guide the remaining phases of the Bayfront, Town Center, and regional transit center. Rood had been with the City of San Jose for five years as a principal planner and later as planning division manager. He was an owner of Community Design + Architecture (2006-2017) and a principal at Calthorpe Associates (1998-2006). Rood holds M.Arch and MCP degrees from UC Berkeley and an AB in architecture from Columbia. He served as a Piedmont City Councilmember (2014-2021) and represented Piedmont on the boards of East Bay Community Energy and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, Energy Council, and Recycling Board, collectively known as StopWaste.org.
Nick Zornes is the new Development Services Director at the City of Los Altos. Zornes has been an environmental planner with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, planner for the City of Dana Point, California, a planner for the City of Encinitas — and most recently — planning manager for Riverside. He holds a master’s in community development from the University of Nebraska (Lincoln) and a bachelor’s in urban planning and sustainability from Arizona State University (Tempe).