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.

Cottage Housing Developments

by Justin Shiu, Associate Planner at M-Group

Cottage housing developments, as a form of smaller single family residential units, diversifies housing choice and provides housing that is more attractive to some households than that of traditional single-family homes.

The type of cottage housing development discussed here refers to projects that feature a cluster of units – often between four and twelve – built around a common open space. Typically, each cottage is around 1,000 square feet. This type of development is not new; the historical pattern of small housing units clustered around small parks and open spaces can be found in some parts of older cities. Recent cottage housing developments have been established as infill projects, offering a middle ground between single-family residences and multifamily development. Cottage housing can offer a smaller scale housing choice, which are suitable for meeting a variety of needs, compared to traditional detached single-family homes.

Cottage housing developments can be found around the county. They present a variety of opportunities in creating housing and meeting housing needs where other prevalent housing types are not great fits. There may be challenges implementing cottage housing developments where development constraints or local opposition limit available options. To create opportunities that allow for cottage housing development and set standards for development, a variety of considerations should be taken into account in the planning process. The following presents a brief overview of cottage housing development and provides considerations for their integration into cities.

COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY

Cottage housing developments can be found around the country. In Shoreline, Washington, Greenwood Avenue Cottages features eight units of less than 1,000 square feet around a large open space and served by a 300 square foot community building. Beyond offering attractive, smaller housing options for those drawn to their style, cottage housing developments have served needs for different segments of the population.

Union Studio. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. Accessed October 24, 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_07022012_1.html

Cottages have been suitable for providing workforce housing. In Suffolk County, New York, Cottages at Mattituck is a 22-unit income-restricted workforce housing project. The price for the 1,100 square foot units was determined by median income earnings. The cottages will remain permanently affordable through deed-restrictions.

Cottages can be affordable options integrated into an urban context. In East Greenwich, Rhode Island, Cottages on Greene is a privately-financed, mixed-income infill development located in the historic downtown area. The cottage housing style emphasized a walkable and smaller-scale, urban living environment. This denser residential development type serves as a transition between the downtown and single-family residences and allows for locating 15 homes within walking distance to a variety of shops, services, and restaurants in the downtown. The project also allocated five deed-restricted affordable housing units.

Cottages can be important residences for groups with special circumstances. In Sacramento, Quinn Cottages is an affordable development comprising 60 one-bedroom cottages serving single residents and parents with one child. Mercy Housing manages the cottages and provides support programs that allow the development to serve as transitional housing.

OPPORTUNITIES AND ADVANTAGES

The appropriateness of cottage housing developments may vary depending on the location, however the developments can have advantages over other types of development. They can make more efficient use of land than single-family residential development. Although they are denser than traditional single-family homes, cottage housing could be implemented in single family residential areas where the cluster of housing would not appear to be a significant departure from an already dense concentration of single-family homes, or a medium-density single-family residential district as applied in some jurisdictions. They can fill properties that are large and underdeveloped. While developments may have densities somewhat higher than neighboring single-family homes, design of the buildings and the common open space can minimize the perception of mass. They may also serve as a transition between single-family homes and condominiums / townhomes.

As an intermediate between lower and higher density development types, a cottage housing development may help diversify housing choices and capture needs from different segments of the population. Cottage housing offers living arrangements that are attractive to households seeking modestly-sized homes and those who desire a close neighborhood environment. This housing type is an option that can accommodate smaller households, including single residents, households with few children, and older residents seeking to downsize. The close proximity of units can lend itself to fostering a neighborhood within a neighborhood feeling, which can create a greater sense of familiarity and safety.

An advantage of cottage housing developments is their flexibility, from making more effective or desirable use of underutilized spaces to serving the needs of different populations. As an infill type development, they can maintain a spacious feeling with open courts. As higher density development, they offer privacy by having detached units. Their sizes allow them to be potentially more energy-efficient compared to larger residences. They can serve as housing for families seeking to downsize, young households, and the workforce.

Keller Court Commons. Petaluma Argus Courier, Petaluma, CA. Accessed March 6, 2017. http://www.petaluma360.com/news/2524154-181/pocket-neighborhood-passes-planning-commission

CHALLENGES

Although cottage housing developments can present a number of opportunities, they may be accompanied by specific issues due to characteristics of the development.

Construction is not necessarily much less expensive than traditional single family homes. The baseline standards of the cottages are the same for new residences, including compliance with building standards and installation of utility connections. Furthermore, costs for cottages may be more on a per-square-foot basis because unit prices cannot be increased based on square footage with as much bedroom and living room floor area that can be relatively inexpensive to build.

Locational suitability is a limiting factor. Availability of lots with sizes capable of accommodating development may be low. Allowable density on a lot generally needs to be higher to allow for economically feasible projects. However, neighborhoods may be sensitive to denser development. Taking lot size, density, neighborhood sensitivity into account, cottage housing developments may be limited to certain residential areas.

Parking can also present challenges. The site may have limited space available for parking. Despite smaller households that are drawn to cottage housing, sufficient parking is required to mitigate excessive spillover to on-street parking.

CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

If it has been determined that a cottage housing development would not be impractical as a result of various challenges, a set of guidelines may serve to help shape how a development might fit within the site context. Cottage housing ordinances have been established in several jurisdictions. Ordinances that were reviewed include Kirkland, Spokane, Port Townsend, Redmond, Lakewood, and Marysville in Washington, and Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania.

Although a cottage housing ordinance may not necessarily be a tool that every jurisdiction would want to consider integrating into their municipal codes, the examples of existing cottage housing development regulations provide a basis to review and evaluate cottage housing projects proposed within a community. The guidelines presented here do not represent a comprehensive collection of standards that have been used nor do they suggest that cottage housing design must fit within these parameters, but they present a starting point to consider what aspects of development have been applied and provide an initial point of reference for further discussion.

Units and Lot Sizes

• Number of Units: A minimum and maximum number of units may be defined. Minimums of 4 units and maximums of 12 units have been used in some ordinances.
• Lot Sizes: Consider not setting a minimum lot size.

Floor Area and Coverage

• Density – Floor Area Ratio: The use of floor area ratio for a site may be an appropriate standard to allow a practical design of cottage housing development. If density is used, the standard may limit density to two or three times the density of base zoning, which also may vary based on the zoning district.
• Floor Area: A maximum floor area may be set for each cottage housing unit. Example maximum floor areas have been found to be between 800 and 1,500 square feet.
• Coverage: Coverage is applied on a per unit basis. Building coverage has been found to be between 40 and 60 percent.
• Density: Increasing density may be accomplished through the following
  • Increasing density based on underlying zoning (e.g., base zoning multiplied by two)
  • Reducing minimum lot requirements (e.g., base zoning divided by two)
  • Multiple cottages on a lot (e.g., up to two cottages on a single family lot, with certain conditions)
• Density Bonus: Consider the appropriateness of density bonus incentives.
• Expansion Restricted: Covenants may be used to restrict the expansion of cottages.

Setbacks and Height

• Setbacks: Consideration should first be given to the appropriateness of existing setback regulations. For setbacks different from standard residential zoning, the following have been used:
  • Front setback examples. 10-20 feet.
  • Side setback examples. 5-10 feet.
  • Rear setback examples. 10 feet.
•   Average Setbacks: Consider using average side and rear setbacks to provide design flexibility
• Building Separation: Use a minimum building separation to allow for space between buildings. A typical standard is 10 feet between buildings. Building code standards may be used to guide the minimum separation standard.
• Stories: Consider whether a one story limit or a two-story limit is appropriate.
  • Some architectural styles of cottages featuring lower plate height accommodate second floor area within the roof. To limit mass, a cap on second floor area may be based on a percentage of the first floor.
• Height: Consider whether development would create tall and overly narrow homes.
  • Pitch limitations on cottage roof.
  • Maximum ratio of height to width.

Parking

• Parking Spaces: Off-street parking may be between 1.0 and 2.0 spaces per unit.
• Parking Arrangement: Parking can be designed such that access is away from primary streets. Parking spaces design could be through side access by alley, side access by private street, and a non-primary street. Adequate screening should be provided for any option. Parking lots may be more feasible than individual garages.
• Parking Clusters: Consider whether parking should be distributed among small clusters on the site to minimize visual impact. Consider maximum contiguous spaces in each cluster and minimum separation between clusters.
• Parking Reduction: Parking reduction may be considered if the site is close to transit.

 
Design

• Design: Consider whether requirements should be placed on a color scheme and variety in design.
• Orientation: Orient the primary entry towards the common open space area.
• Porches: Consider covered front porches. The minimum area may be 60-80 square feet.
• Sidewalk: Sidewalk connections and sidewalks along public streets.
• Parking Lot: Parking may be consolidated into one or a few small lots to allow for closer spacing between buildings.

 
Common Space and Amenities

• Common Open Space Area: Each dwelling unit should provide an allotment of space for a common open space area. In several ordinances, 400 square feet per unit has been used but areas as small as 150 square feet per unit have been applied as well. Common open space may also be low in instances where there is a requirement for private open space.
  • Consider specifying that required setbacks, private open space, stormwater management facilities, parking areas, and driveways do not qualify as common open space area.
• Community Building: A community building may be permitted.

Integration into the Community

• Outreach: Provide outreach and education
• Trial Period: Consider a trial period to ensure regulations are working as intended
• Conditional Use Permit: An administrative conditional use permit may be a good approach to consider developer and community input so that the project works within the context of certain areas.

CONCLUSION

Cottage housing developments offer opportunities to fill in housing needs, but they may be limited in locations that could accommodate such developments. Density and neighborhood sensitivity may make it difficult to find suitable sites for cottage housing developments, in addition to needed interest from the developers.

However, it is also the compact character of these developments that makes them attractive to those with specific housing needs that can be served by small but detached housing units. In planning for cottage housing developments, establishing guidelines may help address some concerns related to the form the developments may take. A consideration of policies and guidelines can show if cottage housing developments would fit within the local context and how development may take shape.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRSC. “Cottage Housing.” 2016.

http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Specific-Planning-Subjects,-Plan-Elements/Cottage-Housing.aspx

The Housing Partnership. “Cottage Housing in Your Community: A Guide to Drafting a Cottage Housing Ordinance.” 2001.

http://mrsc.org/Corporate/media/MediaLibrary/SampleDocuments/artdocmisc/chord.pdf

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. “Cottage Housing Development.”

http://www.lvpc.org/c-guides---model-regs.html

Puget Sound Regional Council. “Tool: Cottage Housing.”

http://www.psrc.org/growth/housing/hip/alltools/cottage

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Kirkland, Washington: Cottage Housing Ordinance.”

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_102011_2.html

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse, Volume 7, Issue 1. “Cutting Costs with Cottage Housing.” 2008.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “East Greenwich, Rhode Island” Cottages on Greene’s Innovative Approach to Infill.”

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_07022012_1.html

Cottage Housing Incorporated. “All of Our Communities.”

https://cottagehousing.org/communities

Snohomish County. “Cottage Housing.” 2016.

http://snohomishcountywa.gov/3461/Cottage-Housing

How Millennials Will Shape the Future of Complete Streets

by Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Principal Planner at M-Group

Washington DC, I Street (source: https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/factsheets/cs-economic.pdf)

Introduction

Complete streets are streets designed to accommodate all users, of all ages and abilities, and implementation of complete streets have provided a number of benefits within the community. In the past, the primary emphasis in street design was on the speedy movement of motorized vehicles along the right-of-way. The complete streets idea is based on the concept that a balanced, multi-modal transportation network would make the most efficient use of transportation infrastructure, serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health by encouraging physical activity through shifting short trips from driving to biking, walking and public transit. Since the implementation of complete streets, in addition to promoting healthy communities, it has also been found that complete streets have the effect of supporting local businesses and encouraging economic development. Communities have realized that implementing complete streets that foster multi-modal activities such as walking, bicycling and transit usage provide a wide range of benefits to employees, visitors and residents that make their community a desirable place to work, visit and live.

Millennials, the generation generally categorized as being born in a timeframe between the late 70s and 2000, grew to a population of 78.6 million in 2010, surpassing baby boomers as the largest demographic cohort in U.S. history. This generation’s preferences are changing the way products are advertised and how they are consumed and their lifestyle preferences are changing the way built environments are developed.

This article summarizes the benefits of complete streets, the importance of public investment in complete streets to spur private investment and the importance of thinking beyond downtowns and implementing complete streets in suburbia to account for the trends of millennials, the emerging demographic cohort entering the housing market.

Complete Streets Approach

The National Complete Streets Coalition states that “Complete Streets are streets for everyone”. Effective planning for complete streets balances allocation of space within the right-of-way to provide safe and effective infrastructure that can be used by all transportation modes and users. Effective complete streets empower users of all ages and abilities to safely move along and across streets in a community. By planning for a broad population, the approach brings together advocates and stakeholders from many different interest groups including older people, public health agencies, transportation engineers, bicycling and walking advocates, local business supporters and other interested people. Furthermore, complete streets policies can be written to support a broad range of community goals.

Seattle, WA (before and after) (source: Smart Growth America (March 2013): Safer Streets, Stronger Economies: Complete Streets project outcomes from across the country)

Typical complete streets improvements include:

• Narrow travel lanes and seek opportunities to put streets on a road diet. For example, the conversion of a four-lane undivided road to a three-lane road with bike lanes (two-way left-turn center lane, two automobile travel lanes, and two bike lanes). This configuration can handle up to 18,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and improves safety and access to adjacent destinations.
• Tighten corner curb radii to the minimum needed to provide a usable turning radius for an appropriately selected design vehicle. Occasional encroachment by larger vehicles into other travel lanes is acceptable; intersections should not be designed for the largest occasional vehicle.
• Eliminate unnecessary turn lanes at intersections. Eliminating free-turning right turns or right turn lanes with fewer than 100 turns per hour.
• Replace painted channelization islands at intersections with raised islands. This gives pedestrians a true place of refuge and breaks up long crossing of many lanes into smaller segments.

California Context

In 2008, the State of California adopted the California Complete Streets Act that required cities and counties to incorporate complete streets policies within their circulation elements upon any substantive revision to the general plan element. Complete streets policies plan for a balanced, multi-modal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban or urban context of the general plan.

Benefits of Complete Streets

A study by Smart Growth America published in 2015 reviewed 37 complete streets projects across 31 cities in 18 states and summarized the benefits of investing in complete streets projects. While limited in data and far from conclusive, the case study points to some very encouraging themes. It showed that complete streets projects improved safety, increased biking and walking, and resulted in mixed outcomes regarding increased and decreased vehicular traffic depending on the project goals.  In part, this mixed-result is because of differing methodologies employed in gathering the data, however, nonetheless, based on the available before-and-after data, regardless of vehicular information other key indicators had positive correlation with complete streets resulting in benefits.

Implementing complete streets can alleviate the problems created by existing auto-oriented streets. Auto-oriented streets are less safe because of higher speed limits, large widths, and inadequate sidewalks and crosswalks.  The case study demonstrated that decreasing the number of lanes and adding crosswalks, bike lanes and a center turn lane can result in reduced speeding, collisions and injuries. The same study indicated that in most instances pedestrian activity increased along with bicycle trips. Complete streets projects have also shown to have a mostly positive increase on public transit use. Walking is the most common way to access public transit and complete streets strategies can be used to complete the last mile on either end of the transit trip. Complete streets help create environments that led to increases in walking, biking, and transit use.

Local businesses see many benefits in improving access to people traveling by foot or bicycle. When a bike lane was added along Valencia Street in San Francisco’s Mission district, nearby businesses saw sales increase by 60 percent, which merchants attributed to increased pedestrian and bicycle activity (Smart Growth America, Complete Streets Spark Economic Revitalization).

Funding and Role of Public Investment

The hallmark of complete streets projects is that the project uses the existing right of way. There are no acquisition costs, and the typical improvements for complete streets is minimal. Complete streets projects cost less than conventional roadway improvement projects. On average a complete streets project costs $2.1 million (Smart Growth America, Safer Streets, Stronger Economies). These projects also cost less per mile than average arterial roadway projects. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that construction of an average “normal-cost” urban arterial costs $3.58 million per mile, and average “high-cost” arterials cost $12.75 million per mile.

In the mid-90s, the City of Portland spent $60 million and built 300-miles of bicycle infrastructure (lanes, paths and boulevards). For this modest investment, between 1990 and 2008, bicycle trips increased by 400 percent, while driving alone decreased by four percent and there were no bicycle fatalities. For the same investment, the City could have constructed one mile of a four-lane freeway. The results in Portland suggest that a fractional investment can lead to changes in travel behavior and safety.

Implementing complete streets projects can leverage future funding opportunities, since multi-modal projects are more competitive than singular-modal projects.

Public spending can spur private development

The investment that communities make in implementing Complete Streets policies can stimulate far greater private investment, especially in retail districts and downtowns where pedestrians and cyclists feel unwelcome. In Washington, D.C., design improvements along a three-quarter mile corridor in Barracks Row, including new patterned sidewalks and traffic signals, helped attract 40

new businesses and nearly 200 new jobs. The area experienced increases in sales and foot traffic. In Mountain View, California, the addition of space for sidewalk cafes and a redesign of the street for pedestrians were followed by private investment of $150 million, including residential, retail and offices, resulting in a vibrant downtown destination.  This provides evidence that the street and the land use work together and determine whether a place is attractive and draws people and investment and high-quality land uses come to high-quality streets.

Suburbia and Millennials

A desire for more walkable environments is growing among the younger population seeking housing opportunities. Millennials, the generation generally categorized as being born in a timeframe between the late 70s and 2000, grew to a population of 78.6 million in 2010, surpassing baby boomers as the largest demographic cohort in U.S. history. The idea of millennials living mostly in amenity-rich apartments in downtowns is not completely accurate. An Urban Land Institute report found that many millennials are living in less centrally-located but more affordable neighborhoods and sharing space with parents or roommates to save money. In summary this study found that:

• Only 13 percent of millennials live in or near downtowns; 63 percent live in other city neighborhoods or in the suburbs.
• Fifty percent are renters, paying a median monthly rent of $925.
• Twenty-one percent live at home, but 90 percent expect to move out within five years.
• Fourteen percent live in households with three generations of family members.
• Eighteen percent of all millennials and 27 percent who rent share housing with roommates. However, 58 percent of those with roommates would prefer to live alone.
• Virtually all expect to own a home eventually.
• Nine out of ten expect to match or exceed their parents’ economic circumstances.

According to the study, “millennials expressed a higher level of dissatisfaction with their communities and local housing options than did [people in] other demographics”. Moreover, the study continues “they say that neighborhoods lack convenient outdoor spaces to run, walk, bike, and exercise. In addition, they believe that both traffic and crime make it unsafe to walk.” More than 60 percent of millennials, want to live in areas where they can use their cars less.

The preference for walkable neighborhoods is likely to increase in coming decades, too, as today’s young college graduates flock to downtowns and close-in suburbs. The population of college-educated 25 to 34 year olds in these walkable neighborhoods has increased by 26% in the last decade, creating a workforce that can further add to economic growth in these communities (ibid).

This cohort will eventually marry and have a family then seek housing appropriate for that lifestyle. Downtown living is expensive and unaffordable and suburbs alternatively provide the type of housing and affordable that would match the desires of millennials in the future. Whether they are in downtowns or in the suburbs, there will be a demand for more walkable places.

Suburbs

Much of suburbia will have to change in order to thrive and meet the health, environmental, and economic challenges of the coming decades. Because of their form, widely separated land uses, and disconnected street networks, most suburban areas lack walkability and require that people travel by car for most of their needs. Demand from millennial preferences are making it desirable to retrofit these communities with complete streets to meet the needs of the changing demographics.

The primary challenge in retrofitting suburbia is less fixing the infrastructure and more creating economically sustainable places, with the emphasis on place.  Not only streets will need to change in suburbia; many land uses are obsolete and/or no longer economically viable. Street improvements generally should come before land use change in suburban retrofitting. This is because high-quality land uses come to high-quality streets and that generally means more economic benefits. The street and the land use work together determining what is attractive and draws people and investment. The following should be considered when retrofitting suburbs:

• Focus new investment in nodes on streets. There will not be enough investment all at once to transform entire corridors.
• Focus revitalization efforts on creating genuine places in those nodes: compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and at least internally walkable. Plan for and enable neighborhood-serving commercial districts rather than automobile-serving uses.
• Carefully detail the desired outcomes. It is important that retrofit efforts follow through desired outcomes such as reduced vehicle miles travelled, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased transit and bicycle ridership. 

Simulation of Suburban Street Transformation (Source: http://www.cityftmyers.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/605)

Conclusion

The complete streets concept provides an economically effective way to improve health, economic development, transportation efficiency and safety for communities. It has been proven that complete streets work in urban downtown areas. The same complete streets principals can be used to retrofit suburban infrastructure. This would be necessary to accommodate the future demands of housing for the next generation.

References:

Smart Growth America. (2013). Benefits of Complete Streets: Complete Streets stimulate the Local Economy

Retrieved from https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/factsheets/cs-economic.pdf

Fritz, P. (2012). Complete Streets: Economic Development & Placemaking

Retrieved from http://www.healthbydesignonline.org/documents/CompleteStreetsforEconomicDevelopmentandPlacemaking_PeteFritz.pdf

Smart Growth America. (March 2015). Safer Streets, Stronger Economies: Complete Streets project outcomes from across the country.

Braunstein, L. (May 2015). The evolving preferences of millennials. Urbanland.

Retrieved from http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/evolving-housing-preferences-millennials/

ECONorthwest. (August 2013). White paper on the economics of complete streets.

Retrieved from http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-complete-streets-whitepaper.pdf

VibrantNEO. (March 2014). The Economic Benefits of Complete Streets.

Retrieved from http://vibrantneo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/VibrantNEO_EconomicBenefitsofCompleteStreets.pdf

Complete Streets Act of 2008 (California)

Retrieved from

ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1358_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf

Benfield F. (May 27, 2015). Huffington Post. How thoughtful design is helping communities and the economy

Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/f-kaid-benfield/how-thoughtful-street-des_b_6951712.html

Smart Growth America. Complete Streets Stimulate the Local Economy.

Retrieved from

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/factsheets/cs-economic.pdf

Smart Growth America. Complete Streets Spark Economic Revitalization.

Retrieved from

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/factsheets/cs-revitalize.pdf

Wikipedia. Millennials.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials