But despite these obstacles, the Vallco Town Center project has obtained a crucial go-ahead from the city of Cupertino – providing perhaps the most telling example yet of the power and scope of Senate Bill 35, the measure by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, that was enacted last year with the goal of spurring new housing construction.

The developer Sand Hill Property Co. plans to build 2,400 residential units, 400,000 square feet of retail space and 1.8 million square feet of office space at the mostly vacant 58-acre Vallco Mall property (pictured), which the company acquired in 2014. Half the residential units would fall in the affordable category.

SB35 requires cities that have lagged in meeting guidelines for new housing construction to approve properly zoned projects that have at least 10 percent affordable housing units, that pay union-scale wages to construction workers, and that meet other obligations. Cupertino is one of the nearly 98 percent of state cities that have not complied with housing construction obligations and are thus subject to SB35 fast-tracking, state officials said earlier this year.

On June 22, city planners notified Sand Hill that at the end of the initial 90-day review of the project provided for under SB35, it had been found “eligible for streamlined, ministerial review.” The developer must provide additional information during a second 90-day review process, but this is considered pro forma, and Sand Hill plans to begin construction in September.

Project may spur wave of makeovers of empty malls

The project may be a harbinger of more than just SB35’s usefulness in speeding up housing approvals. It could also signal a wave of makeovers of large shopping malls in California that were the centers of local commerce and social activities for decades but which have been hollowed out by the huge growth in online retailing.

The Vallco mall, which opened in 1976, long had nearly 200 tenants. Now only a few remain, including two restaurants, a bowling alley, skating rink and fitness center. Like many other declining malls in California, it is easily adaptable to housing and multi-use conversions because it has adequate parking and already-built infrastructure linking it to roads and mass transit. The mall is next to Interstate 280, on the other side of the freeway from Apple’s immense “spaceship” headquarters.

Even by Silicon Valley standards, Cupertino is among the most expensive cities for housing. Zillow’s latest data put its average home price at $2.36 million. Average apartment rents in May were $3,398, according to Rent Jungle.

Wiener told the San Francisco Chronicle he was “thrilled” to see the Cupertino project advance. It is likely to at least triple the number of housing units considered “affordable” in the 13-square-mile city of 64,000 residents.

Nevertheless, Cupertino Mayor Darcy Paul mostly stuck to his critical views of the project in a recent interview with the San Jose Mercury-News. He defended his comment in his February State of the City address that the housing crisis was exaggerated as being “technically” correct, lamented any reduction in local control of planning and said that his opposition was in sync with his constituents.

On a related front, Paul and other City Council members have expressed interest in imposing unique per-employee taxes on Apple to help cover the costs borne by the city because of the company’s massive long-term growth. Cupertino residents may be asked to vote on the tax next year.

A similar plan made national headlines in Seattle in May when the City Council voted unanimously to impose unique taxes on large employers like Amazon and Microsoft. Council members backed off last month after a backlash from both the business community and local residents.

A ballot measure that would repeal California’s 1995 state law limiting what properties can be subject to rent control seems certain to be on the November ballot after proponents submitted more than 565,000 signatures to state authorities last week, far above the minimum needed.

The measure’s lead sponsor is Michael Weinstein of the well-funded Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is working with tenants rights groups and social justice activists and which sponsored two 2016 state initiatives. At a news conference this week, Weinstein and his allies depicted rent control as an obvious solution to a housing crisis that has pushed rent and mortgages higher for years without drawing a vigorous response from local and state officials.

“The rents are too damn high and we need local control to solve the problem,” Elena Popp of the Eviction Defense Network said at a rally in Los Angeles, according to a published report,

The measure would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which banned rent control on housing units completed after its enactment and on existing single-family homes, duplexes and condos. The complex law imposed other limits as well, depending on rent-control provisions in individual cities.

Its passage came in the mid-1990s after developers backed by Republicans, planners and some community activists made the case that rent control laws adopted by 15 California cities after World War II – most notably Los Angeles and San Francisco – had had the effect of stifling new construction and leading landlords to skimp on renovations and repairs.

Economists and housing experts generally continue to see rent control as having a long-term negative effect on housing costs by making shortages more likely. A 2016 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office agreed with this conventional wisdom.

But with average monthly rents for two-bedroom apartments soaring past $2,500 in most Southern California coastal counties and above $4,000 in San Francisco and parts of Silicon Valley, public interest in rent control increased. In November 2016, eight measures to control housing costs were considered by Bay Area communities. Four passed, included laws capping annual rent hikes in Oakland, Mountain View, Alameda and Richmond.

Focus on housing stock plays better with policy wonks than public

The idea that rent control is no real long-term solution to a problem that is rooted in a shortage of housing units remains the view of some prominent Democrats. Most notably, Gov. Jerry Brown supported 2017’s Senate Bill 35, which makes it more difficult to use regulatory tactics to block properly zoned housing projects with at least some affordable units. According to one analysis, SB35 will compel more than 97 percent of California’s local governments to build more housing.

But this medium- and long-term approach to addressing the housing crisis has played better with policy wonks than the general public. Frustration over California housing costs has been a staple of social media and in the letters sections of newspapers for years.

This has caught the attention of elected officials. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti once appeared to be in the camp of those who saw adding housing stock as the key to slowing or stopping the increase in rent and mortgage costs. In 2014, the possible 2020 Democratic presidential candidate committed his administration to approving 100,000 new housing units by 2021 and has bragged about already being nearly three-quarters of the way to his goal.

But Garcetti surprised some political observers by coming to this week’s L.A. rally for the statewide rental control initiative and offering strong support. According to a City News Service report, Garcetti used one of the favorite talking points of activists – depicting rent control as a way for average citizens and City Hall to scale back the power of corporate and other interests. “I’ve always believed that those who live closest to a given block or a street know what’s best. Local government should have control over their own city,” he said.

In a statement, Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, offered a starkly different assessment: “This ballot measure will pour gasoline on the fire of California’s affordable housing crisis. It will do exactly the opposite of what it promises – instead of helping Californians, it will result in an affordable housing freeze and higher costs.”