For many cities that have endured the painful process of dissolving their redevelopment agencies, the bloodletting has begun anew.
The State Supreme Court heard oral arguments December 2 in the major Berkeley Hillside CEQA exemptions case, focusing on the legal significance of the term "unusual circumstances".
While the genesis of the case is a single residence, the ruling may have statewide impact on the application of exceptions to categorical exemptions from CEQA. Thus, the case has attracted interest from environmental advocates, public agencies, preservation activists, and the development community across the state.
So, one of the biggest questions in planning and development today – in California and elsewhere – is what accounts for the Millenials’ preferences for urban living and less driving. Is it generational? Or a lousy economy?
“I think our answer is yes,” says Brian Taylor, an urban planning professor at UCLA and head of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies there.
CP&DR News Summary, October 23, 2014: Undoing an apartment tower in Hollywood; 'Waters Of' comment period closing soon; General Plan deadlock in SLOBy Martha Bridegam on 23 October 2014 - 1:00pm
In brief California land use news this week:
You think this is going to be another piece about the shortcomings and backfires of the California Environmental Quality Act. It’s not.
It can sound like a simple step, to end Level of Service (LOS) metrics in CEQA transportation analysis. The more conceptually elegant Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric is easy to welcome in the abstract, with its incentives for shared and active transportation, its arguably simpler calculation methods, its potential to realign CEQA analysis with state climate protection law – and most of all, its escape from the addictive spiral of induced demand for broad, free-flowing highways that, under the logic of LOS analysis, always need widening again.
But in early August the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a detailed discussion draft setting out an alternative transportation impacts metric in compliance with last year's SB 743 mandate. And alongside the big-picture discussions of environmentally conscious innovation, the technical arguments began.
Dear CP&DR Readers,
By now, you may have heard that I have decided to move on from my current job as Planning Director of the City of San Diego to become the Director of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University in Houston. (See http://kinder.rice.edu/content.aspx?id=2147485438&blogid=306.) I’m writing this short missive to reassure you that I remain committed to California Planning & Development Report – and, in fact, I’ll have more motivation and bandwidth to devote to CP&DR than I have had in recent years.
CP&DR News Summary, August 12, 2014: Legislators, Brown, give themselves more time to finish $7.2 billion water bond; the whittling-down of Ponte Vista; 'boomerang funds', and moreBy Martha Bridegam on 12 August 2014 - 10:25am
August 11 would have been the deadline for California's statewide ballots to go to press, but state legislators pushed that date back as they continued to work on a water bond deal with Governor Jerry Brown. According to Ben Adler of Capitol Public Radio, details emerged late in the day of a plan calling for almost $7.2 billion in spending -- most of it in new bond funds -- of which $2.5 billion would support surface water storage projects.
CP&DR News Summary, August 5, 2014: Sacramento arena ruling appealed; Legislature is back; SF looks at Prop M office construction capBy Martha Bridegam on 5 August 2014 - 11:52am
Petitioners in the Saltonstall CEQA challenge to the Sacramento Kings arena project filed a notice of appeal July 31, but the Sacramento Bee reports the Kings began demolition at the downtown site anyway. The Saltonstall petitioners lost an injunction petition last week in superior court. The Bee reports the Kings' counsel argued that the NBA could purchase and move the team if the arena failed to open on time in October 2016. See http://bit.ly/1s7rraV and http://bit.ly/1saO6AV.
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review an appellate ruling that Priceline, Expedia, Travelocity and similar "online travel companies" (OTCs) did not have to pay San Diego hotel tax on income they derived using a "merchant model" approach to marketing local hotel rooms. The Second District ruled that if an OTC contracts with a hotel for a block of rooms at a fixed wholesale rate, and then retails them to guests at higher prices, then city hotel tax is due only on the wholesale rate, not the difference the OTC receives.