Search Results

Following up on last year’s bumper crop of housing legislation, Sen. Scott Wiener has proposed Senate Bill 827, which would eliminate restrictions on the number of houses allowed to be built within a half-mile of train, light-rail, major bus routes, and other transit stations, and block cities from imposing parking requirements. This measure would dramatically increase new housing near transit stations across the state and effectively rewrite many local zoning ordinances. Those opposed to the measure say better ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be eliminating gasoline-powered cars and eventually gas stations. The principal supporter of SB 827 is California YIMBY, a pro-housing organization. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Judge Rules Against Sacramento in Gas Station Suit Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the City of Sacramento acted improperly two years ago when council members voted to deny developer Paul Petrovich’s application to build a gas station in his Crocker Village development. Kenny wrote that Councilman Jay Schenirer, who represents the project area, demonstrated an “unacceptable probability of actually bias” and failed to act in an open-minded manner. The judge ordered the city to “rescind” its permit denial and to hold a new hearing on the matter and directing Schenirer to recuse himself from the new hearing. Petrovich sued the city in early 2016 after the City Council denied his permit, 7-2. Petrovich claims Schenirer worked illegally with the Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Associated to deny the hearing. Schenirer is part of the neighborhood group, but also sent a series of emails and texts showing him helping to prepare a case against the gas station. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Four California Metros Place among Milken Inst’s Best-Performing Cities The Milken Institute released a report on “Best-Performing Cities: Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained” ranking the country’s top 25 large cities. In California, San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco took the 4th place, San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara dropped from 1st place to 11th, Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley 16th, and Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario moved from 44th to 20th position. Biggest gains among California cities from 2016 to 2017 were Visalia-Porterville from 98th to 54th, Modesto from 73rd to 33rd, and Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura from 112th to 81st. The largest drop came from Bakersfield which relies heavily on natural resources, in 2012 and 2013 the city made top 25 but is now ranked 161st. Another California region that fell significantly is Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, which fell from 19th to 47th last year. Costa-Hawkins Repeal Fails in Assembly Committee Four members of the state Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee declined to support a proposed bill that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkings, which prohibits cities and counties from implementing most new rent control policies. Committee members said they were concerned that a large growth in rent control could slow already lagging housing production in the state. There were two hours of public testimony on the bill. Those in favor of the proposed legislation say, “At a minimum, we’re entitled to stability. That’s a human right.” Currently, 15 cities across the state have some form of rent control. Those in favor of rent control are collecting signatures for a possible November 2018 ballot measure that would repeal the law. (See prior CP&DR coverage of rent control.) New Fire Safety Rules and Map Forthcoming The California Public Utilities Commission adopted new fire safety rules in December but will extend the deadline until July for completing its fire hazards map.The map will show which parts of California face an elevated or extreme risk of wildfires.A commission spokeswoman says they are just weeks away from completing the development and adoption of the high fire threat map. The higher the risk in a particular area, the tougher the rules that will apply to electrical utilities operating there such as how often utilities must inspect their equipment, how far tree branches must be kept from electrical lines, and how companies prioritize safety-related repairs. UC Berkeley Studies Impacts of ADUs The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley has released a preliminary study of statewide and local policies to promote development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). “ Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes ” shows significant increases in ADU applications: Los Angeles increased from 90 applications in 2015 to 1,980 in 2017 and San Francisco from 41 to 593 in the same time period. While these application numbers are encouraging, there are still a number of barriers when considering building an ADUs such as development fees, school fees, and code requirements. Federal Proposal May Open California Waters to Drilling President Trump’s proposal to open up coastal California to new oil and gas drilling, while unsettling to many environmentalists, may not amount to much. Ralph Faust, a former general counsel for the California Coastal Commission, said the high price of oil offers little incentive to the energy industry to pursue expensive drilling projects. The Interior Department released plans to offer 47 leases off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to new oil and gas exploration and drilling through a five-year leasing program that would begin in 2019. The Trump plan must go through a public comment period and an extensive environmental review. The state coastal commission also has the authority to review activities in federal waters.

Any planner with an ounce of awareness should support social justice and fight for anyone who feels excluded from the bounties of global capitalist urbanism. I try to count myself among those ranks. And yet, as I reflect on the gentrification debates of 2017, I grow increasingly anxious for what the future holds. For at least the last two years, we have been running a race between the adoption of municipal and statewide policies to promote responsible housing development and the reactionary frustration of marginalized stakeholders and left-wing activists. In places like Los Angeles’s Boyle Heights and San Francisco’s Mission, those frustrations have already erupted, into a combination of protests and combative – if not necessarily productive – political organizing. Even less productive: the indifference of many residents in static, wealthy neighborhoods. I’ve issued my share of criticism of the current wave of anti-gentrification protests and rhetoric. They rightfully express anger, but they often misdirect it. They demonize market-rate development and consider anything new — even something as benign as a coffee house — to be a symptom of cultural erasure and capitalist exploitation. (Case in point: the passionately written but intellectually bankrupt book How to Kill a City .) Most interestingly, these groups tend to protest the one thing that can solve a housing crisis: more housing. Housing in amounts that, barring a major and unlikely transformation of the industry, can be provided only by for-profit developers. They include the Los Angeles Tenants Union, Defend Boyle Heights, the Coalition to Preserve L.A., Our Mission No Eviction and many smaller groups. Many of these groups and their supporters recently amassed at Los Angeles’s first ever “ Resist Gentrification Action Summit .” I could not attend, and I’m sure the organizers were not crushed. They didn’t exactly send me a gold-leaf invitation.  The upshot of the event, and many of these protests, is that new development must serve local populations and that the only good development is nonprofit development (or some related form of cooperative or subsidized development.) They often claim that market-rate development equals displacement or that new development raises housing costs community-wide. But that’s only true a) if new development replaces existing housing; and b) if nearby housing isn’t rent-controlled.  They’re basically saying that they’ll reflexively support anyone who currently lives in a rent-controlled unit but everyone else who seeks housing — no matter how wealthy or poor they might be — should just move along.  To a great extent, these communities deserve their grievances and their own solutions. Many disadvantaged communities in the United States, including plenty in California, were created by the segregationist policies of the 20th century. They were designed to be disenfranchised, separated from decent schools, decent jobs, and political power. I’m willing to give a degree of deference to residents who feel, accurately or not, that they’ve been exploited for generations.  And yet, Los Angeles still has a housing shortage. Like all housing shortages, it victimizes the poor more so than anyone else. And, like all crises, solving this one requires everyone’s participation — lest the rich further marginalize the poor. That’s not so much a moral position as it is an Archemedian reality. Human beings take up space. If they can’t take up space in one place, they will take it up in another place. And if space is scarce, wealthy humans will pay for the space they need. If these communities are going to, at the same time, decry the invasion of newcomers and oppose most development, then they face but one option: they must promote development elsewhere. If gentrification is evil, then let’s do the opposite. I challenge leaders in disadvantaged communities — and everyone else who believes in equity — to stop decrying the invasion of those communities and start promoting the development of other communities. Since they are, essentially, trying to keep capitalism out of their neighborhoods, they might as well go whole-hog and explain why other neighborhoods, where people have done very well by capitalism, should accept it. That strategy might sound hypocritical — because it is — but that doesn’t make it unjust.  What if activists brought their passions and arguments to advantaged communities? They should speak to Neighborhood Councils and homeowners associations. They should lobby planners and elected officials. They should explain why their livelihood depends on development in places that might be five or even ten miles away from their own homes. In Los Angeles, I’m thinking of places like West L.A., Hancock Park, Miracle Mile, and Westwood, among others. These are all neighborhoods that do just fine for themselves and that frequently oppose new development. They need to hear from outside voices. They need to understand the pain that their choices are causing. They need to be compelled, inspired, or, if needed, guilted into inviting more people to share in their prosperity. If gentrification threatens poor neighborhoods, then we have no choice but to welcome poor residents into rich neighborhoods.  Naturally, stakeholders in Hancock Park or Westwood will ask why they should support more housing and new residents when many of their counterparts in Boyle Heights or Leimert Park do not. The answer is that what appears to be unfair in the short term is actually entirely fair in the long term. The poor neighborhoods of urban America have been kept poor for a very long time, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes insidiously. Segregation has been imposed on them. Anti-gentrification attitudes may seem like just another version of segregation — and perhaps they are — but it would be on their own terms. In these cases, segregation might equal protection.  Likewise, activists in poorer communities might wonder why they have to be the ones to take action, spend time, and raise their voices against spatial injustice to educate people in wealthy communities. I have no satisfying answer for them, other than this: if they don't do it, no one else will. Ultimately, it's a worthy cause that will help Angelenos of all persuasions. If the critics of gentrification simply want to fight, I cannot help them. If the opponents of development simply want to oppose, I cannot help them either. Cities are where people congregate, mingle, and help each other be the best they can be. If they are willing to see themselves as citizens and collaborators, they can walk proudly into unfamiliar -- not enemy — territory and help their fellow citizens understand their concerns and work towards solutions.  That’s a meeting I will gladly attend, no gold leaf necessary.

Five decades and six months after the Summer of Love, the age of legalized cannabis has arrived in California. As of January 1, cities may officially permit the sale and commercial production of smokeable marijuana and other wacky products to consenting adults, not just those who have back pain or faint appetites. Once confined to crowds of peaceniks in Golden Gate Park, marijuana is finally free. Within limits, of course. California’s marijuana regulations, as ordered by Proposition 64, which passed comfortably in 2016 after many prior defeats, defines minimum standards for locating cannabis-related facilities. It includes sensible restrictions like minimum distances to schools and types of signage allowed (neon green crosses, and punny names have become the signifiers of choice). The regulations also permit cities and counties to impose stricter regulations – or to ban commercial activities entirely. Jurisdictions must decide whether they want to satisfy their residents’ demands and reap tax sales tax revenue – or whether marijuana is too unseemly for their fair cities. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) This discussion came up in a meeting of the land use committee of my local Neighborhood Council in West Los Angeles, on which I sit. One of my colleagues, clearly unnerved by the whole notion of legalized marijuana – and by the conflict between federal and state law – encouraged us to resist any form of commercial marijuana on “ethical” grounds. I’m not about to predict Jeff Sessions’s inclinations on this matter. But let’s talk about “ethics”. Let us not doubt that every decision concerning the built environment includes ethical components. Every publicly useable or visible building, whether large or small, ugly or fair, imposes itself on other people. Every imposition is, by definition, an ethical choice. When, for instance, Apple’s Jonathan Ive says We didn't make Apple Park for other people – referring to the company’s new intergalactic doughnut in Menlo Park -- he’s making an ethical statement, whether he likes (or knows) it or not. That’s because, of course, “other people” have to look at it, contend with traffic generated by it, etc. In autocracies like Turkmenistan or the Apple Corp., ethical considerations – for better or worse – might not matter a whit. But in democracies, they matter quite a bit. And they naturally apply to storefronts that sell marijuana. My colleague was right to raise the issue. I, personally, do not have an ethical problem with selling or using cannabis. If, though, we’re going to condemn one form of legal commerce on ethical grounds, we might as well take a look at all the others while we’re at it. The neighborhood in question is not exactly Haight-Ashbury. It’s a predictable upscale collection of hair salons, restaurants, juice bars, and fitness studios. How many of my neighbors smoke a bowl after doing downward dogs is anyone’s guess. If we care about ethics, though, a few of our existing, perfectly legal establishments may warrant scrutiny. Starting with the obvious, what about the bars, wine stores, and grocery stores? The antisocial effects of alcohol are exhaustively documented. For every stoner who has stubbed his toe while high, someone has lost a life to drunk driving. What about the dry cleaners, desoiling $100 business shirts and $2,000 evening gowns with chemicals that would peel your skin off? What about vacant lots, growing uglier by the day, offending passers-by and denying would-be residents the chance to live there? What about the chain restaurants, clogging arteries and paying scarcely minimum wage in the expectation that diners will show their largesse? What about the hair salons, where the cost of a blow-dry could feed a homeless person for a week? What about the homeless themselves, camping on our sidewalks rather than being housed with dignity? What about the former redlining, blockbusting, HOA covenants, and discriminatory lending practices whose echoes still resound in neighborhoods rich and poor? What about the gas stations, dispensing a product that has swallowed more money, instigated more wars, supported more dictators, and blackened more lungs than probably any other in human history? What, indeed, about the “ethics” of selling marijuana? We need not condemn every land use decision humanity has ever made. We have arrived at this point largely through convention, inertia, rational analysis, and good faith. In some cases, we have inherited, and perpetuated, landscapes created by coercion and acculturation that took place before any of us were born and, in many cases, before our cities were ever built. We need not have ethical crises with every step we take or every mile we drive. And yet, we should not apply asymmetrical standards just because something is new. The appeal of “grandfathering” depends entirely on who your grandfather is. Surely it’s reasonable not to want our children to be tempted by cannabinoid fantasies. But do we want them buying gasoline? Do we want them spending all of their allowance on hair care? Do we want them to shrug as they pass the destitute veteran on the sidewalk? Do we really want them to grow up in neighborhoods scarcely less segregated than those in which we grew up and which instilled our values in us? These questions do not yield easy answers, whether you’re discussing them stone-cold sober at a community meeting or drawing deep thoughts out of a tight, fat, and – finally -- legal joint. A version of this piece appears on Common Edge Collaborative . 

The Nature Conservancy acquired the Cojo-Jalama Ranches through a $165 million gift from a couple who has long sought to protect the stretch of Santa Barbara County coastline from development. The property consists of roughly 24,000 acres, stretching south of Vandenberg Air Force Base along the coast and several miles inland; it includes Point Conception. It will be renamed the Jack and Laura Dangermond Preserve, founders of ESRI, who donated the money. The twin parcels contain oak woodlands, coastal prairies, beaches, and up to 50 rare and endangered species. The Nature Conservancy intends to maintain the cattle operations on the property and keep it closed to the public while it conducts an 18-month study of its resources. Controversial Sacramento Development to Proceed on Wetlands The Sacramento Planning Commission approved , 3-1, developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos’ controversial plans to develop open space in Sacramento County’s vineyard area that residents believed would remain a protected wetland preserve. Silver Springs Lot P is owned by Tsakopoulos but in 1991 the county enacted strong protections that would ensure the property north of Elk Grove would remain a nature preserve. Residents say they purchased large $1 million homes because of the location adjacent to a 91.5 acre open space preserve. AKT Development plans to build 46 homes on half-acre lots with 50 acres remaining as permanent preserve with walking trails and maintenance for invasive species. The project must still have approval from the county Board of Supervisors and be signed off by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Long Beach Ramps Up Urban Agriculture Program The City of Long Beach is giving vacant lot owners tax incentives by entering a contract with the city to use empty lots for agricultural purposes for five years. The Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Program is also being applied in San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, and Santa Clara. The goal of the program is economic growth, community development, access to local organic produce, and improving of deteriorating air quality. In the Long Beach program, vacant lots must be between 0.10 and 3 acres in size, have no habitable structures, and comply with zoning codes. While the program has many benefits it needs a community-minded property owner with a vacant lot and no plans to develop in the next five years paired with a sophisticated urban farming nonprofit. It is estimated the starting capital is around $15,000 to $20,000 to cover soil remediation, fencing, water access, security and other operating expenses. UCLA Luskin Releases Policy Briefs on L.A. Housing Crisis UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs has released a series of policy briefs surrounding affordable housing stock in the region. One brief finds that some low-cost housing has been lost in Los Angeles that majority of new multifamily units (both market rate and affordable) have been replacing single-family homes or on land not previously used for residential development. The study also found most of the new multifamily housing was not being built on the wealthier Westside but mostly in central and south Los Angeles.  Another looks at repealing Proposition U, which in 1986 cut the floor area ratio (FAR) in half for most of the city’s commercial and manufacturing-zoned land. LA City Council has included two new Residential Accessory Services (RAS) zoning designation to facilitate housing development with ground floor commercial uses but these RAS zones are rare. The study suggests the value of each commercial parcel is lower due to diminished development potential. (See prior CP&DR  commentary .) The final brief looks at opposition to new housing throughout the state and the importance of addressing opposition to new and affordable housing and density. The study found many neighborhood councils in LA cite “lack of engagement with the community”, “neighborhood character” or “too much density” as reasons to oppose housing projects. The recommendations for addressing housing opposition problems are enhancing and enforcing existing housing laws, making the planning process more inclusive, and shifting the scale of land use decisions from local to regional/state. Quick Hits & Updates Two San Francisco supervisors have introduced a measure for the June ballot that would split the existing San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency into two departments. The proposal would split parking and traffic management from Muni, and hopefully help address concerns of the city’s allegedly mismanaged transit policies. Del Mar City Councilmember Terry Sinnott was unanimously elected as the new board chairman of SANDAG. Sinnott roused controversy recently when, in a brief interview after his election, he declined to acknowledge the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. SANDAG is currently conducing a nationwide search for a new executive director. The San Francisco Planning Department presented the results of the 2016 Commerce and Industry Inventory to the Planning Commission. Between 2015 and 2016, the city added 27,048 new jobs but the number of building permits declined two percent. While the city did not tally the number of actual new units added, the U.S. census estimate says the city added roughly 2,600 new homes meaning one new home per every 10.4 new jobs. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and East Bay Congressman Mark DeSaulnier are promoting a new vehicular and rail crossing over the San Francisco Bay. The two suggest the effort be undertaken under Regional Measure 3, a $4.5 billion measure that the MTC hopes to place before voters next June. A 2012 MTC study shows the cost of putting a vehicle-rail bridge from near SFO to the southern edge of San Leandro at $12.4 billion and three different alignments of a new BART tube would be roughly $8.2 billion to $11.2 billion. The Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group say they’re focusing on first passing Regional Measure 3. The Santa Rosa City Council will consider an immediate ban on evictions of low-income residents while the state of emergency remains in effect. According to Santa Rosa housing officials, since the fires, 15 residents paying federally subsidized rent have been issued 90-day eviction notices. The Council has the ability to pass the measure as an “urgency” ordinance, meaning it would only take five votes to pass and would go into effect immediately. The NRDC filed suit against the cities of Pasadena and Murrieta for their failure to comply with the state’s Water Conservation Landscaping Act. The lawsuit alleges both cities failed to adopt new landscaping standards by December 1, 2015; issued permits for hundreds of units and associated landscaping since then without applying the state-required standards; and failed to submit required reports to the state on the content and enforcement of their local landscape requirements. According to a survey by the San Francisco Transportation Authority, a majority (70 percent) of San Francisco voters think businesses including Uber, Lyft, and food-delivery services, should pay more taxes. The poll is an effort to figure out how to pay for an estimated $22 billion in transit and street improvements which are needed between now and 2045 according to a mayoral transportation task force. Santa Rosa City Council members are in a 3-3 deadlock on changing the zoning of a 40-acre Fountaingrove commercial property to allow for 237 new homes. The area was decimated by the fire in October and half of the councilmember are worried about putting future residents in harm’s way. The other councilmembers say the entire city is in an earthquake danger zone but that disasters are a fact of life. The council is hoping to get some more information to help decide how to treat new housing request in burn areas and will come back to the issue in February. A new BART station in Richmond opened  recently. The station includes new pedestrian and bicycle-friendly entrances. Part of the new entryways function is to extend the Nevin Avenue Streetscape project, completed earlier this year, as a pedestrian-friendly connection between BART and the Civic Center. The area is also part of the TOD downtown plan with between 900 to 1,000 new housing units planned in the near future within walking distance of the station. Los Angeles City Councilmember David Ryu effectively killed an effort to put a one-mile stretch of Sixth Street between La Brea Avenue and Fairfax Avenue on a “road diet”. Numerous neighborhood organizations and safe streets advocates are discouraged by the statement and efforts to make LA streets safer. Ryu said in a statement that his office will move forward with adding left-turn pockets at some intersections, peak-hour left-turn restriction at Burnside Avenue, and several crosswalks. Scotts Valley acting community development director, Taylor Bateman, refused  to consider an application saying the developer’s concept proposed too much housing and conflicted with the general plan. The project proposed 44 apartments, eight town homes, and 24,891 square feet of commercial space. The developer Granum Partners and land-use consultant Charlie Eadie are appealing the decision to the city Planning Commission. Garden Grove City Council approved , 6-0, a development agreement for a 769-room three hotel resort on 5.18 acre property on Harbor Boulevard. Land & Design and the American subsidiary of the Shanghai Construction Group paid $852,571 in fees. The city is giving the site to the developer, paying up to $250,000 in improvements to the site, and giving tax subsidies worth at least $17.6 million. The final vote was to set a five-year deadline for the developer to complete construction of the project. The City of San Diego and San Diego County Water Authority are closing in on a deal to construct a giant new hydroelectric facility in East County. The $1.8 billion project would make enough green energy to power 325,000 homes. The two agencies are looking for a private developer to shoulder much of the cost and risk. The final deal would require approval from San Diego City Council and isn’t expected until the spring. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Agency Board of Directors unanimously granted property rights at Mount Umunhum to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. The cultural conservation easement provides permanent rights recorded on the deed to the 36 acres that once was occupied by the Almaden Air Force Station to the tribe. The tribe will be allowed to build a garden in a flat area and can hold up to six ceremonies a year on the summit where the public is excluded. Additionally the tribe can apply to build a roundhouse for educational and ceremonial purposes.

CP&DR Vol. 32 No. 12 December 2017

The Thomas Fire started in a Ventura County park near Santa Paula one evening and within only a few hours – aided by winds up to 80 miles an hour – reached the beachfront city of Ventura, my former hometown. By the next afternoon 400 homes had burned down – most of them in hillside neighborhoods, but a few of them down in the flats where the winds blew embers. For two weeks the fire threatened towns up and down the Ventura/Santa Barbara coast. Now it’s contained, but not before burning almost 300,000 acres and winning the distinction of being the biggest wildfire in California history.

An appellate court has ruled in favor of the City of Wildomar and Wal-Mart in a long-running and acrimonious dispute with San Diego-based environmental lawyer Cory Briggs over a proposed Wal-Mart store in Wildomar, a city in western Riverside County.

As business sales move increasingly away from bricks-and-mortar retail locations, the question of where the sale actually occurs – and therefore which city gets the sales tax – is growing in importance. In particular, cities have increasingly sought to recruit business-to-business sales offices in hopes of capturing the sales tax. And a new Court of Appeal ruling suggests that’s the right strategy. The First District Court of Appeal recently ruled that state Board of Equalization acted properly in switching a medical supply company’s point of sale – and $17 million in sales taxes – from Fontana, Lathrop, and San Bernardino, where the company’s warehouses were located, to Ontario, where a subsidiary company opened a sales office as part of a deal with the Ontario Redevelopment Agency. The First District reversed a trial judge, rejecting the argument that Ontario should not be considered the point of sale in light of the fact that there appeared to be no “paper trail” suggesting a transfer of ownership of the sales items from the parent company to the subsidiary before they were sold to the customer. Rather, the appellate court chose to give the Board of Equalization great deference in the matter. Given the lengthy administrative proceeding in front of the board, the court ruled, “it is for the Board in the first instance to interpret and administer an intensely detailed and fact-specific sales tax system governing an enormous universe of transactions.” The case involved Medline, a medical supply company based in Illinois that historically did business in California through a series of sales agents and maintained warehouses in Lathrop and Fontana (though the Fontana warehouse was later moved to San Bernardino). In 2005, however, Medline made a deal with the City of Ontario. Under the agreement, Medline created a California-based subsidiary, MedCal Sales, which was located in space in Ontario subleased from Medline. MedCal reported Ontario as the point of sale and in return Ontario rebated 50% of MedCal’s sales tax back to the company. Once this new arrangement was implemented in 2007, six years of administrative hearings in front of the Board of Equalization commenced. During this administrative proceeding, the Board’s staff expressed concern that there was no legal document memorializing the transfer of ownership of the medical supplies from Medline to Medcal prior to the sale to the final customer. Nevertheless, in 2014, the board ruled in favor of Medcal and Ontario and against the warehouse cities. The board wrote: “We find credible and persuasive the statements made by taxpayer’s representatives that the outside sales staff principally negotiated the subject sales and that they were assigned to work out of taxpayer’s Ontario office when they became employees of taxpayer. This means their selling activities are attributed to the Ontario office even when such activities are done from their homes, on the road traveling to meet customers at their places of business, or at the customers’ places of business. Thus, the sales are subject to sales tax based on the undisputed fact that title to the goods passed inside California and based on our finding that the Ontario office participated in the sales by virtue of the activities of the outside sales staff. Since the negotiations by the outside sales staff are associated with the Ontario office, we find taxpayer is required to hold a seller’s permit for that office.” The warehouse cities then sued and secured a favorable ruling from Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio M. Grillo, who found “that the BOE failed to apply established California law on the transfer of title, and that under the correct application of California law there is no substantial evidence for the BOE’s factual finding that MedCal (the sales entity) transferred title to the customers and was responsible for paying the sales tax.” But in a unanimous opinion written by Justice James A. Richman, the First District Court of Appeal not only reversed Grillo’s ruling but criticized him for viewing the entire case from the perspective of the warehouse cities. “It must be conceded that the tenor of the trial court’s lengthy order is troubling,” Richman wrote. “It appears to reflect a de novo review, with no suggestion of deference to the final result of the extensive administrative proceedings. It does seem to approach the matter from the perspective of Cities—stating what does not support the Board instead of looking to see what does—thus appearing to put the burdens of persuasion and proof on the Board. Also, it is disconcerting to see the statements made at the hearing by Medline officers—which obviously could support the Board’s decision—virtually dismissed out of hand.” Referring to extensive case law, Richman wrote: “Cities cannot merely point to evidence that supports the trial court’s decision, nor can they selectively cull the administrative record for the bits and pieces that may not support the Board. Cities must go beyond that, establishing that the evidence in the administrative record is so comprehensively one-sided that the Board’s decision was not only against the weight of that evidence, it was a decision so lacking in support that it cannot command the assent of reasonable minds.” He concluded that the board could have gone either way in the case with legitimacy, thus making the court’s deference to the board the primary issues in the case. “So, which entity is the ‘retailer’ that made the “sale” that involved “transfer of title”? (§§ 6015, 6006, subd. (a).) Is it MedCal, as the Board’s staff initially concluded and the Board ultimately concluded, or is it Medline, as the Board’s staff and Appeals Division intermediately concluded? Given the administrative U-turns, either result could command substantial evidence from this administrative record, and neither would be compelled as a matter of law. Either result could be reached by reasonable administrators.” The Case: City of Fontana v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, No. A147642 (November 28, 2017). The Lawyers: For “warehouse cities” (Fontana, Lathrop, and San Bernardino): Leslie Allen Hausrath, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, lhausrath@wendel.com For state tax officials: Anne Michelle Burr, Deputy Attorney General, AnneMichelle.Burr@doj.ca.gov For City of Ontario: Charles L. Coleman III, Holland & Knight, ccoleman@hklaw.com

The Office of Planning and Research has released long-awaited CEQA guidelines that, by many accounts, promise to revolutionize the way developers and lead agencies measure the transportation impacts of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. The guidelines call for applicants to analyze not the impacts on nearby intersections — the commonly used metric known as “level of service,” which was never mandated by CEQA but has been the de facto standard — but rather to analyze “vehicle miles traveled”: the amount of driving that the project is likely to generate. “This proposal will streamline project review, particularly in cities and for transportation projects such as new bike or bus lanes that improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases,” said OPR Director Ken Alex in a statement. "These rules make clear that reducing vehicle miles resulting from projects is a state goal and an environmental benefit.” Planners have long felt that LOS backfired, privileging cars over all other forms of mobility. “It exacerbates the very problem it pretends to solve. It’s really bad for motorists,” said Jeff Tumlin, Principal at Nelson\\Nygaard. “Metrics like VMT actually help solve the problem motorists experience by using development to make it easier not to drive.” The use of VMT is mandated by Senate Bill 743, which passed in 2013. Complementing Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375, SB 743 seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by influencing transpiration and land use patterns. Essentially, VMT analysis enables lead agencies to favor projects that generate fewer miles and, therefore, less traffic and fewer emissions, rather than projects that relieve localized congestion. Since its passage, OPR has engaged in a long, methodical process of drafting and outreach — including several preliminary draft guidelines — to arrive at the current iteration of the guidelines. (See prior CP&DR coverage of VMT v. LOS.) OPR has transmitted the update — which cleans up other elements of the CEQA guidelines beyond VMT analysis — to the California Natural Resources Agency. The Natural Resources Agency will soon begin the formal administrative rule making process, which will entail additional public review, and may lead to further revisions. The guidelines survived a legislative challenge in 2015 that could have delayed them further. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Rave Reviews While the guidelines took longer than many proponents had hoped, the response from many planners has been overwhelmingly positive. “They did an excellent job in thinking through how you would apply this to the transportation and land use projects,” said Matthew Baker, policy director at the Planning & Conservation League, an advocacy group which often serves as the primary defender of CEQA in the state. In order to accommodate the state’s broad range of agencies and geographical, the guidelines enable agencies to define VMT in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. This flexibly was crucial for broad buy-in, because the guidelines apply to the entire state rather than to only transit-oriented neighborhoods, as some stakeholders had suggested during the drafting process. The guidelines do not mandate what threshold jurisdictions must adopt, but they recommend that thresholds be reasonably lower – 15 percent – than existing regional averages. “OPR struck a very clever balance in order to get broad political support for this remarkable change,” said Tumlin. “Part of that balance is providing a great deal of flexibility for lead agencies.” The guidelines also enable cities and regions to set their own thresholds of significance. Thresholds will likely be set based on a region’s existing average VMT, with significance levels set somewhat below existing conditions. It may be a tricky process for some regions, especially those with rural and urban areas. “We’re trying to weigh the pros and cons of (15 percent thresholds) as opposed to establishing something specific for Sacramento County,” said Todd Smith, principal planner at the County of Sacramento. “If we set our significance threshold low, that’ll have potentially political implications for those geographical locations where the VMT would be higher for (many) projects.” “It's not expecting developers in Madera to be able to achieve a trip generation rate comparable to downtown Los Angeles,” said Tumlin. Planners in large cities predict that the guidelines will essentially obviate the need for environmental impact reports for most infill developments, especially those in dense urban cores. Projects that would have been prohibitive under LOS because of their vehicular impacts to nearly intersections may not need any transportation analysis review if their VMT per capita falls below thresholds. The result, say some planners, can make their — and developers’ — jobs much easier, and it could be revelatory for cities that are trying to increase densities and pursue progressive planning strategies. “Transportation as an area of analysis under CEQA is essentially gone for many infill projects,” said Ethan Elkind, director of the Climate Program at the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at UC Berkeley School of Law. “If you’re within a half-mile of a major transit stop…it’s very likely that you’re not going to have to do any sort of transportation analysis.” Unintended Consequences? For all of the exuberance surrounding VMT analysis, critics warn that their benefits may be over-hyped and even irrelevant to the actual goals of SB 743, which include GHG emission reductions, development of multimodal transportation networks, and diverse land uses. Moore noted that, under SB 743, VMT addresses these goals only by implication. “It’s an indirect measure, so it has all the problems that tend to come with indirect measures,” said Adrian Moore, vice president at the Reason Foundation. “If you’re worried about congestion, sprawl, pollution, and GHG emissions – VMT is just a crude approximation to try to get at them.” Moreover, the advent of electric vehicles promises to nullify VMT analysis’ effect on greenhouse gas emissions. “What does the VMT metric...mean when we're looking at increased availability and use of electric vehicles?” said Sacramento County’s Smith. Even if SB 743 is seen from an urbanist perspective rather than an environmental perspective, the complexity of California’s urban landscape may further muddle both the planning and emissions-related goals of SB 743. Moore offered the example of a proposed Walmart store that might, on its face, exceed VMT thresholds and draw many customers from, say, a 10-mile radius. And yet, those customers might already be visiting a Walmart 30 miles away. Thus, what seems like unfavorable VMT analysis could obscure even worse existing conditions. ”Are we sure that it’s….not going to create a lot of unintended consequences that are just going to beget more interventions?” said Moore. While Moore said that LOS’s promotion of sprawl is “100 percent true," he made the broader point that cities and job centers often shift in California. So favorable metrics that relate to one job center might turn terrible with the development of job centers elsewhere. "Polycentric doesn’t even capture (California)…it’s super-polycentric,” said Moore. “This measure...doesn’t take into account the dynamic changes as people choose to live and work in ways than minimize their personal costs.” And, in some ways, Moore seems VMT as an enabler of sprawl — just with slightly better access to amenities and alternative modes of transportation. On balance, though, proponents say that VMT analysis will be beneficial even in rural areas, and it might inspire developers to change their business models. “There’s a very easy solution for a Central Valley developer: focus on infill even in the small towns. That’s all you need to do,” said Tumlin. While VMT metrics seem to favor new developments nestled in dense urban areas, proponents say that they also benefit residents of existing single-family homes and suburban communities. That’s because new development in urban cores may equal less development on the urban fringe and, therefore, less traffic for residents to contend with as they commute to and from job centers. On the urban fringe, VMT metrics may compel developers to create more complete communities rather than single-use bedroom communities that are tied to job centers and amenities only by long stretches of semi-rural highway. “It holds the developer's feet to the fire and the county's to make sure we have planned, sustainable, smart growth strategies in place as we’re entertaining new development,” said Matt Treber, planning director of Madera County. Most controversially, highways themselves — and all other roads — are exempt form VMT analysis. Many proponents of VMT consider this move to be counterproductive, since the building of new roads can, in some places, create induced demand. “Roads, being the largest VMT generator in the transportation system, and the primary way that enables more low-density, car-oriented development that runs completely counter to the intent of 743,” said Baker. Even this provision may have an upside. Because metropolitan planning organizations typically set priorities for intra-regional transportation projects, including roads, their decisions carry significant weight under SB 743. This, in turn, links VMT analysis with each region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. “I think it wisely suggests a lot of importance on the SCSs,” said Tumlin. “It closes some doors for highway opponents to stop projects that have been already programmed and environmentally cleared in regional plans. But in doing that, I think it elevates the value of regional planning." Early Adopters A handful of jurisdictions — mostly major cities — have already adopted VMT metrics on their own. They did so in part to anticipate SB 743 and in part because they independently determined that VMT metrics complimented their urban planning goals. Pasadena was the first and has been followed by San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, among others. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Early reviews from those jurisdictions have been positive. “(LOS) was flawed, time-consuming, expensive. We had a real vested interest in doing environmental review in a way that is more comprehensive that looks at the method of travel, how far a person is going, how many other people are in the vehicle, etcetera to look at the effects on the environment,” said Lisa Gibson, Director of Environmental Planning at the City and County of San Francisco. "It is a very easy to understand metric overall. It's not something that’s subject to a lot interpretation. It’s empirical….it’s a clear threshold…. The results have been easily understood,” added Gibson. In Pasadena, which was the first city in California to adopt VMT metrics, Planning Director David Reyes said that developers have been eager to collaborate. He cited a large apartment complex near a Gold Line light rail station that, because of the application of VMT metrics, was found to have no impacts and approved without an EIR. The city and developer are discussing mitigation measures like transit passes for residents and pedestrian improvements whereas under LOS the only option might have been to widen nearby streets and create additional turn lanes. “At first was confusion,” said Reyes. “Everybody for so long had been conditioned to understand vehicles trips and delay at intersections. When you flip the script on them, there’s an educational process.” For the majority of the state’s jurisdictions, though, the release of the guidelines initiates a long-awaited process by which planning departments statewide will have to devise new thresholds, retool their methodologies, and adopt a new frame of mind. The process could even strain department resources in smaller departments. New Paradigm for Planners The upside, however, is that VMT analysis promises to be much simpler and less time-consuming in the long run. “It is a very easy-to-understand metric overall,” said Gibson. "It's not something that’s subject to a lot interpretation. It’s empirical, it’s a clear threshold, you’re either above it or below it.” By contrast, LOS relies on a letter grade system and requires analysis of as many individual intersections as could be impacted, thus creating a snarl of data points. Even some places that might seem to be at odds with VMT analysis, such as rural areas that do not have the dense neighborhoods and abundant transit options that VMT favors, are already prepared for the new metrics. “It wouldn’t be a significant barrier to those developments because they are planned appropriately with jobs and housing balance,” said Treber. “In every instance the county has been looking at these to ensure that we don’t have a bedroom community to the city of Fresno.” One of the big policy questions that these jurisdictions will likely have to address is that of impact fees. Currently, impact fees are assessed according to the magnitude of a project’s impact on traffic flow and on the cost of associated mitigation measures — typically meaning roadway improvements. "One thing that cities struggle with is LOS is actually written into their impact fees,” said Manoj Madhavan, transportation planner with the San Francisco Planning Department. Under VMT, jurisdictions will have to recalibrate their fees and, in many cases, identify a whole new suite of mitigation measures, which might include everything from funding for bike lanes to subsidies for bus passes to sidewalk improvements. “They're losing CEQA as an exactions tool for roadway infrastructure,” said Tumlin. “Fortunately it’s very easy to do transportation impact fees in California, but it requires effort.” Ultimately, CEQA analyses are enforced by lawsuits. VMT metrics may open the door to a whole new subchapter in the long story of CEQA case law as opponents challenge projects. Then again, VMT might even prove to be far less contentious. “The way the guidelines are written, they gives more deference to lead agency determinations on transportation,” said Elkind. “That could help shield the lead agencies and project proponents from lawsuits.” Elkind noted that litigiousness is usually not limited to transportation impacts anyway. “If somebody is going to sue over the CEQA analysis they’ll probably lump in the transportation analysis anyway,” said Elkind. "They always sue under a bunch of different areas of CEQA analysis.” Contacts & Resources  CEQA Guidelines Update , Nov. 2017 (including VMT analysis) Matthew Baker , Policy Director, Planning & Conservation League Ethan Elkind,  Director, Climate Program, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment, UC Berkeley School of Law,  eelkind@law.berkeley.edu Lisa Gibson , Environmental Review Officer/Director of Environmental Planning, Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco lisa.gibson@sfgov.org Manoj Madhavan , Transportation Team Lead Adrian Moore , Vice President, Reason Foundation,  adrian.moore@reason.org David Reyes, P lanning Director, City of Pasadena,  davidreyes@cityofpasadena.net Todd Smith , Principal Planner, County of Sacramento, smithtodd@saccounty.net Matt Treber, Planning Director, Madera County, matthew.treber@co.madera.ca.gov Jeffrey Tumlin,  Principal, Nelson\\\\Nygaard,  jtumlin@nelsonnygaard.com Prior CP&DR Coverage of VMT: OPR Revises SB 743 Guidance, Putting Thresholds in "Advisory" Category Bill to Delay Implementation of SB 743 Gains Traction Pasadena Ushers in Era of VMT Metrics LOS to VMT: the arguments have begun OPR's transportation metric drafters hint they're more open to change Insight: What comes next after LOS?

The Mountain View City Council unanimously approved the North Bayshore redevelopment plan that would create a dense, city-like campus of offices and homes. The new master plan would include nearly 10,000 new homes and apartments, about 3.6 million square feet of office space, and a mix of pedestrian-friendly parks, retail shops and businesses. Google, which is based in Mountain View, endorsed the plan. Around 70 percent of the new housing units are targeted for studio or one-bedroom apartments and 20 percent of the apartments would be affordable units. The buildings are expected to be 8 stories for offices and 15 for residential units. Vice Mayor Lenny Siegel said in a statement, “This is a cutting edge plan that sets a standard. Not just for the Bay Area, but for the rest of the country.” Mountain View has a ratio of 2.7 workers for every housing unit, the second-highest in the region behind Palo Alto with 3.8 workers per home. Sonoma County Creates Office to Address Fire Recovery Sonoma County supervisors created the new Office of Recovery and Resiliency to help the region bounce back from the recent devastating wildfires. The office will also assist with charting a formal vision for the long-term recovery of the local housing market, the economy, the environment, safety net services, and local infrastructure. The new office will have its own budget and seven staff members who will for the next five years support the production and implementation of a plan to guide the community’s recovery and improve its ability to withstand future disasters. Santa Cruz Sues Fossil Fuel Companies over Climate Change The City of Santa Cruz and County of Santa Cruz filed separate lawsuits against 29 oil, gas, and coal companies seeking climate-change related damages that could range up to hundreds of millions of dollars. The complaints allege negligence on the part of the companies and seek damages for the mounting financial, environmental, and public health costs tied to global warming. The suits claim the extraction-industry giants knew about the impacts of fossil fuels on climate and seal levels for 50 years but concealed the risks and fought back against attempts at regulation. Other lawsuits from San Francisco, Oakland, and San Mateo County have been filed in recent months. According to Central Coast Wetlands Group Director Ross Clark, “Santa Cruz and Capitola are no longer going to be beach communities.” Plan Envisions 146 Projects to Revitalize Lower Los Angeles River The Lower Los Angeles River Working Group released a draft plan for the revitalization of the river’s 19-mile stretch from Vernon to Long Beach. The plan calls for 146 individual projects in and around the river including new trails, parks, crossings, and more. Included are seven “signature projects” that include development of new green space, public art display and affordable housing around Cudahy Park; new park, trials and dirt bike facility around Atlantic Boulevard in Vernon; a trio of park-topped bridges, new landscaping at the Rio Hondo confluence in the City of South Gate; floating boardwalks through Long Beach; pathways, recreation areas, and links to existing bike trails between Greenleaf and Del Amo boulevards; new crossings, rest areas and a nature overlook at Compton Creek; and a new park, expanded wetlands; stormwater capture facilities, and an amphitheater around Wrigley Heights. The group also proposed streetscape changes to make it easier for residents to access the river. Adajaye Named New Master-Planner for S.F. Hunters Point The firm of Ghanian-British architect Sir David Adjaye has been named to design a new master plan for the 420-acre former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The developer, FivePoint, has been working on the shipyard since 1999 and 309 homes have been completed so far in the first phase with 138 more under construction. Adjaye wants to keep two of the remnants of the military past: a former ship repair facility and a four-story concrete warehouse. Adjaye’s vision is to replace the exterior and show the muscular ironwork. The two spaces would become commercial areas and “incubation zones” where high-tech jobs and mixed-income housing share a space. City’s Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure must authorize the changes to the plan and FivePoint will take Adjaye’s work to the office’s commission for a vote. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Ballot Measure Would Alter Prop. 13, Create ‘Split-Roll’ Property Tax The League of Women Voters of California and community organizing nonprofits California Calls and PICO Network have filed a proposed initiative for the November 2018 statewide ballot. The group proposes making dramatic changes to Prop 13’s property tax restrictions by allowing the state to receive more tax dollars from commercial and industrial properties by assessing them at their current market value. This would be known as “split roll” because the existing tax protections on residential uses would remain in place. Advocates of the measure say it could raise billions of dollars that could be spent on public schools and community colleges.

The Senate Environmental Quality Committee released a study examining how state transportation, parks, and other projects were handled under CEQA over a five-year period starting in FY 2011/2012 to 2015/2016. Ninety-four state agencies were surveyed and 47 of those served as a lead agency at least once during the five-year period. The study found 1 percent of projects required detailed analyses under the law and less than 1 percent of them were sued. A majority of the state projects subject to CEQA completed a Categorical Exemption (87.8 percent) and approximately 6 percent filed a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. Sen. Bob Wieckowski, chair of the committee who commissioned the study, said “This extensive review of state agencies clearly finds that CEQA is doing what Gov. Reagan and the Legislature hoped it would do when they passed it in 1970 — providing transparency, accountability and reducing harmful impacts to our environment as we undertake important projects to enhance our state.” The study did not examine private developments.  Study Anticipates Shift Away from Gas Tax A new Caltrans study , the “California Road Charge Pilot Program Report” estimates the effects of abandoning the current gas tax to a system where drivers pay based on their odometer readings. The report include a road charge experiment with 5,000 volunteer drivers that had their mileage monitored over nine months of driving. Caltrans Deputy Director Carrie Pourvahidi said next year the state will send out a request to technology companies for ideas on a simple communication system at gas stations or electric charging stations that can instantly tell how many miles the car has driven. While other states have looked at switching to a per-mile road tax, California seems to be the first to look at point-of-purchase technology. Gov. Jerry Brown and the state Legislature passed a controversial set of tax and fee increases this year but are still struggling to come up with adequate per-gallon pump revenues as more cars get higher mileage. Some environmental groups say the pay-per-mile concept would help reduce vehicle miles traveled, it would also have a negative effect of hitting lower-income communities harder. San Francisco to Update Urban Design Guidelines The San Francisco Planning Department released a new set of temporary guidelines with 24 parameters that will help guide the look and feel of the city’s future. The Design Guidelines are categorized into site design, architecture, and public realm. The guidelines include recognize and respond to urban patterns (S1); create, protect, and support view corridors (S4); harmonize building designs with neighboring scale and materials (A3); design active building fronts (A8); locate and design open spaces to maximize physical comfort and visual access (P2); and program public open spaces to encourage social activity, play, and rest (P6). Jeff Joslin, director of current planning with the city, said “the primary goal here is to improve the predictability and consistency in the review of design qualities of the projects… Contributing to the clarity and certainty of future projects will both encourage development, and improve the efficiency of review.That efficiency will translate directly into bringing down project costs, while adding design quality.” The planning commission will hear an informal presentation on the guidelines Jan. 11. Los Angeles to Adopt Linkage Fee on New Market-Rate Units The Los Angeles City Council approved the funding of more affordable housing through a new linkage fee on construction projects that is estimated to generate up to $100 million per year. City officials say Los Angeles was the only major city in California without such a fee. Mayor Garcetti says the initiative will allow ensure the city “grows for everybody, and when we see luxury condominiums go up we can make sure there is money paid in to build housing for the rest of us as well.” Those opposed to the fee argue it will actually slow down affordable housing construction. Developers could potentially pay up to $15 per square foot for residential projects and between $3 and $5 per square foot for commercial projects. S.F. May Face Ballot Measure to Upzone SoMa Affordable housing group Todco and urban think tank SPUR are  proposing  a ballot measure that would temporarily relax the cap of new office space in San Francisco to allow a wave of office development South of Market. The office space approval cap was established in 1986 and capped the approvals at 875,000 square foot a year. The two groups say the cap will block city efforts to upzone Central SoMa, a 17-block area. The Central SoMa plan is expected to be approved by Board of Supervisors next year, and property owners in the area have proposed 5.5 million square-feet of new office construction. The ballot measure would require all development fees to be paid when a project is approved, rather than when the building permit is pulled, meaning community benefits and fees that add up to about $2 billion would be fast-tracked. The proposed measure was submitted to the city attorney for a 15-day review, and after that proponents have until Feb. 5 to gather 18,970 signatures to place the measure on the June 5 ballot.  Homelessness Rises Nationwide, with Surges in Calif. Metros According to new data released by the Department of Housing and Urban Development homelessness increased 0.7 percent nationwide from the year before. During a one-night count in January, 553,742 people were found living outside or in shelters across the country. HUD officials say the surge in homelessness is almost entirely increases in cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Diego, and Sacramento, all of which face shortages of affordable housing. Overall, the nation’s homeless numbers are 13 percent lower than they were in 2010. However, Los Angeles reported a nearly 26 percent rise in homelessness this year over 2016 and Oakland 39 percent increase since 2015. HUD Secretary Ben Carson says the federal governments needs to work more with nonprofits, faith-based communities, state and local governments, and the private sector to address the problem. According to the report, family homelessness was down 5.4 percent from last year and 27 percent lower than it was in 2010. S.F. Mayor Ed Lee, Champion of Affordable Housing, Passes Away  San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee passed away last Tuesday morning after suffering a heart attack at the age of 65. Gov. Jerry Brown called Lee a “true champion for working people who epitomized the California spirit”. In 2011 Lee cut payroll taxes for six years on a blighted stretch of Market Street and lured thousands of tech jobs and workers to the city. The area now has been redeveloped with new offices and hotels and has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. More recently, Lee focused on the homeless crisis opening Homeless Navigation Centers and creating a new Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. The Board of Supervisors approved one of Mayor Lee’s final land-use initiatives: to fast-track construction of shelters for homeless people. Lee also wanted to declare a citywide emergency but several supervisors contested and ultimately delayed the vote until January.  Quick Hits & Updates Sacramento City Council voted unanimously to approve a new construction timeline and design plans for expanding the Sacramento Convention Center. The council supported adding a large ballroom to the plans and allowing the center to be closed for 18 months so work can be done quicker than initially planned. Renovations would begin in early 2019 and continue until fall of 2020. The city is also planning on renovating the adjacent Community Center Theater and a new 350-room hotel. Santa Cruz City Council has referred 99 potential housing solutions to a subcommittee for prioritization and feasibility. The council set aside $15,000 for six-month city tenants’ legal support fund and directed city staff to investigate city-owned lands, such as parking lots, that could be used for housing development. The subcommittee is expected to return with a housing-related strategy by March 27 . San Francisco’s Central Subway won’t be completed until 2021, more than a year later than the city insists the line will be ready, according to a new report from the main contractor, Tutor Perini Corp. The report also says the $1.6 billion project is running tens of millions of dollars over budget.  Sacramento and Ontario are the two finalists for a $35 million grant from the cap-and-trade program aimed at developing green infrastructure in low-income communities. The Sacramento plan would add a range of housing units in the River District as well as a new light-rail stop, bikeways and several other projects.   The approval of a commercial development next to California’s oldest continuously lived-in neighborhood has led to a petition to recall two San Juan Capistrano City Councilmembers, Mayor Kerry Ferguson and Councilman Derek Reeve. The recall supporters say the redevelopment of the former Ito Nursery into a shopping center would irreparably damage the adjacent Los Rios Historic District.  Los Angeles City Planning Commission is considering new land use and zoning regulations for stations around San Fernando Valley’s Orange Line busway. The proposed Transit Neighborhood Plan would target five stations: Sherman Way, Reseda, Sepulveda, Van Nuys, and the North Hollywood terminus. The stations would include low and multifamily residential, mixed-use commercial, and some would include incubators or light manufacturing. Social Bicycles (SoBi) will launch its electric-assist bike share program in Davis, Sacramento, and West Sacramento May 15, 2018. The program will open with 300 e-bikes and add an additional 600 over the summer. The launch is a public-private partnership between SoBi, SACOG, and the cities. After three years of debate, the San Diego City Council failed to reach an agreement on short-term rental regulations. Multiple proposals were discussed in the hopes of reaching a consensus but after more than four hours of debate and more hours of public testimony, the nine-member council could not secure the required five affirmative votes.  The City of San Diego launched a new initiative focused on supporting entrepreneurs from low- to moderate-income communities. The initiative includes a new facility, which will open next summer to support entrepreneurs that earn about $30,000 to $70,000 a year to give them a better chance at success. The Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation in Southeast San Diego, a and Connect, a start-up support company, are putting up $2.5 million over the next three years to help finance the program. Sacramento’s Regional Transit board unanimously agreed to reduce student fares next month from $55 per month to $20 in hopes of boosting sagging ridership among teens. The proposed cuts only apply to K-12 students as the colleges already have deeply discounted fares through contracts between SacRT and the colleges. A Los Angeles City Council committee recommended Peebles Corporation, MacFarlane Partners and Claridge Properties to to develop the 2.24-acre Angels Landing site, arguably the most significant development site in downtown Los Angeles. The proposed project includes one 88-story tower and a 24-story structure that would be connected by a sky bridge. The two towers would include 400 apartments and 250 condominiums with 20 apartments set aside as affordable housing.

Planners in Long Beach have found that, sometimes, no good deed goes unpunished. Adopted in September, the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) covers a decidedly tricky part of the city. It includes residential neighborhoods, a congested and largely unattractive stretch of Pacific Coast Highway, and one of the last remaining patches of wild wetlands in Los Angeles County. The plan paves the way for redevelopment of PCH, replacing big-box stores with smaller developments and promoting hotels. Importantly, it calls for aesthetic improvements to connect the commercial area to the waterfront and includes protections for the Los Cerritos Wetlands, a 2,400-acre coastal marsh partially encompassed by the specific plan area. “The most important thing that this plan does is memorialize that the wetland areas, whether they’re publically owned or privately owned, are going to remain open land forever,” said Long Beach planner Christopher Koontz. “It concentrates development on existing developed sites.” The centerpiece of the plan is funding for upkeep of the wetlands, paid for by development impact fees. That’s the element about which Long Beach planners are most proud — and which, they hoped, would gain the support of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT). “It’s sort of a watershed for how you can do good planning in a very urbanized area with large housing and economic needs but also be respectful and actually have a positive influence on the adjacent wild lands and be able to do wetlands restoration,” said Koontz. What they got instead was a lawsuit.