Housing issues again dominated the Legislature’s action on planning and development issues this year. About 30 bills were sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom after the end of the legislative session on August 31. Newsome has already signed two bills and has until the end of September to decide whether to sign the rest. CP&DR will update its legislative coverage once Newsom acts on all the bills, but he’s unlikely to veto many.

A controversial supportive housing project has been relocated out of Old Town Elk Grove – but the city will now be subject to increased scrutiny by the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

The Citrus Heights City Council has rejected a developer’s proposal to revamp Citrus Heights Mall – once the very reason the city was incorporated – to include big-box stores and drive-through restaurants.

The only way to squeeze a generation’s worth of growth into existing urban areas plus 2% more land is with a heavy reliance on infill development. With the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) beginning to finesse its density-driven, “2% Strategy” growth vision from policy into action, Solimar Research Group is producing information of use to those planning and executing infill development. In few of the giant metropolitan planning organization’s 13 subregions is this plan for infill-based development as relevant as in the South Bay, a 16-city cluster that is home to Los Angeles International Airport and inner-ring suburbs. Here, where the urban environment approaches full build-out and the population is expected to increase 170,000 by 2025, the South Bay Council of Governments has initiated an intensive examination of two development patterns that SCAG has deemed ripe with infill potential. Since early 2005, Solimar Research Group has guided this study of the functionality of existing “mixed-use centers” and “mixed-use corridors” in the South Bay. Still ongoing, we have already uncovered patterns in the travel behavior of the residents of these districts. Although our study is ongoing, there are signatures of “performance” that offer vital clues about future, high-density infill development throughout Los Angeles. We’ve discovered that those who live or work near these centers will travel to them more frequently than elsewhere, in effect absorbing trips to other destinations. Such residents are also more likely to walk than drive; in fact, at least 20% more will walk to the center than residents of a traditional suburban neighborhood accessing their local services. Overall, residents of mixed-use centers are likely to make fewer total trips, especially auto trips, than their suburban counterparts. By project’s end, we will have evaluated project areas in six communities in order to develop a set of broad, strategic guidelines for creating functional mixed-use districts. After completing a Phase I study of centers in Inglewood, Redondo Beach and Torrance, and a Phase II study of Hawthorne and El Segundo locations, we are currently engaged in a Phase III study of corridors in Gardena and Redondo Beach. Our methodology and results for the Phase II Hawthorne Boulevard project area exemplify the potential of this study. Like other “mixed-use corridors,” the City of Hawthorne’s one-mile Hawthorne Boulevard corridor is dense with commercial uses, is surrounded by relatively high-density housing and carries significant through traffic over a length greater than the typical “mixed-use center.” The corridor is socioeconomically typical of Los Angeles County as a whole. Our analysis of this commercial corridor was designed to reveal linkages between the functionality of mixed-use districts and the travel behavior of the people who use the districts. In addition to an extensive, online travel survey, including detailed “travel diaries” for corridor residents and employees—as well as a series of sidewalk visitor surveys—we undertook an exhaustive examination of a 395-acre “inner” and 750-acre “outer” buffer zone surrounding the corridor. This statistical and GIS-based functionality analysis covered the physical, social, commercial and transit-oriented characteristics of the corridor. We analyzed, among other things, demographic and socioeconomic figures, land use and year-built data, business functionality profiles, bus ridership and pedestrian activity, and parking and traffic patterns. Just a glance at the results reveals lessons for future mixed-use districting. Like nearly all study areas, Hawthorne Boulevard acts very much like a neighborhood shopping center. We found that Hawthorne Boulevard generates $400 million in sales in its “inner” buffer zone and has a total of 1,041 retail/service-oriented businesses. However, survey responses revealed that residents are less likely to walk to, or along, the corridor as compared to users of mixed-use centers. Yet it is also clear that the corridor plays an important role in the daily economy. Our survey results reveal that residents commute out of the area (largely by bus or Metrolink train) in the morning. Yet on their return in the afternoon, they consistently patronize the businesses along the corridor. This is an early indication that these arterial, “mixed-use corridors,” ubiquitous to all of metropolitan Los Angeles, can be transformed into successful mixed-use districts. The results of the ongoing, third phase of this project will allow us to further isolate those characteristics of existing mixed-use districts that affect the travel behavior of residents, employees and visitors. In concert with detailed case-study reports, this analysis will further facilitate the fruit of our efforts: Creating a broadly applicable set of strategic guidelines for developing functional, “high performance” mixed-use districts in the South Bay and beyond. Greg Goodfellow is a research associate and project manager for Solimar Research Group, parent company of CP&DR .

The right combination of zoning changes and decreased parking requirements can make infill projects feasible in some of the state’s most urban settings. That is the conclusion of Solimar Research Group, which continues to investigate land use options for crowded urban areas. Recently, we explored how regulatory changes affect the financial feasibility of infill projects, and then applied our models to the land use surrounding a major rail extension in Los Angeles. The results should prove interesting to any agency that is approaching the issue of rapid growth with a strategy of high density, transit-oriented development. We sought to calculate the degree to which changes in parking and density policy, as well to zoning, will shrink the notoriously stubborn gap between planning ideal and development reality. Our comprehensive pro-forma analyses revealed that while parking policy affects feasibility more than density allowance, reliance on one or the other is politically unrealistic. A combined strategy is essential. On the other hand, key zone changes may prove a powerful, singular tool in getting infill development off the ground. We further explored how these proposed policy strategies would play out in the very real built environment of the planned Exposition Line extension of the Los Angeles Metro Rail system. Our parcel-by-parcel GIS analysis of infill opportunities surrounding proposed rail stations highlights the infill potential of underutilized industrial land along transit corridors. Grounded Analyses To ensure the “real-time” relevancy of our calculations, we consulted local developers to identify actual development models. Five infill prototypes were selected, and examples of each — from an 8-10 unit townhouse to a 100-200 unit mixed-use project — are currently under construction. We then applied an “as is” pro-forma feasibility model to each, one based on current zoning standards and the industry’s minimum expected 15% net margin. With our feasibility baselines established, we analyzed the fiscal impact of incremental increases or decreases in density and parking requirements. The selection of these two policies as regulatory variables was straightforward: one is a powerful determinant of gross revenue, the other a huge booster of project costs. We also calculated the impact on each prototype of building in either industrial or commercial zones. Combined Regulation Our pro-forma for development prototype 2A exemplifies the political near-impossibility of relying on a single regulation to promote infill in Los Angeles. Prototype 2A is a small, mixed-use project of 54 units, with a current feasibility gap of $1.2 million. A 50% density bonus reduces that gap to only $900,000; a 100% density bonus to only $700,000. While feasibility may arrive with 150% bonus, attendant density, height and FAR changes to the C-1 and C-M zones in which this project would be built are unlikely. Construction of prototype 2A also is unlikely without a change in parking requirements. We found that only a 50% decrease in the number of required parking spaces reduces the $1.2 million gap down to $400,000. That is still too much. But a synergy of more modest changes produces a viable alternative. Our study indicates that a 75% density bonus combined with a 25-50% parking reduction provide enough incentive for developers to pursue projects of this size. This outcome repeated itself in our calculations for prototype developments of various sizes. EXPO Application After calculating needed regulatory and zoning incentives, we took our prototypes to a built environment of high infill potential. The Exposition Line is scheduled for completion in 2010. It will serve an almost entirely developed area. We drew circular study zones around the planned La Brea, La Cienega, Crenshaw, Western and Vermont stations. Our GIS “screening” of parcels around the La Cienega stop reveals a repeated pattern of industrial under-use that, as our pro-formas indicate, should be targeted for infill. Nearly 25% of the half-mile area surrounding the station is zoned industrial/light manufacturing, much of that characterized by large parcels. In addition, many parcels are underutilized and ideal for infill redevelopment. Finally, we identified parcels along the La Cienega Boulevard commercial strip that could be assembled into spaces that would increase the feasibility of projects the scale of Prototype 2A. These projects become even more realistic with the regulatory changes identified above. Solimar’s complete fiscal and land-use analysis of infill potential along the Expo line is available at: http://www.solimar.org/pdfs/Expo_Final_3-30.pdf . Greg Goodfellow is a research associate and project manager for Solimar Research Group, parent company of CP&DR.

Take Our Reader Survey And Get A Chance To Win A $100 Gift Card

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to California Planning & Development Report. You can subscribe to CP&DR by clicking here. You can sign up for CP&DR’s free weekly newsletter here. Shortly after the election of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, he nominated Sarah Dennis Phillips to succeed Rich Hillis as planning director. Dennis Phillips was both a conventional choice and an offbeat. Offbeat, because she was coming from over a decade in the private sector, working for mega-developer Tishman Speyer. Conventional because she had previously spent a similar amount of time in San Francisco city government, in planning and community development. Her appointment complemented Lurie's dedication to development and increasing the city's housing supply. A year later, Dennis Phillips has presided over the implementation of the city's "Family Zoning Plan" and is attempting to reform the department amid renewed public enthusiasm--or at least tolerance--for new housing. She spoke with CP&DR's Josh Stephens. You've been on the job for about a year now. What are your overall impressions so far? I think there are two overriding impressions. One, how amazing and evolved the San Francisco planning staff is. I left planning in 2013, for other career opportunities. We've always had really qualified staff, but the way staff practice their jobs now, that staff has really risen to the moment. They understand the challenges facing us. They understand how time impacts housing in our public realm projects, and they understand what the city wants. They're not just here regulating, they're looking at how they get to yes, to build, to get to the exciting outcomes that San Franciscans want. As we understand the affordability crisis, they've really taken that to heart. They've seen that themselves, not just because their boss told them to and not just because they just got out of college. There are plenty of people who started the same year I started here in 2005 and are still here — over 20 years — and those same humans have evolved in a really strong way. I think it's emblematic in some ways of our city And then the other one is, I forgot how brutal the politics are here. That's real, and it's a bit daunting. What lessons do you draw from Tishman-Speyer and bring into your current job? It was an incredible opportunity. I don't think everyone who works in the development sector has the opportunity to work with a firm that prioritizes design almost as much as planners do — that's endemic with Tishman Speyer and that's fabulous. What I brought back here is an understanding of the myriad ways that a project can get impacted and go south. There is not just "oh, the rents aren't high enough" — there are a hundred different ways that a project can go sideways, some of which are in the city's control: capital priorities shifting, capital partners going south, different ways you structure a joint development agreement. So many pieces along the financing and the construction side of things have made me understand the vulnerability of development, which definitely shapes my attitudes here as we regulate it moving forward. Tell us about the mayor's agenda. Which aspects are you most excited about, which are proving to be the most challenging? I came in last July, almost a year ago, with the number-one priority being we need to get the Family Zoning Plan over the finish line before we hit the deadlines mandated by the state housing element law. I'm proud of what the team built — they built it long before I got here, it had been in development for about two years before I arrived. What we brought over the finish line was largely baked by the time I arrived, but the politics of getting it approved, and the outreach needed so that the public really understood what we were doing, was a big part of those final six months. The family zoning plan wasn't the priority — that is the vehicle. The priority is housing. We need more housing for all San Franciscans, and the family zoning plan is a big part of that. There are other initiatives happening that I'm really excited about, including an expanded housing trust fund that'll create $125 million annually out of the city's budget for permanently affordable housing, and adjusted inclusionary housing percentages that allow regular market rate housing to move forward at the same time that we're financing affordable housing through that trust fund. Another priority is downtown revitalization — not recovery. I think we are past downtown recovery, but we still can make our downtown a lot better. Not just filling vacancies, but creating an amazing public realm, making it a place that people come to 24 hours a day for entertainment, for art. The third priority, which came straight from the mayor, is improving our permitting process, improving our permitting technology, and creating permitting that is oriented towards customer service. How much of that feels in your grasp versus technically challenging, or needing buy-in from staff, the supervisors, or the public? Under this mayor, there's a big chunk of it that is within our grasp. One of the things we are working on now is unifying our planning department and our building department. The people who issue rules and the people who issue building permits and inspect projects are different departments — that is not great. There are a lot of bumps in the handoff along that process. By putting us together — and we are midway through merging them — by early 2027 we hope we will be one unified department working towards housing and land use approvals together. The concept of a unified department has been talked about in San Francisco for a long time, but there hasn't been the leadership to pull it off, and the mayor has given myself and our director of the building department the authority to make that happen. A second example is our new technology permitting system. We are on a very old, disparate set of tech tools for permitting. this mayor has made it an imperative that we get on one unified system together. We started that system in March this year, we have about 10 permits up and running on it, and over the next two to three years we will fully migrate to a system that all permitting agencies in the city will be using together. You're obviously in the AI capital of the world. How has that affected the city itself in terms of rising rental rates and new influx of people? And how are you thinking about AI as a planning tool? It's a super interesting question. In terms of a business sector, AI has been the force driving our recovery. We're in a very good place from where we were in 2022, 2023, in large part due to not just the growth of AI firms and the leasing that they've done, but through the energy and ancillary support that's brought to other industries around San Francisco. At the same time, the fears that our entire country have around AI, particularly at a time of a tight and tightening job market, are even more acute here because it is so present at our front door. So there's some existential dread. We've regained our population losses, which is great. We are now seeing energy around developing new housing. We hadn't seen a lot of housing proposals in the city post-COVID, but that is starting to change because capital is following AI's impact on San Francisco, and they're starting to invest in housing projects to support the growing population. In our office, our staff are relatively nimble in figuring out ways AI can supplement their jobs. They've done some creative things in identifying and cataloging our historic resources, for example. As a city, we're a little creaky — like all bureaucracies. Executing AI in your work comes with union concerns, because people want to make sure it's supplementing their jobs, not replacing them. And we have privacy concerns, because we are stewards of public data and need to be careful about how we use it. The city is working on an emerging tech pool where we have prequalified technology partners, including AI partners, that we can develop smaller tools with — but it's a pilot and we haven't really started yet, so we'll see how that turns out. Let's get bigger and talk about the state. How do you feel about dealing with state laws? I probably can't parse out exactly which ones I like versus which ones are challenging because with so many in California, I sometimes still have to remind myself — wait, is that 2011 or 423, which one is it? By and large, I'm glad they exist and they are generally helpful. But they are most helpful when they push us towards an outcome while allowing us our own way of getting there. SB 79 describes what I was hoping for exactly — it said, “you are either going to have these types of heights and densities near your transit station, or you can show us your own way of getting there and we can tell you if we agree.” Our Family Zoning Plan basically qualified as our alternative plan under SB 79. It was one more tool we could use to explain to residents why it was important that we adopt the plan: “If we don't do it our own way, the state will do it for us.” There was some tension with some planning commissioners when you were appointed. How has that played out? That's been fine. I mentioned the politics here are kind of nasty — a knife fight in a phone booth, as our city attorney used to say. Our planning commissioners are lovely humans. Rich Hillis is my predecessor and he had a 4-3 vote on his appointment, and I joke that I was unanimous because those three recused themselves. We spoke pretty immediately after that outcome, particularly Catherine Moore, who's somebody I've worked with in a professional capacity for a long time and have a lot of respect for, and I think the respect goes both ways. Their challenge there was the process and not the person, and I'm comfortable with that. Process is, interestingly enough, one of the things we're trying to work through here in San Francisco — our planners are in favor of less process if it's the right outcome. And we've worked together swimmingly over the last nine months. San Francisco has had its share of contrverisal projects recently: the tower in the Outer Sunset; the Nordstrom's parking lot; and now the Safeway redevelopment in the Marina. What do those controversies mean to you? Are they a big deal or are they describing headlines but just part of the day-to-day for your office? Different meanings for each of them. The Nordstrom parking lot, dare I say, was a catalyst for much of the state laws that you asked me about. While it didn't turn state legislation on its head alone, the disapproval of that project and the grounds the appeal was upheld on, and just the utter shock that we could be that worried about growth on such a likely and positive development site, really helped catalyze a lot of the change at the state level that has been, as I've noted, generally helpful. The Outer Sunset tower has died. But even the noise around that one did bring to the fore a whole lot of housing supporters who were quiet before. It was just so loud that folks were like, wait, do I really care if there's a tower there? I know that's a crazy tower, but maybe I want more housing. Marina Safeway is challenging for us because we worked with the community in the Marina and the broader San Francisco community on the family zoning plan for what we felt was the right kind of density for that site. This project was filed just after that plan was adopted but before it became effective. We had been coming off a multi-year process, working with communities, telling them that yes, we need more housing, but we'll work with you on the shape and form of that housing. And then a project came in that was dramatically different. So that's a hard one. How do you characterize attitudes towards housing and development in the city today — what is the vibe? I think we are smack in the middle of an evolution. San Francisco has been for a very long time — certainly when I moved here in 2000 — a town with a lot of conflicted feelings about growth, even as it was an economic powerhouse through the first tech boom. “Manhattan” has always been a dirty word here in San Francisco. That's a long-standing attitude that is evolving. I don't think we're through the evolution — I think we're smack in the middle of it. The surveys around the family zoning plan showed that a strong majority, somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of residents, support that plan. And it was hard-fought — even though many people supported it, it was an incredibly tough approval process. So you can see that tension between high support but still those no-growth attitudes fighting against each other. The number of people who identify as pro-housing is incredibly large and well recognized. And attitudes towards growth are somewhat affected by what we saw post-COVID in our downtown — people realized they didn't want an empty downtown, and that if growth and more intensity is what it takes to get it back to activity, they can be in support of that. Where do you draw intellectual inspiration from — books, histories, people, mentors? I'm an economics geek. he overlay of the economy with the city is fascinating, not just because money has driven cities — through transfer of capital and growth — but because the other part of economics is humans and how humans want to see those things move. I'm a big fan of Edward Glaeser's books. I read The Economist weekly because it helps me understand what's going on throughout the world. I've had the benefit of some amazing mentors. Dean Macris, the planning director when I came here, who let me walk in as a very green planner and walk up to the podium and launch some exciting initiatives right from the get-go. John Rahaim, an incredibly thoughtful, design-focused planning director who I still consult with regularly. And Carl Shannon, who was my boss at Tishman Speyer, who showed me how you can be a capitalist with heart — Carl cared about affordability and design probably more than making money. And I would also say, given the brutality of land use politics, my inspiration for getting through challenging and thorny topics is running with my dog and playing my violin. I'm terrible at the violin — I only started a year ago — but there's nothing like being terrible at something when you've got a really hard job to get your head out of it. This interview has been edited and condensed.

The right combination of zoning changes and decreased parking requirements can make infill projects feasible in some of the state’s most urban settings. That is the conclusion of Solimar Research Group, which continues to investigate land use options for crowded urban areas. Recently, we explored how regulatory changes affect the financial feasibility of infill projects, and then applied our models to the land use surrounding a major rail extension in Los Angeles. The results should prove interesting to any agency that is approaching the issue of rapid growth with a strategy of high density, transit-oriented development. We sought to calculate the degree to which changes in parking and density policy, as well to zoning, will shrink the notoriously stubborn gap between planning ideal and development reality. Our comprehensive pro-forma analyses revealed that while parking policy affects feasibility more than density allowance, reliance on one or the other is politically unrealistic. A combined strategy is essential. On the other hand, key zone changes may prove a powerful, singular tool in getting infill development off the ground. We further explored how these proposed policy strategies would play out in the very real built environment of the planned Exposition Line extension of the Los Angeles Metro Rail system. Our parcel-by-parcel GIS analysis of infill opportunities surrounding proposed rail stations highlights the infill potential of underutilized industrial land along transit corridors. Grounded Analyses To ensure the “real-time” relevancy of our calculations, we consulted local developers to identify actual development models. Five infill prototypes were selected, and examples of each — from an 8-10 unit townhouse to a 100-200 unit mixed-use project — are currently under construction. We then applied an “as is” pro-forma feasibility model to each, one based on current zoning standards and the industry’s minimum expected 15% net margin. With our feasibility baselines established, we analyzed the fiscal impact of incremental increases or decreases in density and parking requirements. The selection of these two policies as regulatory variables was straightforward: one is a powerful determinant of gross revenue, the other a huge booster of project costs. We also calculated the impact on each prototype of building in either industrial or commercial zones. Combined Regulation Our pro-forma for development prototype 2A exemplifies the political near-impossibility of relying on a single regulation to promote infill in Los Angeles. Prototype 2A is a small, mixed-use project of 54 units, with a current feasibility gap of $1.2 million. A 50% density bonus reduces that gap to only $900,000; a 100% density bonus to only $700,000. While feasibility may arrive with 150% bonus, attendant density, height and FAR changes to the C-1 and C-M zones in which this project would be built are unlikely. Construction of prototype 2A also is unlikely without a change in parking requirements. We found that only a 50% decrease in the number of required parking spaces reduces the $1.2 million gap down to $400,000. That is still too much. But a synergy of more modest changes produces a viable alternative. Our study indicates that a 75% density bonus combined with a 25-50% parking reduction provide enough incentive for developers to pursue projects of this size. This outcome repeated itself in our calculations for prototype developments of various sizes. EXPO Application After calculating needed regulatory and zoning incentives, we took our prototypes to a built environment of high infill potential. The Exposition Line is scheduled for completion in 2010. It will serve an almost entirely developed area. We drew circular study zones around the planned La Brea, La Cienega, Crenshaw, Western and Vermont stations. Our GIS “screening” of parcels around the La Cienega stop reveals a repeated pattern of industrial under-use that, as our pro-formas indicate, should be targeted for infill. Nearly 25% of the half-mile area surrounding the station is zoned industrial/light manufacturing, much of that characterized by large parcels. In addition, many parcels are underutilized and ideal for infill redevelopment. Finally, we identified parcels along the La Cienega Boulevard commercial strip that could be assembled into spaces that would increase the feasibility of projects the scale of Prototype 2A. These projects become even more realistic with the regulatory changes identified above. Solimar’s complete fiscal and land-use analysis of infill potential along the Expo line is available at: http://www.solimar.org/pdfs/Expo_Final_3-30.pdf.

We are reviving the CP&DR podcast! Bill Fulton and Josh Stephens discuss the latest planning news, including the statewide battle over transfer taxes (including Los Angeles Measure ULA), the uneven implementation of Senate Bill 79, and the November ballot measure that could upend the California Environmental Quality Act.

Take Our Reader Survey And Get A Chance To Win A $100 Gift Card

Take Our Reader Survey And Get A Chance To Win A $100 Gift Card

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to California Planning & Development Report. You can subscribe to CP&DR by clicking here. You can sign up for CP&DR’s free weekly newsletter here. American Canyon Annexation Spurs Lawsuit from Developer A Watson Ranch project developer has sued in Napa Superior Court to block a proposed 281-acre expansion of American Canyon's city boundary, arguing it violates a 2008 voter-approved measure barring urban limit line expansion without voter approval through 2030. The disputed annexation, sought by landowners the Hess and Laird families rather than the city, would add to a separate 86-acre expansion already approved on June 1. Although the larger expansion still needs approval from the Napa County LAFCO, the lawsuit seeks to address already approved county and city related tax-sharing and housing-allocation agreements. This dispute follows an earlier, ongoing lawsuit filed by Watson Ranch entities in October accusing the city of breaching development agreements, particularly over delays in extending Newell Drive as a relief route for Highway 29. Budget Trailer Bill Goes After Impact Fees The big budget news on housing was a trailer bill (AB 179) that created a new Cabinet-level housing agency as well as the Housing Development and Finance Committee, which is designed to consolidate consideration of affordable housing funding from different state programs. But the bill also contains a kicker involving impact fees: If a city or county is applying for funding for an affordable housing funding but doesn’t wait impact fees, then the state will reduce the funding by the amount of the fees. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the trailer bill on June 30. State Releases Guidelines to Promote Transit-Oriented Development The Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation has released the 2026 Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines to implement the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program created by AB 130. The guidelines establish a framework for funding affordable housing and related infrastructure in transit-accessible locations while giving local agencies a new option to mitigate transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the new program, CEQA lead agencies may contribute to the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund, a statewide Vehicle Miles Traveled mitigation bank administered by HCD, instead of pursuing project-specific VMT mitigation measures. HCD will use those contributions to fund affordable housing projects in locations that promote lower driving rates and greater transit use. Fresno Streamlines Approvals for 20% Affordable Developments The Fresno City Council adopted a policy that will allow housing developments that set aside at least 20% of units for low-income renters to enjoy a streamlined approval process, even bypassing review by the Planning Commission and City Council in certain areas. The measure will keep the city in compliance with its state-mandated Housing Element, which outlines how the city will address a housing shortage. Mike Karbassi cast the lone dissenting vote, citing concerns that ministerial approval reduces opportunities for public input and appeals. Failing to adopt the policy, however, would have meant risking losing state funding eligibility or facing litigation from the California Attorney General. Downtown Los Angeles, San Jose Score Poorly on Survey of Global Downtowns A new 2026 survey found that downtown Los Angeles ranks among the least vibrant urban centers in the world, with only about 65% of residents describing it as vibrant compared with more than 80% in cities such as New York City, Chicago, Sydney, and Shanghai. In the same survey, San Francisco ranked seventh for vibrancy nationwide. The Gensler Research Institute City Pulse report highlighted several shared qualities between successful downtowns, including a mix of housing, jobs, shops, and entertainment, walkable streets, attractive public spaces, strong after-hours activity, good lighting, and a sense of personal safety. Researchers also found that thriving downtowns encourage visitors to stay and socialize rather than simply arrive for errands or events and leave. On three aesthetic measures--”beautful,” “memorable,” and “iconic”--downtown San Jose finished dead last among major U.S. cities. Downtown Los Angeles continues to struggle with post-pandemic office vacancies, business closures, and declining foot traffic, with nearly 40% of office space in the Financial District and 30% of retail space sitting vacant. Concerns about safety, along with parking costs and availability, have further discouraged visitors, even as crime is down 10% from last year. For Los Angeles, the report suggests that restoring a critical mass of residents, workers, and businesses will be essential to rebuilding the downtown’s vibrancy. CP&DR Coverage: Fulton on CEQA-Busting Ballot Measure The California Chamber of Commerce initiative revising the California Environmental Quality Act has qualified for the November. If it passes – which in my view is likely – it will fundamentally alter the CEQA process for certain types of projects, including apparently all housing projects. But even if it doesn’t pass, it’s the end of an era. It probably means that the importance of “significance” – and the judgment of lead agencies and their environmental scientists about what’s significant and what’s not – goes away. In fact the whole idea of impact analysis – the crux of both CEQA and NEPA – will go away. In that sense, CEQA as we know it will be dead. Quick Hits & Updates The Trump administration suspended federal funding for Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, citing concerns about financial mismanagement. Federal funding accounts for about 7% of LAHSA’s budget and primarily supports permanent housing subsidies through HUD’s Continuum of Care program, which promotes community solutions to homelessness. The agency warned that losing federal support could jeopardize housing assistance for thousands of formerly homeless residents and increase the risk of people returning to homelessness. A feasibility study found that redevelopment of Alameda Point's 31-acre Main Street Neighborhood North could be financially viable if the city secures between $164 million and $240 million for infrastructure improvements. The estimated costs include about $176 million for backbone infrastructure and site improvements, plus $64 million for Main Street infrastructure, shoreline stabilization, and levee construction, although those costs could be reduced by up to $75 million through phased infrastructure work and grant funding. After talks of rolling back Los Angeles’ “mansion tax”, the Los Angeles City Council approved a $544.3 million spending plan funds, the largest single-year allocation since the measure took effect in April 2023. The plan is the largest single use of Measure ULA funds so far, calling for $381 million toward affordable housing programs and $163.3 million for homelessness prevention programs. A study Measure ULA finds that it creates a sizable hidden cost by suppressing property transactions. California reassesses property values only at the time of sale, so fewer transactions mean fewer reassessments slowing growth in the broader property tax base. The study, led by Daniel Green of Harvard Business School, estimates about 80 percent of Measure ULA revenue is offset by lower future property-tax collections. The California Water Commission approved $268.9 million in conditional supplemental funding for the proposed Sites Reservoir Project in Colusa County, bringing the project's potential state funding through the Water Storage Investment Program to nearly $1.4 billion. The reservoir would provide 1.5 million acre-feet of water storage by capturing excess Sacramento River flows during wet years for use during droughts, while also supporting flood protection, wildlife refuges, recreation, and up to 200,000 acre-feet of emergency drought water supplies. Los Angeles County Metro's $400 million Vermont Avenue bus lane project can proceed without bike lanes for now, denying a preliminary injunction sought by Streetsblog LA editor Joe Linton who argued the proposal triggers Measure HLA, the 2024 law requiring street safety upgrades whenever the city repaves qualifying stretches of road. Palo Alto has adopted zoning changes aimed at revitalizing commercial districts by allowing a broader range of businesses that previously faced zoning barriers to occupy storefronts. The reforms streamline permitting, ease parking requirements, and expand allowable ground-floor uses as the city works to reduce downtown vacancies and adapt to shifts in retail demand. City officials say the changes are helping attract new businesses while preserving restrictions on traditional medical offices and other non-retail uses. San Diego, which has maintained a place in the top ten most expensive cities in the U.S., has fallen to 12th place with median one-bedroom rents dropping 2.2% annually to $2,200 a month. Analysts attribute the slide primarily to a surge in apartment construction, as San Diego County built more multifamily housing per capita than any other California metro and ranked second nationally as a share of total construction, after New York. Oakland home values are at their lowest in a decade according to data from Zillow. Oakland has seen the starkest home value drop among U.S. cities with at least 100,000 residents, tied with Cape Coral, Florida, which was dubbed the worst housing market in America last year. In March the typical home value in Oakland was about $716,000, reflecting a drop of more than $90,000, or 11.4%, after adjusting for inflation. Larger such as emptying downtowns, crime rates and a shift toward the suburbs combined with high mortgage rates have hurt demand for homes in both San Francisco and Oakland. The Urban Institute published a new interactive tool which allows users to explore where and how effectively states and urban areas have invested in transit-oriented development. The study found that better transit leads to higher ridership, and residents of places like New York City, San Francisco, and DC travel on transit more than seven times as frequently as people living in those other regions. It also found that housing near frequent transit sites encourages better ridership, with areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco performing best, each providing transit service within a half mile of at least 90 percent of homes. Humboldt County residents have launched a ballot initiative to ban large industrial warehouses from the county's Coastal Zone, a direct response to a proposed Amazon distribution center in McKinleyville. The measure would cap new warehouse facilities at 20,000 square feet, effectively blocking Amazon's roughly 40,000-square-foot proposal, while exempting marine-dependent industries like fishing and aquaculture. Organizers submitted the measure through Indivisible Trinidad and must collect 4,874 verified signatures from registered county voters before the Board of Supervisors can adopt it or place it on the November ballot.