Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
Subscribe to our Free Weekly Enewsletter
Single Purchase Store
1986-2004 Reports Archive
Purchase single articles or issues from CP&DR without a subscription!
Ever since Gov. Jerry Brown killed redevelopment in 2011, the conventional wisdom has been that eventually he would give it a second life - but only after he was sure the old system was completely dead, in a way that protects the state general fund, and probably after he himself won re-election to a final term.
Last week's unanimous, finely worded ruling by the California Supreme Court has spared builders their worst-case scenario in the long-awaited "CEQA in Reverse" case. It does not interpret the California Environmental Quality Act to require an environmental impact report whenever a project might attract more people within range of an existing hazard such as air pollution or earthquake risk.
Another Newhall Ranch case goes to the Supreme Court. The winning environmentalists seek a rehearing in the big Newhall lvictorh -- mostly to clarify the nature of their win. And, on another front, an appellate court reheard a groundwater extraction fee case and didn't budget.
After doling out $120 million in essentially free money in 2015, the program staff behind the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grants discovered almost as many opinions as there were dollars in the program. Public and private stakeholders alike expressed concerns about both the fairness and efficacy of the selection process. Large urban areas lobbied for population-based preferences, rural areas lamented their lack of qualifying transit, and fierce discussions took place over jurisdictional caps and underserved communities.
In light of a similar ruling by the California Supreme Court in a case from San Diego, the First District Court of Appeal has ordered Cal State East Bay to revisit the question of offsite traffic mitigation in the environmental impact report for its long-range master plan. As the Supreme Court did in San Diego, the court ruled that Cal State cannot simply declare mitigations infeasible unless the state legislature appropriates funds specifically for that purpose.
You can't fix a bad EIR with an addendum, even when the addendum was supposed to fix the EIR.
Oakland can't retroactively apply CUP in crematorium case.
San Bernardino County is not entitled to the return of $9 million in loan principal to the former county redevelopment agency, even though the funds were not tax-increment revenues and had come from the county's general fund, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled Monday.
California's Supreme Court broke the Newhall Land & Farming Company's long winning streak November 30 in a victory for environmental and community groups over the Newhall Ranch megadevelopment.
If there's anything more confusing than one regional government bureaucracy, it's two regional government bureaucracies.
This is an axiom that cities in the Bay Area have gotten to know all too well over the past 45 years living under the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Calls to merge the two or eliminate one have resounded roughly as long as both have been around. At last, thanks in part to the regional planning mandate set forth by Senate Bill 375, the MTC may finally succeed in a hostile takeover of the much smaller ABAG.
A couple of weeks ago I heard a spiel by one of the founders of a new startup called Feastly, which is trying to pair up chefs with diners. Chefs wake up in the morning, go into their kitchen, prepare whatever they want, put out a call on the Internet - and if it's something you want to eat, you go to their house and dine. Feastly, in other words, turns every dining room into a restaurant.
Reconsidering the case in light of the California Supreme Court's recent Berkeley Hillside ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal has reaffirmed last year's ruling concluding that a rodeo at the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds does not qualify as an "unusual circumstance" that can override an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has rejected arguments from San Diegans for Open Government that the City of San Diego improperly created a joint powers authority in order to avoid a two-thirds vote requirement for issuing sale-leaseback Marks-Roos bonds.
San Diegans for Open Government - a plaintiff frequently used by watchdog lawyer Cory Briggs - sued the city, claiming that a joint-powers authority between the city, the San Diego Housing Authority, and the city's successor agency did not have the power to issue the bonds for several reasons. SDOG attempted to distinguish the situation from the facts of Rider v. City of San Diego (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1035, a California Supreme Court ruling which held, essentially, that the city could end-run the two-thirds requirement by creating a JPA.
The High Cost of Free Parking, by UCLA professor emeritus Don Shoup's landmark call for parking reform, was published in 2005. On the occasion of its tenth anniversary, some of his strongest devotees can, at long last, celebrate a victory in the state where the "Shoupista" movement began.
Assembly Bill 744 (Chau) - recently signed by Gov. Jerry Brown -- ushers in a new era in parking regulations in California cities. Chipping away at rules that many consider arbitrary and anti-urban, it dictates that a city may not impose parking minimums greater than 0.5 spaces for housing developments comprising 100 percent affordable units within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop.
The Second District Court of Appeal has upheld the environmental impact report for the extension of Los Angeles's Purple Line, removing another hurdle for construction of the "Subway to the Sea" through Beverly Hills. Now we'll see whether the Beverly Hills city and school district will appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Was Tuesday's election the turning point in the San Francisco density battles?
There's been a lot of talk lately about how the city's longtime policy of controlling new development may be outdated now that it's the most expensive city in the country. And in the election, affordable housing, urban density, and short-term housing rentals all prevailed . In fact, more people voted on land use measures yesterday in the City and County of San Francisco than in the rest of the state's jurisdictions combined -- four time as many, in fact. Roughly 130,000 San Francisco voters weighed in on a ballot packed with six land use measures.
The division of one parcel into four noncontiguous pieces via eminent domain does not automatically create four legal parcels and permit the landowner to avoid the Subdivision Map Act, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.
"We hold that a 'division' of property within the meaning of the [Subdivision Map] Act does not occur simply because an eminent domain proceeding results in a physical separation of a property's non-condemned portions," wrote Presiding Justice Jim Humes, a former top aide to Jerry Brown for a three-judge panel of the First District. "The owner of such a property is therefore not entitled to a certificate of compliance for each of the resulting separate parts."
For all the appeal that “streamlining” would seem to offer, Gov. Jerry Brown's housing proposal has drawn stiff criticism – including some from traditional proponents of affordable housing.
Reversing itself on remand, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled in the Berkeley Hillside case that the proposed home of computer pioneer Mitch Kapor and his wife does not, in and of itself, represent an "unusual circumstances" under the CEQA Guidelines and therefore the City of Berkeley acted properly in applying a CEQA exemption to the project.
In so doing, the court did not need to move on to the second half of the analysis laid out earlier this year by the California Supreme Court in the appeal of the Berkeley Hillside case, Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, which was decided in May.
A typically diverse array of land use measures appears on the November ballot in a handful of localities around the state. Most questions ask voters to endorse or oppose specific developments, from a golf course redevelopment in El Dorado County to a park in San Carlos. Only the City of Modesto has a sweeping, citywide question, billed as a referendum on urban sprawl.
Then there is the City and County of San Francisco, arguably the most unique and hotly contested 49 square miles in the country. This November, it has a whole state's worth of propositions. They range from a proposed local moratorium on development to restrictions on Airbnb and the like to a major $310 million housing bond that Mayor Ed Lee has been promoting.
- (place your job ad here!)
Senior Planner - The City of Mill Valley, CA
Regional Conservation Director - Riverside County, CA
NEW E-EDITION JUST PUBLISHED: