CP&DR News Briefs, November 18, 2014: Varied hopes for cap-and-trade funding, lots of suburban Bay Area General Plans, and dust settles in the Owens ValleyBy Martha Bridegam on 17 November 2014 - 9:25pm
In recent land use news:
Legal news briefs, November 11, 2014: Cell phone towers, Bowman redux, and the La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Association strikes againBy Martha Bridegam on 17 November 2014 - 8:59pm
- Attorney Robert May of the LA-based Telecom Law Firm writes in the San Francisco Daily Journal that a new order from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could limit local power to regulate cell phone towers. The October 17 FCC approval interprets Sec. 6409 (a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to allow the addition of new equipment within the areas of currently used wireless sites.
A ruling is expected any day now on a major appellate court test of a key early response to California's SB 375 law on greenhouse gas reduction. The case of Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was argued before California's Fourth District Court of Appeal on August 14 and submitted August 27, so the court is nearing its 90-day deadline to reach a decision.
CP&DR News Briefs, November 10, 2014: Cal American settles with Cemex; HomeAway sues SF over AirBnB; Purple Line groundbreakingBy Martha Bridegam on 10 November 2014 - 8:42pm
In California land use news this week:
Officials with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) have created a "new normal" baseline for discussing possible changes to CEQA transportation metrics under SB 743. They've succeeded pretty much by having the stamina to keep discussing their August 6 preliminary discussion draft. Over. And over. And over. For three months.
In an extended public workshopping process the key OPR drafters -- Chris Calfee and Chris Ganson -- have spoken before many different California groups to explain their August draft, often appearing with leading experts and spokespeople who raise challenging questions about it. Bill Fulton was already referring to "The SB 743 roadshow" in mid-September. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3576.) Now in late fall, with public comments on the draft due November 21, the roadshow has returned, well-tested, to Sacramento.
Those appearances didn't build complete agreement on CEQA transportation metrics -- nothing could -- but through public debates and informal consultations, it appears OPR has built up a corps of influential loyal-opposition advisor/critics who are at least willing to keep arguing constructively and maybe willing to edge toward consensus.
There could have been more fireworks at the USF debate, but it was fierce enough. Sponsored by the USF Law School's Environmental Law Society with support from local bar groups, the debate featured a speaker who is distinctly not a convert to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) view of CEQA transportation impact metrics: Holland & Knight's Jennifer Hernandez.
Back in August, Hernandez was the lead author of her firm's polemical criticism against OPR's discussion draft on guidelines to substitute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for the existing Level of Service (LOS) analysis. The article, titled, "OPR Proposes to Increase CEQA's Costs, Complexity and Litigation Risks with SB 743 Implementation," especially warned against litigation potential in a group of very specific suggested VMT mitigation approaches that were proposed to be added to Appendix F of the guidelines. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3560 and our recent OPR coverage at http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3623.)
On the USF panel with Hernandez were NRDC's Eaken and UCLA Prof. Ethan Elkind, both of whom had published indignant responses to the Holland & Knight article. Elkind's called the article a "misleading diatribe". Eaken's blog post titled, "Setting the record straight on the Governor's CEQA reform proposal" didn't say directly what it was answering but did announce "an effort to clarify misconceptions and stop the ill-intended rumors" before launching into a string of arguments, including "Fact: Suggestions of Mitigation Measures are Just Suggestions..."
Last week Harvard history professor Naomi Oreskes defended the public figure that many planners love to hate: the NIMBY. In a column in the Washington Post entitled, “Stop hating on NIMBYs. They’re saving communities,” she argues that "NIMBY" does not deserve the pejorative connotation that many in the planning community naturally ascribe to it.
Californians voted cautiously this week if they chose to vote at all. It would be foolish to look for just one electoral mood in such a large state – but when voters considered ballot measures related to land use, they mainly chose to preserve status quos.
Out of the many land use measures on California ballots, we profiled some picks at http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3613, and here we're offering a tracking grid of key measures for use in keeping score. The following is by county in alphabetical order.
Organizers have confirmed that attorney Jennifer Hernandez of Holland & Knight and Prof. Ethan Elkind of UCLA will both take part in a panel discussion of SB 375 and SB 743 at the University of San Francisco law school November 4. A third panelist will be Michael Schwartz of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority.
In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that in adopting a climate action plan, San Diego County violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not following the mitigation measures the county laid out in the general plan process.
CalEPA has expanded its definition of “disadvantaged communities” in the cap-and-trade grantmaking programs under SB 535 to the most environmentally burdened 25% of all census tracts.
[This article was first posted October 30. Substantial new material was added November 2.]
California’s November 4 ballots are rich with local tax and land use measures. It’s a sign of fiscal pain in local governments, and of credible optimism that voters can and will accept taxation – though we’ll find that out for certain in a few days.
At the state level, Gov. Jerry Brown is campaigning indirectly for reelection by stumping for Propositions 1 and 2, the water bond and “rainy day fund” measures. As of Saturday the Sacramento Bee reported Brown’s television ads had yet to mention directly that his continued governorship requires voter ratification.
Two Web sites have taken on the exhausting task of presenting local ballot questions one by one: The invaluable Ballotpedia has a huge collection of sub-pages for California statewide and local measures on all topics. CalTax has posted an astonishing table describing local tax measures.
Our own attempt to pick only the planning and taxation measures most closely related to land use came up with more than 70 of them. At best we can only scratch the surface of a list like that.
So what we have for you here are selected spoonfuls from this river of electoral complexity, picking up some of the big clusters of measures that you just knew were going to form in the especially self-involved metropoli, and looking around at some other clusters of less urban measures.
Tax-increment financing isn’t coming back anytime soon. But the state government hasn’t squeezed as much money out of redevelopment as expected. So what happens next? What tools does the state provide to California’s local governments to stimulate new development – especially infill development, which the state is trying to encourage through policies designed to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and achieve other goals?
Here’s a roundup of recent land use news items –
San Diego Environmental Lawyer Backs Infill
The progressive Democratic community in San Diego has split openly over the question of allowing more density near light-rail stops, especially in mostly white middle-class neighborhoods.
In particular, environmental attorney Marco Gonzalez – who stood alongside former City Councilmember Donna Frye in calling for Mayor Bob Filner’s resignation last year – has now broken with Frye on the density question.