August 11 would have been the deadline for California's statewide ballots to go to press, but state legislators pushed that date back as they continued to work on a water bond deal with Governor Jerry Brown. According to Ben Adler of Capitol Public Radio, details emerged late in the day of a plan calling for almost $7.2 billion in spending -- most of it in new bond funds -- of which $2.5 billion would support surface water storage projects. He reported the Legislature passed, and Governor Brown signed, bills to delay the voter guide deadline, change the number on the November "rainy day fund" measure to Proposition 2, and label whatever water bond proposal is on the ballot as "Proposition 1". See http://bit.ly/1yoDYFC. The Sacramento Bee has more at http://bit.ly/1kXLI0B.

In a more detailed report at http://bit.ly/1oECjLc, Adler reviewed disputed issues, including the goal of making the bond measure "tunnel neutral" with respect to the Governor's Delta tunnel project, and pending proposals for water storage projects, including the Temperance Flat dam proposal. (For a detailed read on Temperance Flat, see blogger Patricia McBroom's article last February at http://bit.ly/1B9TQzP.) If placed on the ballot, the new bond measure would replace the dated $11.1 billion proposal currently on the ballot. The LA Times said a Republican  $8.7 billion counterproposal was also pending as of last Friday. See http://lat.ms/1oxAevz. The LA Times' Jim Newton has a bigger-picture news analysis on the politics and context of the bond negotiation -- and the fragility of LA's own water infrastructure -- at http://lat.ms/1opsBx7.

Other bills before the Legislature this month include major legislation that would make California the last Western state to regulate groundwater use statewide. Dave Puglia of the Western Growers Association told the LA Times, "California hasn't attempted to change water law this dramatically in 100 years." See http://lat.ms/1yjQUML.

Ponte Vista project breaks ground with a diminished plan for 676 units

A popular article last week by the LA Times' Andrew Khouri presented the Ponte Vista project in San Pedro as a case study of a large-project proposal whittled down by community opposition to a smaller design with lower density and higher costs per unit than first proposed. He writes that the original 2005 design called for 2,300 condo and town house units plus 10,000 square feet of retail -- but as of the groundbreaking last week, the design called for 676 units including 208 single-family homes. See http://lat.ms/1mpl23M/.

A series of stories over the years by Curbed LA, collected at http://la.curbed.com/tags/ponte-vista, recount more of the project's reshaping over time from a large "mixed-use urban village" to a smaller "suburban-ish" gated complex. It says the project changed owners along the way, lost all its proposed rentals, and picked up agreements for an access road, union labor, local hires, and public access to recreation spaces.

'Boomerang campaign' secures Alameda Co. post-redevelopment funds for housing

Housing advocates persuaded the Alameda County Supervisors on July 29 to commit a dollop of former Redevelopment funds to affordable housing and homelessness prevention. The Supervisors committed $13.7 million in one-time funds to the programs plus a promise to reserve more for the programs starting in 2016-17: 20% of tax funds that would formerly have gone to Redevelopment, or at least $2 million a year. The one-time commitment consisted of $9.8 million in funds "swept" from ex-Redevelopment accounts reserved for housing, plus $3.9 million of additional ex-Redevelopment funds.

The campaign that won the distribution was led by the East Bay Housing Organizations coalition (see http://ebho.org/news) and was associated with the "Boomerang Campaign" of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. (See http://nonprofithousing.org/policy-advocacy/the-boomerang-campaign/.) Although the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies ended Redevelopment's 20% housing set-aside for tax-increment funds, the campaign has urged local governments to honor its intent. The campaign frames returned ex-redevelopment amounts as "boomerang funds" and argues that equivalents to the old 20% set-aside � or more � should be used for housing, not simply poured into the general fund. The campaign claims successes in multiple Bay Area towns and counties over the past two years.

For details on the Alameda County decision see the Supervisors' July 29 "Attachment 99.3" agenda item. The staff-prepared agenda packet materials are at http://bit.ly/1yoROrs and video is at http://alamedacounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2314. (The vote is reported in the Pleasanton Weekly at http://bit.ly/VdGG3Z. Noted via the League of California Cities.)

After court ruling, San Diego considers new approaches to convention center, stadium

San Diego officials were regrouping after an appellate court overturned the city's special hotel tax, leaving no agreed way to pay for a convention center expansion.

California's Fourth Appellate District had ruled in City of San Diego v. Shapiro that the tax was invalid as approved by hotel landowners/lessees, and instead required approval by two-thirds of the city's voters. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3545.)

As the plans headed back to the drawing board, JMI Realty, builders of the existing Petco Park ballpark, were proposing a new San Diego Chargers stadium design that could be combined with a convention center expansion plan. See http://bit.ly/1kXMNpo.

In an op-ed at http://bit.ly/1lQ4mCp, City Council member David Alvarez argued that the process by which hotel landowners agreed to tax themselves for the convention center expansion had been short on public participation and would need to broaden into "a citywide civic dialogue".

In a Twitter thread beginning at https://twitter.com/sdutOsborne/status/498487348531712001, Alvarez debated with Mark Cafferty of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation over the quality of the public process last time around. Cafferty argued that the last approach came out of an inclusive process at the start and had a wide coalition "to push this plan across the finish line"; Alvarez wrote in part, "hoteliers dominated previous process. No real input from public was sought or accepted... Real question is: are hoteliers and the mayor willing to engage the public on options going forward?"

Chiu short-term home rental legislation passes SF Planning Commission

San Francisco's Planning Commission gave initial approval August 7 to legislation by Board of Supervisors President David Chiu to legalize, regulate and tax short-term rentals through online services such as Airbnb. The Bay Guardian covered the long, contentious hearing at http://bit.ly/1sx5XEQ, reporting the  legislation would require hosts to "register with the city, pay all associated taxes and sign up for liability insurance." Previously, the San Francisco Business Journal reported a new group of short-term rental hosts, the Home Sharers of San Francisco, kicked off a public campaign July 31 in favor of the Chiu legislation. See http://bit.ly/1m5GURx. The Guardian's former editor, Tim Redmond, gave his own opinionated account of the hearing on his own 48 Hills site at http://bit.ly/1oFHWDM. He and the Guardian described arguments from opponents of the legislation who ranged from former planning officials, to apartment landlords concerned about insurance, to a hotel workers' union representative. Redmond reported that although many short-term rental hosts spoke on their own behalf, no direct representatives of Airbnb or VRBO spoke for the companies at the hearing. The legislation next goes to the Board of Supervisors in September.

WeHo developer gives up 'poor door' pool policy but still loses Planning vote

Under criticism from the West Hollywood Community Development Department, developers of the 8899 Beverly office building conversion gave up a proposal to bar residential tenants of affordable units from using the property's pool � but they still lost a Planning Commission vote, possibly also due to the size of the project. Southern California Public Radio reported project proponents backed down and agreed to share the pool shortly before the planning commission vote. See http://bit.ly/1ulWBfF (via CACities). The proposal was locally condemned as a "poor door" � a term derived from New York City projects that have fully separate entrances to their affordable sections. Per the LA Times at http://lat.ms/1mEA3Pe, the project calls for renovating a 10-story office building into a mixed-use complex including 64 market-rate and 17 affordable residential units. The Times reports the commission's August 7 vote against the proposal becomes a recommendation to the city council, which will decide the project's future.

In other news �

  • The Coastal Commission begins a special four-day session August 12 with a full agenda that includes the expansion of I-5 along the 27-mile North Coast Corridor north of San Diego. See http://coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html. The agenda item, No. 17 on August 13, is at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/8/W17a-s-8-2014.pdf.
  • In an interview on her plans as Speaker of the Assembly, Rep. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, told the Voice of San Diego she would support a "down and dirty discussion" of possible legislative changes to CEQA. The paper reported she "questions the need for an environmental impact report when a property owner wants to upgrade or replace an existing building." See http://bit.ly/1BaBj6H.
  • The Sacramento Bee reported on a statewide increase in available charging stations for electric vehicles at http://bit.ly/1orbVoM.
  • The SF Chron's JK Dineen reported on a proposal by Build, Inc. to build 900 residential units on the 14-acre property at 700 Innes Ave. near the India Basin Open Space in the Bayview District of San Francisco. The paper reports it's "the largest remaining privately owned development site in the city". And it says Build, Inc. is "talking to" the John Stewart Co., a major developer and manager of subsidized housing, about including "for-sale housing targeted at middle-income families" on the site. See http://bit.ly/V88kyS.
  • The water issues weblog Maven's Notebook has posted an August 1 decision by the Mammoth Community Water District to sue the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District over the Casa Diablo IV geothermal project. The water district contends the project's FEIS/EIR failed adequately to consider effects on groundwater that it says could harm the city water supply. See http://bit.ly/1sLLWad.
  • The Mercury News reported Los Gatos was near approval of a specific plan for a mixed-use development on the "North 40," described as the city's last large vacant parcel. See http://bit.ly/1oFQBGg.
  • The Riverside County town of Hemet approved a specific plan in June for the Ramona Creek mixed-use development at the west end of town. The Press-Enterprise reported recently the project would turn "200 acres of dirt" into "more than 500,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, restaurant, office and mixed-use development along with approximately 1000 houses." Local officials welcomed the plan as the first local major development since the mid-2000s. The developer is Regent Properties of Los Angeles. See http://www.pe.com/articles/hemet-698633-city-development.html. City documents for the specific plan are at http://www.cityofhemet.org/index.aspx?NID=627.