An appellate court has upheld a CEQA exemption for the 2011 deputy sheriffs' charity rodeo at the Santa Cruz County fairgrounds in Watsonville. Although it was the first rodeo held there in a generation, the court held a categorical exemption was proper for the event on the grounds that, environmentally speaking, the rodeo was much a "normal operation" as any other livestock or equestrian event at that venue. Plaintiffs objecting to the rodeo had claimed "unusual circumstances" existed that might have a "significant effect" on the environment because of a risk that manure from the event would harm nearby Salsipuedes Creek, and also, per the court, because of "proximity to residential and agricultural land, or a public safety risk of bull riding". The March 26 decision by California's Third Appellate District upheld decisions by Sacramento County Superior Court judge Lloyd Connelly that had allowed the 14th District Agricultural Association, which runs the fairgrounds, to grant the rodeo a Class 23 categorical exemption from CEQA environmental review as "normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings." Per the case history in the decision and local news reports, Connelly allowed Stars of Justice Inc., a nonprofit created by the Santa Cruz County Deputy Sheriff's Association, to go ahead with its charity rodeo in October 2011 after the county had gone "two decades" without one. Just under 1000 people reportedly attended. Connelly later confirmed his approval in 2012. (See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18993102; http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19819481; http://bit.ly/1jSZyjO.) Since the rodeo itself was over long ago, the appeal that followed from rodeo opponents was moot, but the appellate court chose to rule on the environmental issue as a public interest matter "likely to recur and capable of evading review." The court found the rodeo was part of "normal operations" at the fairground because it was essentially similar to other events held at the same site. It said the site did not have to be compared to other kinds of public venues, nor to other fairgrounds, to determine what was normal. It distinguished a series of cases involving refusals to grant categorical exemptions, arguing that the exemptions were denied not because nearby neighbors or watercourses presented unusual circumstances, but because the activities in question were new ones, with new, unaccustomed effects. Plaintiffs had claimed that, in adopting a Manure Management Plan to protect the creek, the fairground managers essentially gave up their claim to a categorical exemption by admitting there was a hazard to mitigate. The court found the same sanitation measures applied to all events involving horses and livestock, not just the rodeo, and were not new, just recently formalized and possibly increased. The plaintiffs contesting the rodeo were Citizens for Environmental Responsibility, Eric Zamost, and his Stop the Rodeo organization. The stoptherodeo.org Web site objects to rodeo events as promoting a culture of violence entailing mistreatment of animals and also, in fewer words, to the discharge of "raw manure" into Salsipuedes Creek. The case is Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State of California ex rel. 14th District Agricultural Association , at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C070836.PDF.

A challenge by dissident conservationists to the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update is in the hands of U.S. Judge John A. Mendez following oral arguments in Sacramento March 26. The arguments put a bookend to a fierce, prolonged exchange of court papers heavy with mutual exasperation, between parties who may disagree more utterly than most. The Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore, plaintiffs in the litigation, are holdout critics of the 2012 Regional Plan Update (RPU), which forms the centerpiece of a major political and regulatory settlement on California and Nevada officials' shared environmental governance of the Lake Tahoe basin. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3435.) Based on claims that the RPU erodes previously established scientific standards, the Sierra Club plaintiffs have been contesting its validity in federal court for the past year. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), as defendant in the litigation, is being pressed to justify the work of negotiators at many levels, including some Tahoe Basin conservation leaders, who put years of effort into crafting the RPU. The Sierra Club plaintiffs depict TRPA as soft on developers; TRPA depicts the plaintiffs as destructive perfectionists. According to the Tahoe Daily Tribune (See http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/10781943-113/plan-lake-tahoe-trpa) and a statement released by TRPA, the oral arguments themselves addressed well-established themes in the briefing. Mendez will now decide competing motions for summary judgment that could very possibly end the case. Fractious briefing The lawyers exchanged indignantly phrased briefs through early 2014, taking extra bites at each other's arguments by filing oppositions to amicus briefs and judicial notice requests. TRPA's counsel tried during the last week before the hearing to gain an extra edge from two recent high-profile cases in which courts trusted agencies' judgment on environmental plans. One was Judge Jay Bybee's call for deference to administrative-branch expertise in the Ninth Circuit's Delta Smelt decision  (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3448). The other was the California Second District's choice to accept "adaptive management" of the endangered spineflower in proposed Newhall Ranch development areas. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3461 and Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B245131.PDF.) Judge Mendez did not focus on the two new cases. TRPA's John Marshall answered an email query: "The recent cases were not discussed at the oral argument". Earthjustice's Wendy Park answered a parallel query: "The Judge only commented at the beginning of the hearing that argument on those two cases was not necessary since they were only marginally relevant (they'd be "the last case in a string cite")." Invited to respond to Park, TRPA spokesman Jeff Cowen wrote: "TRPA has no response to the statement." In earlier 2014 briefing, TRPA, joined in an amicus brief by the California and Nevada natural resource agencies, suggested the difficulty and extent of the bi-state public process that created the RPU was itself an argument for the RPU's validity. Plaintiffs countered that the court's review was limited to the legality of TRPA's proceedings and the adequacy of supporting evidence. In late February the plaintiffs quoted a warning out of Laurel Heights v. UC Regents , 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988), against the risk that "bureaucratic and financial momentum" would overrun "environmental concerns that could be dealt with more easily at an early stage." Otherwise TRPA continued to defend the Regional Plan Update as a pragmatic shift toward regulation via incentives for environmental retrofitting and reduction of ground coverage via denser redevelopment. Supporters of the RPU have argued that its new frameworks for regulation are based on scientific advances and physical changes in the lake basin's environmental needs that have appeared since the prior Regional Plan's 1987 approval. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3435.) Disputes in the 2014 briefing included whether the RPU would provide adequately for ongoing enforcement of required Best Management Practices (BMP) on developed properties, and whether the lake's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards would be either strict enough or sufficiently enforceable, especially on the Nevada side and in areas where local jurisdictions would be taking over enforcement tasks. In an argument that TRPA may have meant to answer by quoting the Newhall Ranch spineflower decision, the plaintiffs claimed in a January brief that TRPA's "adaptive management" approach to BMP enforcement "amounts to possibly reacting to worsened conditions (in an unspecified manner)" instead of getting ahead of them. TRPA retorted in its papers that the standards were real, sufficient and sufficiently enforceable to improve on current conditions, complaining meanwhile that "Plaintiffs persist in failing to distinguish between TRPA's BMP Retrofit Program for existing legacy development, and BMPs required for new development or redevelopment." TRPA further accused plaintiffs of "ignoring an overwhelming scientific and technical consensus" supporting the TMDL "load reduction credits" system of regulation, and of cherry-picking both laws and regulations to find fault. Plaintiffs argued in their series of briefs that TRPA hadn't sufficiently studied the true likely effects on runoff and soil from the RPU's incentives for developers to restore properties in fragile areas and transfer development credits to town center areas. TRPA accused plaintiffs of shifting ground improperly by leading with a water quality analysis in their opening brief, then shifting emphasis to soil conservation arguments in later papers. TRPA argued the EIS had met the necessary standard on soil conservation because it modeled and analyzed "potential impacts on nutrient cycling" and discussed effects on vegetation and on fish habitat. Plaintiffs wrote that "'Redevelopment' Means More Development" and predicted the RPU would allow "183 more acres of coverage region-wide" and that "the transfer of 960 development rights from... undeveloped and undevelopable parcels to developable parcels located in centers" would increase overall construction. Plaintiffs disagreed with a group of business and real estate amici on whether a new "resort recreation" designation of 315 acres of prior "recreation" lands at the Edgewood and Heavenly resort properties would expand urban boundaries. On the contrary, in its press statement about the March 26 oral arguments, TRPA reiterated its position that "The Regional Plan will result in less impervious land coverage in the Basin, more open space, and will accelerate the removal of legacy land coverage from sensitive lands." As for ozone monitoring, said by the plaintiffs to be neglected under the RPU (their January brief said there were no monitors at all in South Lake Tahoe), TRPA replied in its papers that the RPU would reduce vehicle use, that auto emissions standards have caused ozone levels to decline, and that more monitoring is not required by law. TRPA's statement quoted Executive Director Joanne Marchetta as saying, "We all want Lake Tahoe to continue to be one of the most protected watersheds in the nation and our plan will do that... This litigation boils down to how we balance strong environmental protections with the need to upgrade existing development that is impacting the Lake." The Tahoe Daily Tribune reported Judge Mendez took the case under submission without specifying a date for his decision.

The proposed 60,000-population Newhall Ranch development began a recent winning streak with an LA Superior Court ruling Jan. 31 on water supply adequacy and greenouse gases in the project's Phase 1 EIR – as reported in a Santa Clarita Valley Signal news story whose comments section reflects fierce local debate: http://www.signalscv.com/section/36/article/113952/. In another decision that supports the project, the Castaic Lake Water Agency's recent acquisition of the Valencia Water Company received a PUC approval in February per documents made available at http://bit.ly/1j90b8v by an opponent of both decisions, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE). In early March, environmental and tribal groups filed a federal suit contesting Clean Water Act approvals by the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA based on potential environmental effects and potential intrusion on Chumash heritage and burial sites. For details see the LA Times at http://lat.ms/1gDxhW8 and the site of one of the plaintiffs, Friends of the Santa Clara River, at http://www.fscr.org/html/newhall.html. And then on March 20 California's Second District Court of Appeal backed the Newhall Land and Farming Co. by upholding a state Fish and Wildlife environmental impact statement that favors the project over objections from a similar group of plaintiffs, who said they would likely seek state Supreme Court review. The decision is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B245131.PDF and further details at http://lat.ms/1imoY5D. Water board adjusts flow in farmers' favor but zero allocation still predicted Over environmentalists' objections, the State Water Board issued orders March 18 allowing more Delta water to flow to farmers, and less out of the Delta, though it did not end the zero allocation forecasts of the Department of Water Resources and Bureau of Reclamation. The Sacramento Bee has details at http://bit.ly/PPsr3o. The orders themselves are on the State Water Resources Control Board site at http://bit.ly/1esWgiI. Also in the news: The California State University system has chosen not to build a new campus at the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The Contra Costa Times has news of other redevelopment plans at http://bit.ly/Nxi1DX. Los Angeles City Planning released its Draft Mobility Plan in mid-February, opening a comment period that ends May 13, 2014. See http://la2b.org/. The L.A. Dept. of Water and Power, Sacramento and parts of the Metropolitan Water District are all paying homeowners to remove their lawns. See, respectively, http://lat.ms/1nCGjqV, http://bit.ly/1jRKxex and http://www.socalwatersmart.com/index.php/qualifyingproducts/turfremoval. San Francisco's Measure B, which would subject all future waterfront height limit variances to referenda, survived a court challenge, keeping its place on the June 3 county ballot, but its campaign manager, Jon Golinger, was in hot water for trying to become the author of the official arguments both for and against the measure that he in fact supported. See http://bit.ly/1lVgxPt and http://bit.ly/1d6oama. The L.A. Board of Supervisors has approved the proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Santa Monica Mountains, which has languished in part-drafted form since 1986. As the Malibu Times reports at http://bit.ly/1iJf8LX, Zev Yaroslavsky wrote a furious response to local critics at http://zev.lacounty.gov/blog/exposing-a-mountain-of-deceit. The plan still awaits final Coastal Commission adoption. For the LCP see http://planning.lacounty.gov/coastal.

A generation ago, moratoriums on new water hookups were important to the statewide land use picture in bad drought years. During 1991, new hookups were banned in some large southern and coastal California cities and all of Marin County. Santa Monica made developers mitigate new hookups by buying low-flush toilets for existing users. The Metropolitan Water District suspended annexations. Not so in 2014. As this year's drought deepens, urban water systems are in general keeping new hookups available. Not necessarily because there's more water, but thanks to improvements over the past two decades in planning and connectivity. As every day's news attests, the drought is slamming agriculture, natural habitats, and small water districts that are poor, awkwardly placed, or under-connected. Wood chips from uprooted almond trees have reportedly poured in to power plants as fuel. But meanwhile, like a cozy kitchen in a tumbledown house, the urban centers hold steady. Some urban districts that are enforcing strict conservation measures are also looking at new annexations and subdivisions without blinking. People do still ask where the water's coming from for new large developments. It seems possible, however, that drinking-water supply for expanding urban footprints may have lost some importance as grist for development debates compared with the days of the big moratoriums. This year it is rare to find municipal districts suspending new water connections specifically as a response to the current dry season. An extensive if unsystematic search by phone and Internet found only two: the posh suburb of Montecito, next door to Santa Barbara, and Willits in the parched Mendocino County interior. Some districts, mostly small, banned new hookups long before the current drought: Bolinas since 1971, Cambria since 1990, Redwood Valley, with very occasional relief, since 1989. Customers of California American Water in the Monterey Peninsula Management District are under a moratorium on water permits for new construction and remodels, addressed in a current proposed bond bill, SB 936: http://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB936/2013. Brooktrails Township – a community services district near Willits – is probably not alone in having no need to ban new connections. It has had 24 connections available since a state-imposed moratorium ended in 2010, but district staff member Elizabeth Simpson said there were no takers. Connection fees are $23,711 apiece. Other districts, including Solvang and Nipomo, have discussed moratoriums but aren't there yet. Reflecting a contrast between municipal and rural/agricultural pressures, Paso Robles has banned new private wells, including for houses, because of groundwater depletion pressures that have a lot to do with vineyards. The city has not stopped new connections to municipal pipes. Its contingency plan would impose a hookup moratorium at the strictest stage of water crisis but Planning Manager Susan DeCarli said: "That would be a long way out from here now." In the Redwood Valley County Water District of Sonoma County, general manager Bill Koehler said the district had about 120 days of stored water. He said whether it would last depended whether the vineyards that sustain the local economy required spraying for protection from more than one or two frost events in the next few weeks. And yet, the list of some 200 local conservation measures compiled by the Association of California Water Agencies at http://www.acwa.com/content/local-drought-response shows no large districts banning water for new development as of March 20. So what exactly is different since 1991? Water and infrastructure expert Ellen Hanak, co-director of research at the Public Policy Institute of California, wrote: "The difference is that there have been major strides in drought planning and resiliency investments since then. The 1987-92 drought really marked the beginning of many of the practices that have become very important for the modern approaches to modern water that most large urban agencies now subscribe to."   In an interview, Hanak said the water year (from a statewide perspective) was looking like about the fourth-driest on record, about a "30-year drought." That is, a level of drought already planned and accounted for in long-term water management plans. Her comments, and other recent PPIC publications, viewed the drought as a crisis mainly for agriculture, the environment, and remote rural towns "not connected to a larger grid". Urban systems, she said, were "mostly in very good shape during this drought" though it was further encouraging long-term planning, especially to increase physical connections among existing systems to allow sharing. Hanak recently coauthored a PPIC report on "serious funding gaps" affecting California water systems, including drinking water contamination in small, poor agricultural towns: http://ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1086. The report saw a shortage of funds for other ordinary water management such as responses to floods, storm and other runoff, ecological conservation, and coordination among systems. In an email exchange, Hanak demurred to the blanket suggestion that urban water systems' strength might make water supply less of a constraint on growth. She wrote: "I think there's potential for things to fall more through the cracks in some places that are growing fast from a smaller base – planning and often supply diversification actions are likely to be less well-established." She declined to name any particular district as one for concern, writing that her comment was based on a statistical analysis in the mid-2000s "where we found that places that were growing faster and that had smaller water agencies were less likely to be complying fully with all the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act," also noting that "communities with fewer than 3,000 service connections don't actually even need to prepare urban water management plans." Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) are required of more than 400 urban water districts every five years, with the next revisions due in 2015. Large new developments must additionally meet "show me the water" requirements under Senate Bills 221 and 610 of the 2001 session. An SB 610 "Water Supply Assessment" is required for any project with more than 500 housing units or hotel rooms, work space for more than 1000 people, business space on a similar scale, or a 10% increase in the local district's total hookups. The overlapping SB 221 requires "Verification of Sufficient Water Supply" for approval of a tentative map, parcel map or development agreement for a similar-sized project, with exemptions for infill or low-income housing. Both standards require water planning for the next 20 years that anticipates expected population increases and recurrences of known types of drought periods: http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/SB610_SB221/. Among local development disputes it is difficult to find substantive connections being drawn between the current drought's effects and projects that have had to pass reviews under SB 610 and SB 221. Jonas Minton of the Planning and Conservation League said requirements such as SB 221 and SB 610 are determined to be satisfied relatively easily. The laws "have had very little effect to date," he said. Despite a few court cases involving egregious cases of ignoring water supply concerns, he said developers generally have managed to satisfy authorities that a 20-year water supply exists. He said analyses for such purposes are based on "a short record" of the last 150 years, which may not reflect all possible conditions. But like Hanak, he said forecasts for frightening drought effects "overstate the reality that we're finding this year" and most urban areas would not suffer dire water shortages. City of Folsom Minton pointed to the "very development-friendly" city of Folsom as the scene of a land annexation whose planned water supply "was semi-theoretical, a bunch of water wonks arguing about that." The city's main water source, Folsom Lake, this winter left so much of its lake bed exposed that tourists wandered the temporary mudflats admiring ruins from the Gold Rush: http://bit.ly/1fGZD82. Folsom's South of Highway 50 annexation covers land in which developer Angelo Tsakopoulos was a major initial investor. The 2010 UWMP predicted this "Folsom Plan Area" (FPA) would gain population from zero in 2010 to 24,335 in 2035. Water supply was important in local controversy over the annexation, including a contentious 2004 election season. That year voters approved developer-sponsored Measure W, which allowed the annexation if existing residents' water rights and rates were protected. The FPA passed its SB 610 review around 2009. Folsom then planned to serve the new area by purchasing water rights from the Natomas Central Mutual Water Co.: http://bit.ly/PVtnTL; http://bit.ly/1gEsh3F. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approved the annexation in January 2012. Later in 2012, plans for the FPA's water supply shifted. City spokeswoman Sue Ryan responded to questions about that by sending the first 100 pages of a staff report supporting two approval resolutions that the City Council passed in December 11, 2012. (The report is downloadable from Item 8a on the 12/11/12 agenda at http://www.folsom.ca.us/agendas/.) The resolutions agreed that instead of using the Natomas water rights purchase to bring water from the Sacramento River (which had run into "uncertainties" about Bureau of Reclamation approval), an existing water entitlement would be transferred south from the East Area and supplemented with water saved through conservation while the developers paid for new infrastructure. The East Area's demand would be met with conservation savings and, if necessary, water purchases based on "a Sacramento County Water Agency contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, known as the Fazio Water Supply." As of summer 2013 the Sacramento Bee reported the developers would spend some $52 million to move and treat water for new properties out of the city's existing supply: http://bit.ly/1ggUvaD. There was an indignant discussion about that on the Tomatopages community site at http://bit.ly/1hK52I3, especially asking if the transfer of water rights infringed Measure W, but that's where the matter appears to have rested. Marcus Yasutake, who became Folsom's environmental and water resources director in summer 2013, described the year's drought, not as an all-out disaster, but as a data point and opportunity to teach conservation habits. In an interview that did not address technicalities or politics, he said the city was not in a situation to suspend new permits or connections. "Doesn't mean we won't ever be." He said, "I'm sure at some point in time 2013 will be included as a drought year from a planning perspective because we haven't gone through anything like 2013". He said "typically people look to the '76-'77 years," which at the time were "the worst on record, and now we have something that was even below that. So, the requires us to look at those drought type of years and to identify reduction or other supply alternatives." He said conservation measures under the 2010 UWMP included finding and patching leaks -- locally difficult because water easily seeps through cobbles left by Gold Rush dredging -- and an end to unmetered flat-rate water supply. Residential water meters began use in January 2013. Asked if there were any concerns about the water promises made in the annexation approval process being kept, Yasutake said it would take a drought years worse than the current one to trouble the water supply to the annexed area. Paso Robles Though facing a groundwater shortage and currently banning new wells, Paso Robles is not stopping two proposed annexations and a request for a General Plan change to allow further buildout. Planning Manager Susan DeCarli said recently begun construction will give the city better access to purchased water from Lake Nacimiento and the city also has had conservation successes, in part by replacing flat-rate billing with graduated rates. She said, "We have enough water capacity to withstand our full development buildout," which calls for population expansion from 30,000 to 45,000. "So as new developments are proposed, it's confusing to people," she said, because there are heavy restrictions on use of groundwater at the same time. The grandest proposed expansion, the Paso Robles Gateway development, calls for three hotels, houses and vineyards. DeCarli said given the "heightened sensitivity to water resources" the developers voluntarily agreed to do a Water Supply Assessment -- "they didn't argue" -- and planned to buy their own Lake Nacimiento water. "It's going to be a major issue when they go to LAFCo", she said. Did better planning help in such arrangements? she said it did help to direct new development to urbanized areas. "You can manage urban water to make sure you've got services."

With $1.54 billion already spent on California carbon emission rights, debate continues on whether the state's cap-and-trade auction process is valid and what the auction proceeds are for. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has repeatedly questioned Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed uses for an expected $850 million in annual revenue from cap-and-trade auctions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission allowances. While Brown's proposals do support projects related to air quality, LAO has asked if they will achieve the best GHG reductions available for the money. LAO lays out and critiques Brown's proposals in a February 24 report at http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/2953. It urges the Legislature to have the Air Resources Board set standards for state departments to use in deciding what programs would reduce GHGs most effectively. Of interest to local planners is that, per the February 24 report, Governor Brown's proposals would include $100 million in each of the next two fiscal years to support transit-oriented development programs related to SB 375 compliance, to be administered by the Strategic Growth Council, including possibly for grants to local governments' projects. These funds would replace the funds previously provided by Proposition 84, which will run out after this year. The LAO has been chivvying Brown on his proposed uses cap-and-trade proceeds since January, especially on his proposal to spend up to one-third of each year's proceeds on high-speed rail construction. LAO's January 13 report on the budget proposal at http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/overview/budget-overview-2014.aspx called the use for high-speed rail "legally risky". As the Sacramento Bee noted at http://bit.ly/1cvGNuc, the Feb. 24 LAO report said high-speed rail construction "would actually generate GHG emissions of 30,000 metric tons over the next several years." Similar objections appear in a March 6 transportation report at http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/2966. Brown's proposals have drawn mixed reviews from others too, as discussed in StreetsblogLA at http://bit.ly/1gGYkA8 and the LA Times at http://lat.ms/1g9dJyA. Per the LAO, the Governor's budget proposal would divide cap-and-trade money among 23 program components run by 11 departments and boards. The High-Speed Rail Authority would get $250 million in the coming fiscal year, and then 33% of all cap-and-trade revenue from 2015-2016 on. The Air Resources Board would get funding to administer the cap-and-trade program itself plus $200 million in each of the next two years for clean transportation. As noted, there would be the $100 million in each of two years for the SB 375 programs. Other recipients would include low-income weatherization, upgrades to Caltrans and state buildings, waste emission reduction and recycling, water conservation, State Water Project generator efficiency, wildfire prevention and watershed restoration. Out of $500 million borrowed from past cap-and-trade income by the General Fund, the budget would pay back $100 million in the coming year. The report suggested these activities might not reduce GHGs optimally, or if they did, it might be through "activities that would have happened on the natural (meaning without the support of cap-and-trade auction revenues)." Instead, it urged using cap-and-trade income for ending the separate $40 million "Cost of Implementation" charge to polluters or funding energy storage efficiency, carbon sequestration or alternative fuels. The State Senate's Standing Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review discussed the Governor's proposals for the revenue February 13. Materials are at http://bit.ly/1f0KfxV. On March 19 the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Resources and Transportation heard testimony on the Governor's proposals for the revenue. The Sacramento Bee's Dan Morain wrote up the appearance at this second hearing of "45 smart lobbyists and consultants" who each had ideas about how to spend the money. http://bit.ly/1gkVBRv. Steinberg's carbon tax proposal: rhetoric or literal legislation? State Senate president pro tem Darrell Steinberg has commented on Brown's proposals indirectly with a carbon tax proposal that, as the Mercury News commented at http://bit.ly/1dcbPx2, may be more rhetorical than legislative. Saying, "My attempt here is to stoke a debate," Steinberg proposed replacing the transportation fuels portion of the cap-and-trade system, which is expected to raise the cost of gas in 2015, with a carbon tax starting around 15 cents per gallon of fuel, rising in future years. His proposal would transfer most of the proceeds to households with incomes below $75,000 through a state earned-income tax credit, and would spend the rest on transit. Steinberg's initial statements on the tax are at http://bit.ly/1gEfKSl. The LA Times has more at http://lat.ms/1kZHUYG and http://lat.ms/1l1JGeD. Steinberg introduced a vaguely phrased version of the proposal as SB 1156: see http://bit.ly/1gMpJ4b. Auctions continue alongside litigation to stop them As of the most recent auction in February, which sold nearly $330 million in carbon permits, the Sacramento Bee reports at http://bit.ly/1hQg8Lz that California companies have spent $1.54 billion on greenhouse gas emission rights so far. The ongoing ARB auction page is at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/auction.htm. However, the legality of the auctions themselves is still at issue. Chamber of Commerce official Loren Kaye noted in a blog post at http://bit.ly/1jiR68Z that notices of appeal are on file in California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board, a Sacramento Superior Court case that upheld the existing auction system last year. The decision and pleadings are at https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/publicdms/Search.aspx under case number 34-2012-80001313.

Officials of Healdsburg and at least three smaller water districts have been trying to shed unwanted status as poster children for the California drought. In a January 28 press release at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR14-012.aspx, the Department of Public Health issued a list of 17 communities that it said were at risk for running out of drinking water. Since then, Healdsburg City Manager Marjie Pettus has been insisting she doesn't know why. Pettus said, "We believe that perhaps an assumption was made because our City Council took proactive measures and implemented a mandatory water conservation measure." But she and Planning Director Barbara Nelson said the early move to strict conservation was a stewardship measure, not a sign of immediate shortage. city of healdsburg was on the initial list of 17 water systems identified as at risk with drought-related water supply concerns... based on our initial survey. since that time, some systems, such as healdsburg, have been able to improve their situation, some with cdph assistance, and the concerns have reduced."> city of healdsburg was on the initial list of 17 water systems identified as at risk with drought-related water supply concerns... based on our initial survey. since that time, some systems, such as healdsburg, have been able to improve their situation, some with cdph assistance, and the concerns have reduced."> Healdsburg is at Stage 2 mandatory water conservation, which calls for a 20% reduction below last year's water use. The city's Web site cites low Russian River flows from Lake Mendocino in imposing the restrictions: http://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=397. But Pettus said: "Healdsburg has sufficient water to meet current demand." She said the city can additionally draw from wells in Dry Creek Valley as of April 1 of each year. "Between the river and the wells we can meet all of our commercial and residential water needs." This chic wine-tourism destination with more than 11,000 residents was the largest water district on February's at-risk list. It appeared alongside smaller areas whose reactions have been mixed. Water managers in Shaver Lake Heights, Bass Lake and Sierra Cedars wrote that they were placed on the "at-risk" list in error and were then removed. Pete Conrad of Sierra Cedars passed on an email from CDPH's Merced District saying Sierra Cedars "should not have been included on the list as there is no indication that the system is experiencing any reduced capacity or other complications due to drought conditions." Pettus, however, said phone calls to state officials by Healdsburg Mayor Jim Wood got no clear explanation for the at-risk designation. She said, "They might have acknowledged the mistake but there was no corrective action taken." Some of the districts on the list of 17 do face nervous water situations. One such is Lake of the Woods, nearly a mile above sea level in the Tejon Pass area of Kern County. The New York Times' Adam Nagourney reported March 7 at http://nyti.ms/1g76cj1 that the community was near the point of trucking in water. In Redwood Valley, water manager Bill Koehler didn't mind being on the list. "Yes, we are, and yes, we deserve to be." He said tree-ring records suggested his area of Sonoma County, served by drastically low Lake Mendocino -- "It's a mudflat" -- was suffering a 400-year drought. He said Redwood Valley had about 120 days of water and then would have to depend on neighbors. The at-risk designation had no formal effect but Pettus said it drew "a tremendous amount of media attention". The 17 listed communities have been mentioned as emblematic of California's drought in news reports as far away as Toronto: http://bit.ly/1bK8n6m. Likewise Nagourney, reporting on Lake of the Woods, narrated, "for 17 small rural communities in California, the absence of rain is posing a fundamental threat to the most basic of services: drinking water..." At CDPH, spokesman Ron Owens responded to a request for comment by calling attention to a new list posted March 4: http://bit.ly/1g76RRq. The new list says "CDPH has prioritized assistance to the following public drinking water systems," and names seven districts: Willits, Redwood Valley, Lake of the Woods, and four remote districts that each serve 100 or fewer people. CDPH had not responded specifically by press time to a request for comment on the objections from Healdsburg and the three smaller towns, nor to a question how the criteria compared for the January 28 and the March 4 lists.

In a pair of decisions March 5, the Sacramento County Superior Court's Judge Timothy Frawley invalidated parts of the EIR that has been allowing the Kern Water Bank, a major groundwater reserve near Bakersfield, to function under its current legal framework. The water bank's physical operations and environmental safeguards were at issue, against a background that includes conservationists' criticism of influence in the bank's governance by entities associated with food and farming investor Stewart Resnick. The March 5 decisions in two companion cases rejected several wide-ranging objections to the EIR by the plaintiffs, who were conservationists and neighboring water districts. However, it found the EIR "fails to adequately describe, analyze, and (as appropriate) mitigate the potential impacts of the Project associated with the anticipated use and operation of the Kern Water Bank." The decision in the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District v. Dept. of Water Resources case, which was the more focused on neighboring districts, added, "...particularly as to potential groundwater and water quality impacts." The two rulings dig deep into the fiercely arcane water-and-muscle history of the "Monterey Plus Project," created by the 2003 initial settlement of disputes over the 1994 Monterey Agreement between the State Water Project and its contractors on Southern California water distribution. The California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), among the successful plaintiffs, posted the decisions at https://www.c-win.org/press-room-monterey-plus-amendments.html. The pleadings and decisions are at https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/publicdms/ under case numbers 34-2010-80000561 and  34-2010-80000703. The LA Times' Bettina Boxall had initial reactions and analysis at http://lat.ms/1fK3YXu. Reached soon after the decision, Carolee Krieger, president of C-WIN, sounded thrilled and a little stunned. She said it addressed kinds of questions she had been asking since 1995, when as an amateur local activist she happened into a meeting in Buellton and heard for the first time about the Monterey Agreement. Although the current EIR "surfaced" in 2010, she said "it took this long for the judge to finally get to the merits of the case" -- and his ruling was for C-WIN's side. "It's just huge." She knew it wasn't over. She predicted the matter would be appealed and end up before the state Supreme Court. But she said, "You have no idea how happy I was because that's not what I expected. I expected to have to go to the Supreme Court to get a decision like this." Krieger said additional issues included the "urban preference" -- the question of whether the Monterey Amendments mean the water bank's most essential function is no longer the one originally intended for it: to backstop the State Water Project's supplies to city water systems. More narrowly, she said the decision indirectly affects water supply for large planned developments on the lands of the massive old Tejon and Newhall Ranches. However, Krieger and attorney Adam Keats, who litigated the case for the Center for Biological Diversity, did not comment more specifically about impact on residential development. Bakersfield Californian columnist Lois Henry, however, suggested in a recent news analysis that the decision might affect Tejon Mountain Village, as its EIR "specifically names water banked in the Kern Water Bank" as a source for its planned residential and business customers. She wrote, "If that water is caught up in some kind of freeze or injunction, what then?" Asked about consequences of the decision, Keats wrote: "It will all depend on what the court orders in terms of remedies. At this point everything is presumably on the table, from shutting the Kern Water Bank down pending environmental review to business as usual. So it's hard to say right now what effect this will have on any projects being planned or being built. That said, any project seeking to rely on the Kern Water Bank for its water supply should be questioning that supply. But I'm not aware of any such project at this moment." Attorneys representing Resnick's Roll International Corporation, Paramount Farming Company, LLC and related entities did not comment, except that a Roll Law Group attorney wrote, "please refer all inquiries to the Kern Water Bank Authority." At the water bank, director Jonathan Parker responded by email: "The KWBA is disappointed.  We are reviewing the decisions and our options. In any event, moving forward we will comply with CEQA." As of March 12 he wrote that the upcoming timeline was "Uncertain. There may be a remedies hearing later summer or early fall." (The court has since scheduled such a hearing for September 5.) He wrote that he was not familiar with the residential projects. Ellen Hanak of the Public Policy Institute of California said, "I'm a little perplexed by the decision." She said the groundwater bank under its current management was among leaders in Kern County, who others have emulated, enabling active storage of groundwater and making the system more resilient. Hence she said, "I don't understand the argument" that the current operation could worsen care for the water supply.

A California Environmental Quality Act amendment that could ease Walmart's entry into new markets appears to be speeding toward approval in the state Legislature. Assembly Bill 1581 (Torres) would exempt from CEQA review the alteration of a vacant retail structure of up to 120,000 square feet so long as the use is consistent with the applicable general plan and meets certain energy and water efficiency thresholds. The exemption would sunset on January 1, 2014. Sponsored by the California Retailers Association, the exemption was added to AB 1581 on August 20 and has the support of the usual collection of development and business interests. As introduced last year, the bill originally concerned recycling. In June of this year, it was amended to impose new noticing requirements for CEQA scoping meetings. After the August 20 amendments were added, the bill somewhat surprisingly received bipartisan support in passing the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, 4-2. Where does Walmart fit in? It's well-known that the big-box retailer is considering smaller boxes. Specifically, it's "Neighborhood Marketplace" format would fit in about 80,000 square feet, or about half to two-thirds the size of the typical Walmart. News reports have said the company hopes to open 200 to 300 such stores in California urban and suburban locations within the next few years. Most of these smaller format Walmarts would fill vacant grocery stores and spaces left behind by Circuit City, Mervyn's and other departed retailers. Labor unions have made Walmart's life difficult by filing numerous CEQA challenges to new big-box stores. The proposed CEQA exemption would prohibit such challenges when Walmart seeks to retool existing, vacant floor space. Of course, the exemption would apply to anyone, not only Walmart. The Sierra Club is leading the opposition. It argues the CEQA amendment "would eliminate examinations of cumulative impacts and changed circumstances of the area since first developed." New CEQA exemptions are always controversial, but this one appears very minor. Why is a change of tenants in an existing retail center subject to environmental review? I'm betting many jurisdictions would not consider this a "project" for CEQA purposes in the first place. That said, whenever CEQA amendments are introduced during Legislature's final days (the two-year session is scheduled to end Tuesday, August 31), red warning lights are sure to flash. - Paul Shigley

While land use litigation per se is not overly complex, it contains two procedural rules that occasionally trip up project opponents. A San Diego community group that challenged a condominium project recently tripped on both hurdles. First, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the petitioner in a lawsuit request a hearing within 90 days (Public Resources Code § 21167.4). An oral request is insufficient. Second, if the challenge is to a tentative map approval, the petitioner must also obtain from the court and serve a summons (Government Code § 66499.37). In  Torrey Hills Community Coalition v. City of San Diego , the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit on both grounds. In September 2008, the City of San Diego approved a 484-unit condominium project for a collection of developers and landowners. The city's action included certification of an environmental impact report, rezoning, and approval of a vesting tentative map. Torrey Hills Community Coalition sued, arguing the city had violated CEQA and the Subdivision Map Act. With respect to the dismissal of the CEQA claim, the Fourth District ruled that the coalition's oral request for hearing was insufficient because it failed to comply with the statutory obligation to serve the request on all parties. The Map Act dismissal was more intriguing. The coalition claimed impossibility as a form of relief for failing to request a summons. The coalition pointed to declarations establishing that the San Diego Superior Court has routinely declined to issue a summons in cases involving CEQA. Notwithstanding the evidence that a summons would not have been issued in this case, the appellate court concluded that the coalition had failed to establish sufficient facts to claim impossibility and relief from the mandatory obligation to serve a summons within 90 days. The appellate court followed its earlier reasoning set forth in  Friends of Riverside's Hills v. City of Riverside , (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 743 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2009 ). In the  Friends  case, the court dismissed CEQA claims based upon the noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act rules for service of a summons. While the holding in  Friends  was published on November 24, 2008, and the 90-day period in  Torrey Pines  expired on December 15, 2008, there was no evidence that the coalition had requested a summons between the publication date and the end of the 90-day service period. " hus, there is no showing of diligence to support an impossibility theory," Presiding Justice Judith McConnell wrote for the court. The Case: Torrey Hills Community Coalition v. City of San Diego , No. D055579, 2010 DJDAR 19397. Filed July 2, 2010. The Lawyers: For Torrey Hills: Julie M. Hamilton, (619) 278-0701. For the city: Carmen A. Brock, deputy city attorney, (619) 236-6220. For the developers: Daniel P. Brunton, Latham & Watkins, (619) 236-1234.

By John Kaliski John Chase, best known to many as urban designer for the City of West Hollywood for the past 14 years – even as he was recorder of all things architectural throughout Los Angeles – passed away suddenly and unexpectedly on Friday, Aug. 13. Over the next few weeks and months I will be re-reading his many articles, essays, and books not only to keep alive his memory but to remind myself of his vivacious and educative voice, which was at once keen, enthusiastic, insightful, humorous, sardonic, always observant, attentive to his audience (whether it was a crowd or just an individual), and loving. John Chase grew up in South Pasadena and as a consequence had a head start in understanding the Southland and all things L.A. – and I mean all things. Over the course of 30 years he not only developed expertise in the canonical histories of design and planning in this region, he expanded this envelope to include architectural types and urban experiences that remain invisible to too many practitioners and academics. John's important early book, Exterior Decoration: Hollywood's Inside-Out Houses , explored the dynamics of what much later came to be called queer space. A later essay, "The Giant Revolving (Winking) Chicken Head and the Doggie Drinking Fountain: Making Small Distinctive Public Spaces on Private Land by Using Commonplace Objects" synchronized Jane Jacobs urbanism with contemporary forms of street culture. In Glitter Stucco and Dumpster Diving: reflections on building production in the vernacular city, John expanded his reach to include dingbats, six-packs and all aspects of Los Angeles's everyday topos. Most recently, with James Rojas, he explored the influence of Latino culture on the transformation of public and private space in ‘‘The Painted Sign Pictures of Latino Los Angeles." John was able to expound upon all of these subjects because he was a Los Angeles flaneur without equal. But John was also a practicing architect who embedded his love of this city's traditions in startlingly knowing forms. Like his writing, his built work exulted in fascination with the specific identity, signs, and symbols of place. His buildings were designed like explanatory essays and like him, they loved to explicate in beautifully wrought sentences dripping with wit, flow, and double entendre. His Jacobs studio project of 1988, a revisioning of the classic American bungalow, was widely published and it demonstrated well that one could realize a fascinating contemporary form within the guise of the history of architecture. When John gave up his design practice and joined the City of West Hollywood as its first urban designer, I was at first surprised given how much joy he took in the design of individual objects. But his was a natural progression for someone who wanted to work on a larger stage, was acutely political in all of his viewpoints – design or otherwise – and deeply identified with the movement of neighborhoods, gays and lesbians, small business owners, recent immigrants, and others that culminated in the founding of this city. Here he could seek to influence the form of a city through the nudging of multitudinous and incremental acts of architecture. John mustered his architectural skills, his vast knowledge of Los Angeles environmental design, his capacity to write, his joy of design debate, and his passion for libratory democratic politics to become a consummate professional advocate for what Kevin Lynch described as the "good city" - in this case the good city of West Hollywood. The City of West Hollywood has gone through a remarkable transformation since its founding 25 years ago. The redesign of Santa Monica Boulevard, the creation of numerous small parks, the implementation of the Sunset Specific Plan (which John initially influenced as a citizen volunteer), the construction of the new library, and this town's steady emphasis on design excellence and creativity in each new act of building all bear the imprint of John's daily efforts and design intelligence. Yet John would have been the first to acknowledge that urban design is teamwork. John loved, though admittedly could also be frustrated by, the intricacies of working with an evolving cast of planners, politicians, and architects to create a more beautiful and sustainable West Hollywood. During the course of his years at the city, John never gave up writing, lecturing, befriending, mentoring, and cajoling others to recognize the potential of design to bring people together through infinite acts, at times infinitesimally small acts, of everyday beauty. He was a motivating force behind the Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, a board member of the fledgling Architecture and Design Museum Los Angeles, a board member of the Westside Urban Forum, a steady long time co-chair of the American Institute of Architects Urban Design Committee, and an organizer of countless symposiums, lectures, and tours. John was at the center of design thinking in Los Angeles. Everybody knew him, everybody turned to him, everybody wanted and needed him to be a part of their Los Angeles design conversation because he was simply the best, the most opinionated, and the most accurate observer of the Los Angeles scene and its making. To figure out the full legacy of John Chase and its impact on the Los Angeles design and planning scene would take not only the careful rereading of his published writings but the careful culling of the thousands of memorandums, letters, and emails, he wrote in the course of his daily work. At the very least there should be a quick effort to conserve these for they are an accurate record of the design maturation of Los Angeles from a thousand villages in search of a city to a great city that seeks to preserve its villages. To resort to a complete cliché, there are a thousand stories in the big city and John had the capacity to appreciate, tell, and even make up all thousand all at once. This is his genius. He was the perfect post-modern man of substance, respecting and balancing the multiplicitous, complex, contradictory, and parallel identities and narratives of Los Angeles' unique urbanism. The opposite of an essentialist, his was a voice that sought out, celebrated, recorded, and then sought to design the polymorphous and the polycentric. For 30 years John was at the forefront of showing and telling Los Angeles' many stories and urbanisms. By holding them all with joy simultaneously in his head, voice, and heart, he was a design leader whose gift was to show, tell, and envision the everyday city where there is a place, a street, and a special home for each of us. John Kaliski is principal of Urban Studio, a Los Angeles architecture and urban design firm, and co-authored and edited the book Everyday Urbanism with Margaret Crawford and John Chase.

This month's legislative session, which concludes August 31, includes no game changers like SB 375, but it does include a few bills related to land use and redevelopment that bear watching.  CEQA Los Angeles Stadium CEQA Exemption Over 100 organizations have signed on to a statement circulated by the Planning and Conservation League opposing a CEQA exemption for the development of a would-be NFL football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. The concerns have arisen in part because of an exemption granted to Majestic Realty in 2009 for its proposed stadium in the City of Industry and because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's stated desire to grant exemptions to certain projects in the name of economic development.  However, rumors about AEG's intentions are purely speculative, according to company officials.  "We have progressed no further than researching and evaluating different alternatives," said Michael Roth, AEG's VP of communications. "We have not sought any legislation or announced any plans to pursue a stadium." Roth added that any stadium would still need to prepare an environmental impact report.   PCL Legislative Director Tina Andolina said no bill has yet come forward but speculated that the exemption might come in the form of a budget amendment or a gut-and-amend. She said that AEG had hired lobbyists in Sacramento for the purpose of seeking the exemption, but that PCL could not confirm those reports. Roth said that the idea for the stadium is in such early phases that to yet call it a plan would be an exaggeration.  Then again, in Andolina's analysis, publicity raised by PCL and its supporters might be the sort of action that would cause a developer to lay low or abandon an excemption request entirely.  "When these things are done in the light of day," said Andolina, "they're typically killed because there's so much opposition to this type of underhanded political maneuvering."  Assembly Bill 499 (Hill)  Status: Senate Floor (Second Reading) Assembly Bill 499 would make it more difficult for courts to dismiss legal challenges regarding CEQA on technicalities. Currently, confusion over which "real parties in interest" to list when a lawsuit is filed can lead to cases being dismissed before they are heard. AB 499 clarifies that the parties that must be named in a CEQA lawsuit for a particular project are those listed by the lead agency as "recipients of approval" for that project in the agencies' Notice of Exemption (NOE) or Notice of Determination (NOD).  Redevelopment AB 1641 (Hall). Redevelopment: blighted areas Status:  Senate Floor (second reading). This bill would codify what critics have long contended about early public housing complexes: they inherently constitute blight. This bill would provide that blighted areas may be characterized by the existence of housing constructed as government-owned projects constructed prior to January 1, 1960. The bill would authorize a project in these areas to include the development of other housing, including privately owned housing units available to persons and families of low and moderate income and workforce market-rate housing units. AB 2531 (Fuentes) Redevelopment: economic development Status: Senate Local Government Committee A game-changer that would allow redevelopment agencies to pay for business development and job programs, rather than just brick-and-mortar remedies for blight. Would have a sunset of January 1, 2018.  See previous CP&DR coverage July 16, 2010 .  Disadvantaged Communities SB 1174 (Wolk) Land use: general plan: Future Sustainable Communities Pilot Project. Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee This bill would creates the Future Sustainable Communities Pilot Project to pay for general plan updates for disadvantaged communities, using Proposition 84 bond funds. The bill would  authorize a city or county with a disadvantaged unincorporated community, inside or near its boundaries to apply to the Strategic Growth Council, as specified, to receive the financial assistance necessary to update its general plan to facilitate the transformation of the disadvantaged unincorporated community into a sustainable community. The bill would require the Strategic Growth Council to choose 5 cities and 5 counties with a disadvantaged unincorporated community inside or near their boundaries to receive financial assistance in order to promote sustainability in those communities. SB 194 (Florez). Community Equity Investment Act of 2010.  Status: Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee Whereas the state currently collects and distributes Community Development Block Grant funds to communities of less than 50,000, this bill would extend that system to large "entitlement communities" as well. Those cities currently receiving CDBG funds directly from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development. It would impose various requirements on a  local government in receipt of those funds that would, among other things, attempt to ensure the representation and participation of citizens of disadvantaged unincorporated communities. AB 853 (Arambula) Local Government Organization Status: Senate Floor, Second Reading This bill would expand planning for, and expedites city annexations of, disadvantaged communities by identifying infrastructure deficits in municipal service reviews. This bill would also require the agency to include in its written statement a determination with respect to the location and characteristics, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies, or any disadvantaged inhabited communities, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require a commission, upon the review and update of a sphere of influence on or after July 1, 2010, to include in the review or update of each sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, nonagricultural water, or structural fire protection to include the present and probable need for public facilities and services of disadvantaged inhabited communities. The current sticking point revolves around the costs that counties would have to bear in paying for the annexation application for disadvantaged communities.  Miscellaneous Land Use AB 987 (Ma) expands the maximum area of a transit village development district.   Status:  Senate Floor.   Based on emerging research that suggests that transit-riders are willing to habitually walk up to one-half mile in order to reach a high-frequency transit stop such as light rail or subway, this bill would double the current designation of a transit village development district to one-half mile from one-quarter mile.  Assemblymember Ma introduced a similar bill last year that got veoted. In his veto message, Gov. Schwarzenegger indicated that he objected to a component of the bill that dealt with infrastructure financing districts. Ma has removed that component in this year's bill, which is intended to facilitate the sort of transit oriented development that SB 375 promotes.  "If I was staffing this bill," said Peter Detwiler, Staff Director of the Senate Local Government Committee, "I would make the pitch that what's in this bill is consistent with the governor's commitment to densification."  AB 2650 (Buchanan) Prohibits medical marijuana establishments within 600 feet of schools.   Status:  Senate Appropriations Committee. Even as cities across the state are implementing their own regulations to control – or prohibit – the sale of medical marijuana, AB 2650 would impose a statewide restriction with regards to schools. It would, however, grandfather any opposing local ordinance adopted before 2011.  The League of California Cities has taken the position to oppose the bill unless it is amended, on the grounds that it would interfere with local control.  AB 602 (Feuer). Land Use: Cause of Actions: Time Limitations Status: Senate Floor (second reading) Seeking to change a Court of Appeal (Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton), this bill would create an unlimited statute of limitations to challenge land use planning decisions regarding housing elements.    See previous CP&DR coverage  June 24, 2010 .

When the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard closed, the United States Navy was steaming home from the South China Sea and the best way to get across San Francisco was in an airborne Mustang GT. It was then, 36 years ago, that the prospect of a massive redevelopment for Hunters Point and adjacent Candlestick Point first sprang to life. And it was just last month that a project was finally approved. Replacing the former drydocks and heavy industrial facilities on the southern, bayside edge of San Francisco will be up to 10,000 units of housing as well as 5 million square feet of commercial space and and 300 acres of green spaces. Located entirely in a redevelopment project area, the development is intended to be served by a web of transit and revitalize one of the city's most destitute neighborhoods. "The opportunity to get over 700 acres of waterfront land entitled is a once-in-a-generation opportunity," said Michael Cohen, director of the city's Office of Economic and Workforce Development  "It's particularly important because these lands resides in the heart of a part of the city that has been underserved." Miami-based homebuilder Lennar will serve as master developer for the roughly $8 billion plan, which was approved, along with its environmental impact report, by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Aug. 3. Cohen said that Lennar would develop the project's horizontal components while a range of other developers and subcontractors would developer the vertical component, in part to avoid a monolithic development. Along with its waterbound cousin Treasure Island � also a former military installation to be redeveloped by Lennar � Hunters Point and Candlestick Point, which together encompass a full 2 percent of the city's land area, are likely to constitute to be the largest new development that San Francisco will ever see. "We believe pretty strongly that this is not only the biggest but probably the most important development project in San Francisco's modern history," said Cohen. As could be expected in a city famous for its activism, the development plan did not come about without heavy lifting.             The most major hurdle it had to clear come in the form of dueling ballot measures in 2008. Proposition G asked voters to weigh in on the concept of the plan in a nonbinding referendum while Proposition F would have required 50 percent of its housing to be subsidized. The former won with 61 percent of the vote while the latter was defeated. Supervisor Chris Daly, one of Prop F's main backers, cast the lone dissenting vote in the 10-1 final approval last month on the grounds that the project still does not include enough affordable housing. Daly's office did not respond to request for comment. His apparent sentiments, however, are in stark contrast with those of other housing advocates. "There have been few projects in recent city history that have been so aligned with our goals," said Tim Colen, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Coalition. Colen said that the project's emphasis on workforce housing � which he said is currently produced in the city at a rate of "zero, nada, zip" � would be a major contribution to the city. The plan aids very low-income residents by demolishing the Alice B. Griffith housing project and replacing it with an equivalent amount of housing that will be guaranteed to current project residents. Colen said that past displacements had caused residents to "scatter, never to return." Despite the project's lopsided final victory on the Board of Supervisors, preliminary votes on key points were far closer. A rendition of Daly's call for affordable housing and a vote to disallow a key bridge both lost on 5-6 margins. Daly raised the affordable housing issue even after acknowledging Lennar's contention that more affordable housing would make the project financially infeasible. Other critics of Lennar's plan, which was developed in conjunction with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Department of City Planning as well as input from countless community groups, contend that it is not as progressive as it should be. Although the plan calls for several bus routes to extend into the former base, it includes no directly connection to rail transit. Arthur Feinstein, conservation chair of the San Francisco chapter of Sierra Club, said that a planned bus rapid transit line will not sufficiently reduce the area's dependence on personal autos and that the plan's parking requirements. "They could have required less parking, smaller parking ratios like 0.5 to 1 for every unit rather than 1:1," said Feinstein. "Elsewhere in the city they have approved much lower ratios for parking." Cohen admitted that the project wasn't as transit-rich as the forthcoming new Transbay Terminal, which sits atop several rail lines in downtown Francisco. But he did say that by building up the population of the Bayview area and extending transit lines into the new development, bus transit throughout southeast San Francisco could double the overall use of transit in the area.  Moreover, environmental activists have taken issue with a four-lane bridge that would cross the Yosemite Slough and connect the development with adjacent Candlestick Point, where the 49ers NFL team may play for only a few more years before they make an expected move to Santa Clara. Feinstein said that the Sierra Club, among others, was concerned about the plan's handling of the project's parkland, emissions, and the Yosemite Slough bridge. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents Bayview and has long championed a redevelopment project at the shipyard, said that the bridge will hardly constitute an intrusion on the bay's ecosystem. "As far as birds and critters are concerned, any bird worth their salt knows how to navigate a bridge," Maxwell.  Perhaps of greatest concern, however, is responsibility for cleanup of the mess left by the Navy. The site is designated as a federal Superfund site, and local officials have called for environmental justice for area residents and insisted that the Navy and EPA commence remediation posthaste. The paradox of the long wait at Bayview is that planning principles have evolved significantly since the property was originally abandoned. Even so, its collection of mostly low-rise multifamily units and park-like neighborhoods strike some as antiquated. "It feels like very old-school and is going to result in a lot of traffic congestions, a lot of greenhouse gas emissions," said Tom Redulovich, executive director of local smart growth and social justice advocacy ground Liveable City. "In the rest of the city we've been trying to say, let's be a city that's more compact and more walkable�.and that shipyard property feels like it's headed in the other direction." City officials expect, however, that the few details in contention are outweighed by massive benefits that came in part from perhaps the most extensive series of planning meetings in the city's history. "The wait has produced a lot of good things," said Maxwell. "It has helped to unite the community." The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency served as the city's lead agency in the planning process to the distress of some critics, who felt that the agency was less responsive than the Planning Department would have been. Cohen dismissed that claim as "absurd" and said "there is not a project in SF's history � there isn't anything close � that has gone through as much public debate and discussion and vetting as this one." "I think they contributed tremendously," added Maxwell. "You have to have both, because there's zoning and then there's planning and then there's redevelopment.  In a lot of ways, what we said was that the redevelopment plan would follow the plan of the planning department, and we had many dual meetings and dual planning sessions together." Although the project has its share of auto-oriented big box retail, of the sort that might be found in a suburban greenfield development, the plan makes a relatively strong connection to the surrounding urban fabric. The Hunters Point plan intends to let the city wash into the shipyard and reach towards the bay by continuing the street grid that currently butts up against the wasteland of the shipyard. "All these streets that currently dead-end into a barbed wire fence will be continued all the way to these waterfront parks," said Cohen. "By doing that we ensure that this project isn't an enclaved separate from the existing Bayview community." Contacts & Resources: Lennar Hunters Point Community Official Site Michael Cohen, Director, San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development http://www.oewd.org, (415) 554-6969 Tim Colen, Executive Director, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition http://www.sfhac.org (415) 541-9001 Sophie Maxwell, Supervisor, City and County of San Francisco District 10, (415) 554-7670 Tom Redulovich, Executive Director, Livable City http://www.livablecity.org/, (415) 344-0489