In the ongoing billboard wars that have taken place up and down the state in recent years, the advertisers have won the latest legal battle.  In Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held: (1) that a written easement for a billboard was enforceable, even if the billboard was constructed in an illegal manner; and (2) that the servient owners of a development that unreasonably interfered with the visibility of the billboard could owe the billboard owner damages for lost profits. Plaintiffs James C. Hill and Dawn L. Hill and defendants San Jose Family Housing Partners (SFJHP) own adjacent parcels of land located along U.S. Highway 101 in San Jose. Since the 1970s, the Hills have owned and operated a two-sided commercial billboard on a section of SJFHP's parcel, near the joint property line. In 2000, the Hills and SJFHP's predecessors in interest entered into a written easement agreement relating to the Hills' use of the billboard.  The purpose of that easement was " o do all things necessary and incidental to the operation of the business of a billboard including, but not limited to, placement, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of the billboard … all to facilitate the billboard business or any other lawful purpose associated with the use of the Dominant Tenement." The easement also expressly provided that "no structures, vegetation, or other objects will be allowed to interfere with or encroach on the easements in the above described Grant Deed and as, herein, referenced." In or about 2007, the Hills learned that SJFHP planned to construct on its property a multi-unit residential development, which would obstruct the view of the billboard's north face. The Hills brought a lawsuit against SJFHP in 2007 for injunctive relief and damages.  In that lawsuit, SJFHP raised an affirmative defense that the easement is unenforceable because the billboard was constructed and maintained in violation of county and city building codes and ordinances. The trial court rejected that defense. The trial court also held that the easement agreement must be interpreted "to allow viewing of the billboard," and that SJFHP's development interfered with the Hills' easement by obstructing it. The trial court therefore awarded damages in the amount of $778,539, which included lost future profits through 2037.  After trial, the City of San Jose issued a compliance order that directed removal of the "illegally constructed billboard." SJFHP moved for a new trial on the grounds that this newly-discovered evidence of the city's actions would substantially reduce or eliminate the lost profits portion of the Hills' damages award. The trial court denied the motion. SJFHP appealed.  On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's determination as to the illegality defense. SJFHP argued that if the billboard is itself illegal, its use for advertising is also illegal, and therefore the easement agreement is unenforceable. The court disagreed. This was not a case where the parties entered into an easement agreement that allowed for an illegal use of the property. The court explained: "The Hills' action to enforce the easement is entirely legitimate because the property's use for advertising purposes is not illegal in and of itself. Although the instrumentality of that use, i.e., the billboard, may be illegal, that is not a bar to the enforcement of the agreement."  The court also affirmed the trial court's interpretation of the easement agreement. SJFHP argued that the easement did not prohibit SJFHP from developing its property since such development does not restrict the Hills from operating, maintaining or accessing the billboard (even if that development reduced the profitability of that billboard business). The court disagreed. Instead of seeking an impermissible easement for light, air or view, the Hills were seeking enforcement of an easement that expressly provided that its purpose is to allow for the operation of a billboard business. The court explained: "Since the point of a billboard is that it be visible to potential consumers, it is clear the intent of the easement was to prohibit unreasonable interference with the structure's visibility. Such interference would necessarily impinge on the Hills' operation of the billboard business…. t is clear the parties to the easement agreement necessarily intended that the billboard must be visible to passing motorists." However, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and order, denying the motion for a new trial, in light of the evidence regarding the city's post-trial efforts to remove the billboard. The court remanded the matter for retrial on the issue of damages, and directed the trial court to stay the retrial pending a final resolution of the city's removal actions. The Case:  Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners (2011) Cal.App.4th, Filed Aug. 23, 2011. No. H034931. Cal. App. LEXIS 1101 The Attorneys:  For the Plaintiffs/Respondents: Law Office of Scott S. Furstman, Scott S. Furstman; Law Office of Paul J. Derania, Paul J. Derania  For the Defendant/Appellant: Incorvaia & Associates, Joel L. Incorvaia, Lavanya Ramachandran, and G. Ehrich Lenz  Glen C. Hansen is an attorney in the law firm  Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

As with most things in life, one person's gain is another person's loss, and public-private partnerships are not exempt from these types of tradeoffs. To the state engineers and their representative union, the contracting out to private engineering firms of engineering services traditionally performed by Caltrans engineering staff represents one of those zero-sum games. This becomes the backdrop to a challenge to the Phase II improvement work on Doyle Drive, the highway approach to the southern terminus of the Golden Gate Bridge. At the heart of the litigation is Streets and Highways code section 143, a section permitting public private partnerships. This statute allows Caltrans to hire outside engineering companies for work traditionally performed by Caltrans engineering staff. Work on Doyle Drive dates back to 1998, when, through a series of cooperative agreements between Caltrans and San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), SFCTA undertook a number of feasibility studies for improving the roadway. In 2009, the Legislature significantly expanded potential opportunities for public private partnerships, also known as P3s. Caltrans ultimately awarded a P3 contract to a private contractor, and a separate cooperative agreement with SFCTA. The agreements called for a supervisorial role for Caltrans, but project construction would be the responsibility of the private contractor. The state Professional Engineers union filed suit, seeking to set aside the contract and enjoin the action. The trial court denied relief, which was affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff's primary attack claimed the project did not qualify as a P3, as Caltrans had not been acting as a responsible agency, as the initial engineering work had been performed by private consultants working for SFCTA. Responding to an argument over legislative interpretation, the appellate court ultimately concluded that responsible agency status required Caltrans to be responsible for the work, not that it was required to perform the work. The court held that, under the terms of the various agreements, this element was satisfied. Given the current state budget pressures in Sacramento, it will be worth watching to see whether or not the less-government-rather-than-more movement will make further inroads into contracting out services traditionally performed by agency employees. The Case:  Professional Engineers in California Government v. Department of Transportation (2011) Cal.App. 4th No. A131449, 2011 DJDAR. Filed August 8, 2011. The Attorneys:  Somach Simmons & Dunn, Jennifer T. Buckman, Kanwarjit S. Dua and Gerald A. James for Plaintiffs and Appellants Ronald W. Beals, Chief Counsel, Thomas C. Fellenz, Deputy Chief Counsel, Todd Van Santen, Assistant Chief Counsel and Erin E. Holbrook for Defendants and Respondents California Department of Transportation et al. Nossaman LLP, Stephen N. Roberts, Stanley S. Taylor III for Defendants and Respondents San Francisco County Transportation Authority et al. Stoel Rives LLP, Barbara A. Brenner and Craig A. Carnes for Amicus Curiae American Council of Engineering Companies of California William W. Abbott is a senior partner in the law firm Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

When the City of Morgan Hill annexed an 80-acre plot of land over public outcry, city residents fought back by approving ballot measures limiting the development that could take place on that parcel. With a recent appeals court ruling – 31 years after the initial annexation -- a developer's project is high and dry, with the court ruling that the city's actions did not amount to inverse condemnation or illegal spot zoning.  In Arcadia Development Co., v. City of Morgan Hill, Arcadia Development filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for damages against the City of Morgan Hill over an initiative measure placed on the ballot by the city and approved by the voters in 2004. Arcadia argued that the city illegally spot-zoned its 69-acre property, inversely condemned the property, and sought damages for violating its civil and equal protection rights. Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected Arcadia's claims. Background On March 19, 1990, despite great public opposition, the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission approved the annexation of an 80-acre property owned by Arcadia Development Co. into the urban services area of the City of Morgan Hill.  Within a few months, Arcadia had entitled 11 acres of its property. Thus, 69 acres remained undeveloped. On December 8, 1990, voters of Morgan Hill approved Measure P, which amended the city's zoning code to restrict the density on lands annexed on or after March 1, 1990 to that which was allowed by the county's general plan prior to annexation. The measure and new ordinance had the effect of zoning Arcadia's un-entitled property (now only 69 acres) to 20-acre minimum lot sizes and limiting the development rights on the property to four single-family homes (versus 354 homes under the City's general plan). The terms of Measure P would expire in 2010. On April 17, 2004, Measure C was approved by city voters, which prohibited the city from applying to LAFCO or otherwise requesting or supporting the addition of any land to its urban services area until the existing infill land is insufficient to accommodate five years of growth. It also contained the same density restriction for lands annexed on or after March 1, 1990 as the previous Measure P adopted by the voters in December 1990. The terms of Measure C expire in 2020. Legal Issues Arcadia sued the city over Measure C in 2004 arguing the city illegally spot-zoned its site, inversely condemned the property; it sought damages for violating Arcadia's civil rights and equal protection rights. The inverse condemnation cause of action was dismissed. The trial court ruled in favor of the city on all remaining claims, which Arcadia appealed. On Appeal On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, analyzed whether the city abused its police power by illegally spot zoning the Arcadia property. Here, the court found that because other land surrounding the Arcadia property had equally or more restrictive zoning (two sides of the property were bounded by 20-acre minimum agricultural sites) and no development surrounding the property had occurred since 1990, when the density restriction initially took effect, the city did not illegally spot zone the site.  Arcadia's equal protection challenge was also unsuccessful at the appellate level. Even in accepting the fact that the city's new ordinance singled out Arcadia's property for differential treatment, the court still sided with the city. The issue was whether there was any rational basis related to the public welfare for the restriction imposed. The appellate court explained that the first inquiry into the issue must start with asking whose welfare is to be benefited by the ordinance at issue. A balancing of competing interests is undertaken and then the court must decide whether the ordinance has a rational basis.  In distinguishing the Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330 (holding that an initiative to down-zone a site was not rationally related to the general regional public welfare, but was rather an attempt to address only localized development concern) asserted by Arcadia, the court noted that there was an extreme shortage of low to moderate income housing in the City of Costa Mesa and in down-zoning Arnel's site, the city had not addressed the regional housing shortage concern. Comparing the Arnel case to Arcadia's, the court noted that the public welfare concerns outlined in Measure C were legitimate in that they attempted to reduce the burden on the city's resources by discouraging noncontiguous development and urban sprawl. Moreover, the city had a legitimate goal of preserving the city's unique rural character. Comment The holdings in this case reinforce the long-standing rules regarding both spot zoning and equal protection. In sum, an agency does not abuse its police power in zoning unless it acted arbitrarily. Similarly, so long as there is a rational basis related to the public welfare for the restrictions imposed, no violation of equal protection will be found – even where an entity or parcel is singled out as was the case here.  The Case:  Arcadia Development Co., v. City of Morgan Hill (2011), filed August 5, 2011.  The Lawyers:  For Arcadia Development Co.: SSL Law Firm, Michael Burke, Diane K. Hanna For the City of Morgan Hill: Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellison Folk Katherine J. Hart is an attorney with Abbott & Kinderman, LLP , of Sacramento.

The first article I ever wrote for CP&DR concerned the generationally decrepit state of Los Angeles' Westwood Village (see CP&DR Vol. 23, No. 6 June 2008 ). In the three years that have passed since then--despite my blistering expose (of one of the city's most open secrets)--it's only gotten worse. Storefronts are vacant. Bars are sad. Only the Trader Joe's seems to be making any money, and that's because, well, it's Trader Joe's. I saw Moneyball the other night at the cavernous, turreted Village Theater with maybe 20 other people in its 1,000 seats.  For the uninitiated, Westwood is no inner-city slum. It's next door to UCLA and, beyond that, Bel Air. Yes, that Bel Air. Of the Fresh Prince, gated estates, and obscene amounts of money fame.  But, for the most part, the city has treated Westwood Village about as well as it has treated its homeless population: with more resignation than hope. It remains grungy and avoided even though it has, arguably, the best, most pedestrian-friendly streetscape in the entire city. No wonder Angelenos think it's cursed.   This Monday UCLA's cityLAB, in conjuction with the Hammer Museum and Westside Urban Forum  (disclosure: I am a former board member), will try to exorcise a few demons with "Curse and Vision: the Future of Westwood Village," a charette/competition to imagine what the Village could be a generation hence. CityLab enlisted two local architecture firms, Neil M. Denari Architects and Roger Sherman and Associates, to imagine what Westwood could be if hair salons, CVS pharmacies, and the Aahs! novelty shop were kicked out and replaced by something that reflects the district's geographic and cultural centrality in West Los Angeles.  Dana Cuff, director of cityLAB, instructed the firms to forget about the gang shootings, economic stagnation, and UCLA football defeats and focus on the streets and the area's inherent virtues.  Last week I attended a preview event at which the two teams have presented concepts that, on face, seem outrageously bold--and breathlessly exciting.  Neil Denari and his team approach their vision by asking what in the blazes an "urban village" even is. I don't think anyone quite knows, though it's an appealing notion to think that it's something more self-contained, defined, and dynamic than a neighborhood but not merely part of the cityscape. Westwood and Noe Valley are probably villages; Koreatown and the Tenderloin are not.  Denari envisions the Village as a high-density district of mid-rise towers that would be almost off-limits to automobiles but served generously by Metro's planned subway extension, with a station in the heart of the Village. Denari's paln would partially bury Wilshire Boulevard—an eight-lane torrent that makes approaching the Village on foot agonizing experience—and deck it over with a pedestrian plaza, the likes of which are rare in Los Angeles. Skinny towers would pop up like giraffes throughout the Village's irregular streetscape. This vision, which would surely increase the Village's jobs and residential density, acknowledges the Village's geographic centrality on the Westside. It is in the middle of everything and therefore should serve as many people as possible.  Roger Sherman & Associates focused less on the physical form of the Village than on its potential cultural significance. The paradox of the Village is that, despite its vacancies, it has two of the remaining great single-screen movie theaters, plus a museum, a second-their live theater, and all the museums and performance spaces of UCLA. But it's hard to take in Shakespeare or contemplate Van Gogh when you have to wash them down with Subway and hookah.  Sherman's team therefore proposed an ingenious stroke of urban acupuncture: demolish the public parking structure in the middle of the Village and replace it with a public plaza dedicated to the arts. Sherman's model includes all sorts of creative flourishes, such as video art projected on exterior walls and enormous public sculptures. He proposes that the institutions get involved: specifically that UCLA relocate at least one of its theaters to the village so that it can do what theater does best: enhance public life. Like Denari, Sherman envisions the addition of tufa-tower type residential buildings with lofts, studios, and rooftop patios where artists and other creative-types can live.  Neither of these visions has anything to do with the way that planning takes place today—they are more like architecture school projects that co-opt a place over which they have no dominion over anything except, surely, the passions of neighbors who are going to blanche at the sight of the teams' renderings. And both present such astoundingly novel interpretations of the Village that it's impossible to imagine that they would ever amass political support or that they would survive once enshrined in the bureaucracy of a zoning code. Then again, when most of West Los Angeles was occupied by nothing but scrub brush, the original Westwood Village was itself a radical notion. Both, therefore, rely on the audacity of hope: that after 20 years of malaise stakeholders can begin to believe that Westwood is not cursed.  The larger lesson for all California cities is that we will someday get out of this recession and will someday get back to making, and realizing, big plans. By the time that happens, traffic will be thicker and Californians will be more numerous—and they might even want great places in which to live, work, and take a stroll. Westwood has always had great bones, with its nearly Medieval tangle of streets. Maybe some day someone will exhume them, break the curse, and create life anew.  Curse and Vision: The Future of Westwood Village Public Symposium by UCLA's cityLAB When: Monday, October 10, 2011, 4:00-6:00 PM Where: Hammer Museum, Billy Wilder Theater / 10899 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles http://www.citylab.aud.ucla.edu/projects/westwood-village/

Against the protests of many environmental and community groups -- but with the support of developers and builders -- Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 226 (Simitian) yesterday, ushering in what some consider a new era of reform to the California Environmental Quality Act.   SB 226 includes the following alternations to CEQA:  1.  Exemptions for projects that include the installation of solar power generating systems on the roofs of existing structures and for plants that are converting from solar thermal to photovoltaic systems.  2.  New guidelines for scoping meetings regarding projects of "statewide, regional, or areawide" significance.  3.  The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency will certify and adopt guidelines to include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and can therefore receive categorical exemptions. 4. The Office of Planning and Research, on or before July 1, 2012, will prepare guidelines for statewide standards for infill projects that would promote "green" goals. 5.  Limit the application of CEQA in the case of the approval of an infill project that satisfies the standards that OPR will be preparing. Both proponents and opponents contend that the last provision could have a dramatic impact on California cities by streamlining the development of infill projects. Environmental groups are concerned that an overly broad definition of infill could lead to high-density development in locations whose infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequate. Some critics even contend that the law could "dismantle CEQA" and undermine Senate Bill 375 by facilitating development in locations that are not well served by transit and that will, as a consequence, increase vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.   Curiously, the governor's signing statement refers only to the law's impact on the development of rewnewable power plants but makes no mention of its provisions regarding infill development.

By now, most CEQA practitioners have faced the problem of what to do when a project opponent submits the attorney general's 18-page list of potential greenhouse gas mitigation measures, when many of the measures in the list may not be appropriate for a particular project.  On June 30, 2011, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the lead agency is not required to explain why each of the proposed measures is inappropriate for the project at issue.  The City of Santa Clarita approved a master plan for the expansion of Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital by adopting a statement of overriding considerations and certifying the final environmental impact report for the project. The city also adopted a development agreement between it and the real parties in interest, and adopted the master plan.  The project would expand the amount of hospital and medical office space on the existing site from its current size of 340,071 square feet to 667,434 square feet and would add nine proposed structures over a 15-year period.  A citizens group named Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) challenged the project approvals on two grounds: 1) the city's conclusion that complete mitigation of the project's impact on climate change was infeasible was not supported by substantial evidence or adequate analysis; and 2) that the city had abused its discretion in making the findings required by the city's uniform development code.  Climate Change The city prepared four draft EIRs for the project between November 2005 and September 2008. In June 2008, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research issued a technical advisory calling for lead agencies to "make a good faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities." The city's third draft EIR calculated the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the project, including three categories of emissions: Scope 1 included emission sources owned or controlled by the Project; Scope 2 included GHG emissions from energy; and Scope 3 included indirect emissions that are consequences of activities of the project but which are not owned or controlled by the project, including GHG emissions from transportation sources. The city concluded that impacts from Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions would be less than significant, but Scope 3 emissions would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of recommended mitigation measures. SCOPE, the petitioners, claimed the city did not provide an adequate explanation for this conclusion or provide substantial evidence in support of the finding that the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Adequate Explanation for the City's Conclusion SCOPE had submitted a comment on the EIR and included with its comments a list of potential mitigation measures that had been developed by the Office of Attorney General. SCOPE requested that the city incorporate the measures into the project approval. The city responded to the comment, indicating that certain aspects of the project design were consistent with the attorney general's proposed mitigation measures. The city did not address every mitigation measure in the attorney general's list.  Citing to Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1029, the petitioners claimed the final EIR violated CEQA because it did not specifically consider and discuss the mitigation measures in the Attorney General's letter. In Los Angeles, the petitioner suggested a specific, concrete mitigation measure to mitigate a specific air quality impact, whereas in Santa Clarita, petitioners had attached the attorney general's list of mitigation measures to a letter to the city. The court found that because SCOPE did not single out any specific suggestions from the numerous potential mitigation measures in the attorney general's letter, and the letter itself stated that "the measures cited may not be appropriate for every project," it was unreasonable to impose on the city an obligation to explore each and every measure.  Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding  SCOPE also argued there was an absence of evidence to support the city's determination that the mitigation measures set forth in the attorney general's letter were infeasible. SCOPE further claimed that the city's finding that significant cumulative impact on climate change would be unavoidable was unsupported because neither the city's findings nor the FEIR contained any facts or analysis to support this conclusion.  The court found that substantial evidence did support the city's finding. The court noted the OPR technical advisory was one of the only documents providing guidance on GHG emissions at the time the EIR was prepared. The EIR followed the three steps set forth in the advisory: 1) identify and quantify GHG emissions; 2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and 3) if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives or mitigation measures.   The EIR quantified the emissions from the project and found the emissions with respect to Scopes 1 and 2 were insignificant. With respect to Scope 3, the EIR pointed out that emissions from vehicle exhaust are regulated by state and federal governments and are outside the control of the project. The EIR noted that no thresholds had been established, but concluded that it was likely that if a threshold were adopted, the Scope 3 emissions would exceed the threshold. The project included eight mitigation measures which had been introduced to ease the flow of traffic, and thus reduce GHG emissions. As well, the city had committed to comply with new standards requiring the project comply with the city's sustainable policies and transportation demand management program. The court found this to be substantial evidence to support the agency's decision that the EIR complied with CEQA. 3.  Health and Welfare of Neighboring Residents SCOPE claimed the city failed to proceed in the manner required by law because it balanced the project's perceived benefits against its adverse impacts on neighboring residents. The City of Santa Clarita's uniform development code requires the city find a proposed development will not "adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working the surrounding area." The city balanced the benefits of the project against the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood in making the required finding. Petitioners claimed the plain language of the section did not permit that type of balancing.  The court found the plain language of the uniform development code did not foreclose the balancing of the benefits versus the detriments, the city's interpretation of its own ordinance was entitled to great deference, and the ordinance does not limit the factors that may be considered in making the finding. Therefore, the court found that the city proceeded lawfully.  Conclusion Practitioners now have support for the decision not to address every mitigation measure thrown at a proposed project. The case should be read with caution, however, because it could easily be distinguished in cases where the list of proposed mitigation measures is more closely tailored to the proposed project.  The Case: Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (June 30, 2011, No. B224242) __ Cal.App.4th ___.  The Attorneys: Law Offices of Babak Naficy and Babak Naficy for Plaintiff and Appellant. Carl K. Newton, City Attorney; Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Brian A. Pierik and Amy E. Hoyt for Defendants and Respondents. Leslie Z. Walker is an attorney with the firm of Abbott & Kinderman, LLP.

There was a time when the biggest opponents to infill development were the interstate highway, the barbeque grill, and the American dream. Following the failure of Assembly Bill 710, you might be able to add advocates of affordable housing to the list. Sponsored by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), AB 710 sought to promote infill development by requiring cities to lower baseline parking requirements for residential and commercial development in transit-intensive areas statewide. It would have halved the common practice of requiring two spaces of parking per residential unit or 1,000 square feet of commercial space. Though cities set their own standards, parking requirements are typically derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation. Those standards are meant to apply nationwide and include what some consider absurdly detailed recommendations that overestimate parking needs and are insensitive to urban context. They are outdated at best, say AB 710's supporters. "It's very difficult for cities to change these parking standards because they're based on mythology," said California Infill Builders Association (CIBA) board member Mott Smith, a Los Angeles infill developer. "If they were based on facts, we could have an easy conversation about what the facts are and adjust accordingly." Opposition came from, what many consider, a highly unlikely source: advocates of affordable housing. Housing advocates such as the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing (SCANPH) contended that AB 710 would undermine what they consider important incentives in Senate Bill 1818, the 2004 law that gives both nonprofit and for-profit developers density bonuses for including or increasing affordable housing in a given development. One of those incentives trumps local parking codes by allowing developers to supply less than the typical two spaces per one-bedroom or studio unit in exchange for the inclusion of affordable units. "We have 30 years of history with density bonus law that recognizes the value of trading a planning concession, whether it be height, density, or parking for supplying the mix of incomes in a project," said Lisa Payne, policy director at SCANPH. "This bill would have removed that tool." Julie Snyder, policy director for Housing California, said that she did not doubt that lowered parking requirements would make development less expensive. But she questioned whether those savings would be passed on to residents.  "While we agree with the basic concept of ensuring communities are not 'overparked,'" said Snyder, "we believe this policy should be crafted in concert, rather than in conflict, with state policies that achieve valuable housing affordability goals." Affordable housing advocates were not, however, the only opponents of AB 710. The League of California Cities also expressed concerns that it amounted to an undue imposition on cities in an arena where cities generally enjoy local control. "It was a one-size fits all mandate," said League legislative representative Kirstin Kolpitke. "We feel that it doesn't address the needs of each individual community. If local officials decide to build in a green or SB 375 manner, their reward for creating the transit-intensive area is that they're stuck with the requirements of the bill." AB 710 is, thus far, the signature effort of the fledgling CIBA, which formed last year to promote high density development in urban areas. Smith and CIBA president Meea Kang said that AB 710 was written to benefit nearly every conceivable constituency, including developers of all stripes and cities that are seeking to take advantage of infrastructure investments. With some parking spaces costing up to $30,000 each to develop, the bill stood to stimulate development amid California's malaise. AB 710 would not have imposed maximums. It would have forbidden cities from using the current standards as minimums, which have in recently years been vilified by scholars and activists alike. "There is a strange affinity we have to cars, which represents everything like freedom and the American way," said Kang. "As a result, we find ourselves in this dysfunction where we know we have to build inside cities." In his 2005 book  The High Cost of Free Parking , UCLA planning professor Donald Shoup traced nearly every urban evil plaguing American cities to what he considered an overabundance of parking spaces--which, he said, causes cities to expand outward unnecessarily and inflates the cost of real estate. The so-called "Shoupista" movement has, since then, been waging battles large and small to undo economic distortions caused by legally mandated free parking. Shoup supported AB 710 and lobbied for it alongside its chief backers from the CIBA. "AB 710 would have, in one fell-swoop, reset the default parking standards that are in place throughout California and the English-speaking world with sensible urban standards," said Smith. Those standards are not so sensible to a vocal group of affordable housing advocates, who fear that AB 710 would undermine established incentives for inclusionary density bonuses. Smith stated that AB 710 could have reduced developers' costs enough to jump-start projects that currently do not pencil out. They recently conducted a survey of both market rate and large affordable developers that, Smith said, revealed $7.5 billion worth of projects that could have been stimulated by AB 710. While many developers were elated by the prospect of AB 710, environmentalists cheered it as well. AB 710 was intended to complement Senate Bill 375, which calls on cities to develop more intensively around transit in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and, as a result, greenhouse gas emissions. "It reduces the cost of housing development around transit stations, therefore making it easier for people to live near transit, making it more affordable to live near transit, making it easier for developers to build the kind of housing the market is demanding and making it easier to develop walkable communities," said Amanda Eaken, policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Others simply see it as good urbanism. "Purely from an urban design standpoint, it makes all the sense in the world," said Los Angeles-based architect John Kaliski. The bill made a triumphal run through the State Assembly, passing with no opposing votes. It ran aground in the Senate, however, falling two votes short of the 21 needed for passage. The production of affordable housing is generally seen as a nearly perfect complement with infill and transit oriented development. Infill development generally results in dense, accessible, and relatively inexpensive units that fit the budgets of low- and moderate-income residents. "People have to look at creative ways to take advantage of infrastructure and try to reduce the costs of producing housing next to it," said Kaliski. "The smart growth advocates and the housing advocates should be natural allies." (Kang, Smith, and many other members of CIBA produce affordable, as well as market-rate, housing.) The wholesale reduction of parking requirements in transit-intensive areas would constitute, say AB 710's opponents, a recipe for gentrification. It would, therefore, contradict the purpose of state-supported affordable housing development. SCANPH's analysis of AB 710 concluded that reduced parking requirements would eliminate the advantage that SB 1818-compliant units would confer on developments. Market-rate developers would, therefore, have relatively less incentive to produce anything but high-end units that would be unaffordable for low-income, transit-dependent residents. "We're all interested in creating sustainable communities," said SCANPH executive director Paul Zimmerman. "But you can't have a sustainable community unless you've got equity in the way the land is developed. You can't have a sustainable community if you force out the affordable housing that exists because you're pushing out core transit riders." Infill advocates say that this interpretation is preposterous. At the most abstract level, they claim that more housing in the aggregate will, by definition, result in more affordable housing. As a practical matter, the very same incentives that AB 710 gives to market-rate developers will apply equally to developments that are affordable, either in part, or in whole. Moreover, they claim that SB 1818's parking provision--or the absence thereof--will have a negligible effect on for-profit developers and zero effect on nonprofit developers. Zimmerman said that since 2008, the SB 1818 parking provision has spurred the development of 108 units in the City of Los Angeles, plus 45 more in a recently completed development south of downtown. The state Department of Housing and Community Development has estimated that the city's housing deficit grows by over 28,000 units per year. AB 710's backers say that reduced parking requirements would stimulate housing development by all kinds of developers, simply by cutting in half one of a builder's biggest costs. "No one policy move is going to trump the economic climate," said Bill Witte, president of Related Cos. of California, a nationwide for-profit developer that often builds affordable housing. "But I think you're in a situation where every little bit helps." Zimmerman rejects this rationale, saying that anything that benefits market-rate developers necessarily compels them to produce high-end units in exactly the wrong places. He cited a recent study by the Dukakis Center on Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University in Boston that found that high-end development has tended to push out residents in new transit-intensive areas nationwide. "The savings to the developer of not including the parking is not going to result in a reduction of sales price or rent," said Zimmerman. "There has to be a link between a developer's financial pro forma and the sustainability of that neighborhood by providing housing at lower price points." That same report, however, lists the reduction in parking requirements as a strategy for counteracting the march of gentrification. The institute's namesake, former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, a visiting professor at the Luskin School of Public Affairs at UCLA, supports AB 710 and disavowed SCANPH's interpretation of the report in a July 6 email to Sen. Lois Wolk. Dukakis himself was not, however, involved in writing the report. The idea, therefore, that parking reform should depend on SB 1818 and be conflated with the state's affordable housing crisis, rankles AB 710's supporters. Witte, in fact, claimed that some affordable developers use SB 1818 as a bargaining chip with public officials. "This is completely disingenuous. They objected to AB 710 because they felt it would take away one of the tools they have to negotiate community benefit agreements on a one-off basis," said Witte. "That is not how you do planning. That is not how you do development." The League's Kolpitke explained that lower parking requirements might shift the burden of storing cars to city streets, which may or may not be equipped to handle an overflow. She also said that cities might shy away from creating transit-intensive districts because they would not want to accept the lower parking requirements. AB 710 would have allowed cities to use more parking-intensive standards if circumstances warranted them. However, she said AB 710's provision allowing cities to adopt higher parking requirements amounted to an undue burden. That solution did not satisfy the League. "Cities don't exactly have an overflow of cash to be able to do studies and jump through so many hoops that it becomes impractical to exempt themselves out of," said Kolpitcke. The League lobbied actively against the bill as it was being considered by the Senate. The League's efforts to block AB 710 come after a string of painful defeats that cities say they have suffered at the hands of Sacramento. The devolution of state functions to the local level and, most notably, the threatened disillusion of the state's redevelopment system has put cities and the state at odds with each other like never before. "There's a huge locals-versus-state battle that's brewing these days, with everything from Prop. 26 to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies," said Casey Daily, assistant to the mayor of the City of San Bernardino, which supported AB 710. "There's a whole lot of friction between state and locals." As a result, many say that cities were not willing to accept another mandate from Sacramento, even if that mandate has the backing of many progressive planners. Ultimately, AB 710's backers say they are encouraged by the support that the bill received and that they will return next year with a new version of the bill. Throughout all the discussions over AB 710, Smith said he was encouraged by the response to the bill's fundamental purpose. "We're saddened that AB 710 went down, but it didn't go down because people thought we don't have enough parking, and it didn't go down because people think infill is the wrong direction," said Smith. Contacts: Amanda Eaken, Natural Resources Defense Council Deputy Director, Sustainable Communities  415.875.6100 Casey Dailey, Assistant to the Mayor, City of San Bernardino,  909.384.5211 John Kaliski, Principal, Urban Design Studio,  213.383.7980 Kiristin Kolpitcke, Legislative Representative, League of California Cities,  916.658.8200 Meea Kang, President, Infill Builders Association,  infill-builders.org Lisa Payne, Policy Director, SCANPH,  213.480.1249 Mott Smith, Director, Infill Builders Association,  infill-builders.org Bill Witte, President, Related Cos. Of California,  212.801.1000 Paul Zimmerman, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing,  213.480.1249

According to some Fresno locals, it was 30 years ago -- perhaps because of Proposition 13, perhaps because of the falling price of grapes -- that the city at the heart of the San Joaquin Valley went into decline. Since then, accusations of corruption, dismal economics, and nearly unmitigated low-density development have made the city both the butt of jokes and one of the nation's most forlorn urban areas. It has not suffered the spectacular fall of, say, Detroit -- but only because it never rose to Detroit's industrial prominence in the first place.  But now Fresno and Detroit have something else in common: They are among the six cities that the Obama administration have chosen to take part in the Strong Cities, Strong Communities Initiative, a pilot program intended to help depressed cities use federal resources to revive their economies.  Administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development with participation from a wide array of federal agencies that address urban development – including the departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency – Strong Cities, Strong Communities is intended to help cities leverage federal funds and capitalize on federal expertise in order to execute their own, home-grown economic development strategies. The White House heralds the program as a way to use civic ingenuity to create jobs.  "They're trying to find ways to make the federal government work better for those of us who are working at the local level to make our communities better," said Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin. "There are ways in which I think we can streamline and fast-track certain issues that we have to deal with the federal government on." That sort of coordination and quest for efficiency represents a new attitude in the federal government, said HUD District 9 administrator Ophelia Basgal.  "To try to get people out of their particular program areas and think about how you can leverage federal resources in a community," said Basgal. "That's very different from how HUD operated in the past, or DOT or EPA or any other federal agency." Fresno is the lone western city to take part in the initiative. The other cities are Chester, Pa.; Cleveland, Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. HUD officials say that because it is a pilot program, cities were not invited to compete for spots in the program. Swearingen said that Fresno was already in the running before she had even heard of the program, which is intended to include a variety of cities with a variety of challenges.  "In Detroit, your issue isn't, ‘do you have enough available land?' It's, ‘what do you do in a city that's shrinking?'" said Basgal. " That's why this pilot approach of having a variety of a different kind of cities facing different issues."  She and city leaders hope, however, that by the time the initiative runs its course that everyone in Fresno will be aware of its impacts on the city.  "We're pleased to finally get national recognition and be identified as a city that has good economic development plans but needs help implementing them," said Swearingen.  Basgal said that Fresno was an obvious candidate for the initiative because of its aggressive and unified approach to economic development and the fact that decades of desperation have, say city officials, recently given rise to a new, more aggressive approach to economic development.  "While we've been hard-hit, the economic challenges we face as a region have been in place for many years," said Swearengin. "I made the case that other cities that were picked because they were poster children for this recession….we are on our way back from long-term chronic unemployment and chronic economic distress. We're primed." The initiative centers on Community Solutions Teams, which consist of representatives from relevant federal agencies who will be embedded in Fresno city hall for a year. Those representatives will work with each other and with city officials to identify ways that existing federal programs and funding opportunities – the initiative includes no formal financial support – can be put to work for the city's benefit.  The team's specific goals have yet to be determined. Swearengin said that the team would spend its first 30 days getting oriented, after which time they would create a list of concrete goals to address in the following 11 months.  "(The initiative is) not something that's completely defined yet," said Balch. "It represents more potential or promise than actually knowing what it is that's going to happen." Many of its goals, say Swearengin, will involve the city's physical character.  "They relate almost entirely to the built environment," said Swearengin. "One of the reasons the team was interested in coming to Fresno was our focus on downtown revitalization, planning for high-speed rail, planning for the expansion of our industrial sector, in particular food-related business, which is key for our region." Swearengin said that the Community Solutions Team will work with staff from the city departments including planning, utilities, and public works. In addition to the Community Solutions Team, the initiative includes a fellowship program that will place mid-career professionals in city agencies. A National Resource Network has also been proposed to provide technical advice and models of best practices for participating cities.  The city's downtown holds particular promise for the team, if only because it has long been considered one of the most moribund and under-performing in the state.  "Downtown was a grand planning experiment," said Basgal. "There's nothing that goes on in downtown Fresno after dark. How to re-create a vibrant downtown is a key to where Fresno goes economically." For generations Fresno has famously promoted dispersed residential development which, in turn, has dissuaded residents from visiting the downtown. As well, the city's reliance on the agricultural sector means that there are fewer traditional downtown jobs and more in the rural areas surrounding the city. Many of the city's 354,000 residents simply cannot afford to patronize the sorts of businesses that downtowns rely on. By some measures, Fresno's quality of life – taking into account poverty levels and other data – ranks dead last among all regions in the United States. In some parts of the city, average annual wages do not break $20,000.  Nonetheless, city leaders see the downtown as the key to creating higher-wage jobs and to attracting businesses that will create a local multiplier.  Basgal noted that one of the region's biggest employers – the Internal Revenue Service – could be enticed to move downtown with the right incentives. The city is also considering turning a moribund Fulton Street pedestrian mall into a traditional street, which city officials hope will lead to more vibrant street life.  "If we really believe that the downtown is the heart and soul of our community and the economics are in conflict with that, then we have to in the short haul boost that effort through incentives of some sort…on the local and the national level," said Al Smith, president of the Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce.   Though many Fresno-area residents might not choose to visit downtown today, the state's planned high-speed rail network could, one day, bring all of California to Fresno, if only for a few minutes. For those passengers who would get on and off in Fresno, the city's high-speed rail depot could, it is hoped, become a catalyst for the city's development.  Though the high-speed rail line is still decades in the offing, city and federal officials are hoping that merely planning for the station will lead to economic benefits regardless of when, or if, the train actually arrives.  "There's always some amount of money that's flowing for transportation," said Balch. "There are always funding streams. So figuring out ways to get them running in the same direction makes sense when things are down." Though high-speed rail is a massive project in and of itself, it is just one component of the state's efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Senate Bill 375 offer further incentives for Fresno to develop its urban fabric in a way that encourages density and discourages automobile use. The city is already drawing up a master plan for growth in its southern section, which will be designed according to the principals of smart growth. The implementation of that growth plan was, according to Basgal, another reason why Fresno was chosen for Strong Cities, Strong Communities.  "Fresno is the most rural of all and the only one on the West Coast," said Basgal. "But it has a lot of great opportunities because of the focus in California on sustainability and planning." Contacts:  Elliot Balch, Fresno Downtown Revitalization Manager, 559.490.9966  Ophelia Basgal, Regional Administrator, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 415.489.6400 Al Smith, President, Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce, 559.495.4800 Ashley Swearengin, Mayor, City of Fresno, 559.621.8000

Governor Jerry Brown has indicated that he has little patience for new laws that he considers pointless or redundant. He recently noted, in fact, that many of the laws passed during the recent legsilative session, which ended Aug. 31, try to address problems that haven't gone away on countless previous attempts to legislate them away. So why bother passing new laws? Therefore, of the 600-plus bills waiting on the governor's desk--including many involving land use--many are likely to get vetoed. Here is a rough list of bills that the governor is considering:  CEQA SB 226 (Simitian) allows CEQA benefits to certain urban infill projects deemed "green." Senate Bill 292 (Padilla) SB 292, which provides judicial streamlining for AEG's proposed downtown Los Angles football stadium in exchange for certain environmental commitments. Assembly Bill 900 (Buchanan) will allow the Governor to choose as many projects as he deems appropriate for the expedited judicial review process, primarily by skipping Superior Court review and expediting the timeline for the litigation process at Appellate Court  AB 320 (Hill) - Bill will prevent CEQA lawsuits and litigation from being thrown out in the event a "recipient of approval" appears only after the statute of limitations time period has passed. The bill will help bring clarity to the question of which parties must be named in CEQA lawsuits and litigation. Development SB 469 (Vargas) would require additional economic and community impact analyses for retail developments that are 90,000 feet or larger and sell groceries. The bill is reportedly intended to hamper the development of Walmart superstores in San Diego.  Redevelopment SB 450 (Lowenthal) makes many changes to the rules governing spending of redevelopment agencies' Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds. It requires at least 75% of funds be spent on construction, rehab, or preservation of homes affordable to lower-income households, with at least 25% for extremely low-income and 25% for very low-income. Establishes a cap on the amount of funds spent on administration. Provides approximately $500,000 annually to the state Department of Housing and Community Development to conduct audits of agencies' spending. SB 8x extends the repayment deadline by five years for any redevelopment agency that borrowed money from its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in 2009-10 and 2010-11.  AB 1338 (Roger Hernández) requires redevelopment agencies to get appraisals before acquiring real property. Chaptered . AB 936 (Hueso) requires redevelopment agencies and other public bodies to report debt forgiveness.   Chaptered. Housing AB 1220 (Alejo/Steinberg) extends the deadline for community residents to hold local governments accountable for housing planning that meets the needs of all community members. Currently, residents only have 90 days to notify a city or county that its housing plan (aka "housing element") does not meet state standards. AB 1220 would extend this 90-day period to  three years. After notification and a two-month negotiating period, if the locality still refuses to plan for the development of homes affordable to all, then residents can bring suit. AB 1103 (Huffman) allows localities to count foreclosed homes and second units converted into deed-restricted homes toward their regional housing needs assessment requirement. Water & Waste AB 275 (Solorio) -  The Rainwater Capture Act of 2011 - which would authorize landowners to install, maintain, and operate rain barrel systems, provided that the systems comply with specified requirements. AB 359 (Huffman) - Groundwater management plans – Bill would encourage the sustainable management of groundwater resources by requiring, as a condition of receiving a state grant or loan, local agencies to including a map of prime recharge areas in their groundwater management plans. It would then require these maps to be shared with the planning agencies, interested parties and organizations. SB 833 (Vargas) - San Diego solid waste facilities - This bill, co-authored by Assembly Member Hueso, will protect critical drinking water sources and sacred Native American sites in Northern San Diego County, by making it illegal to operate a landfill within 1,000 feet of those sensitive resources. This bill applies only to new landfills and not existing, permitted landfills or any expansion of an existing, permitted landfill. AB 54 (Solorio) establishes new requirements for organizing and operating mutual water companies.   Infrastructure AB 664 (Ammiano) allows San Francisco to form special waterfront Infrastructure Financing Districts for the Port America's Cup and Treasure Island areas.   AB 696 (Hueso) requires the Infrastructure Bank to improve its analysis of benefits when selecting projects AB 700 (Blumenfield) makes the Infrastructure Bank independent under the governor.   SB 310 (Hancock) allows cities and counties to adapt Infrastructure Financing Districts and other incentives for transit priority projects.   Miscellaneous SB 618 (Wolk) allows landowners and local officials to simultaneously rescind Williamson Act contracts and enter into easements allowing photovoltaic solar facilities on the same land.  SB 555 (Hancock) allows Mello-Roos community facilities districts to finance renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water efficiency improvements on private property.   SB 244 (Wolk) General Plan: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.. Mandates General Plans be updated to address disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Cities required to submit dual annexation requests.   AB 1430 (Committee on Local Government): The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 omnibus bill. AB 42 (Huffman): State Parks Partnerships. Would allow the state to explore partnerships with non-profit organizations that can help support state park system.  AB 1344 (Feuer) Local Governance: Alters the statutory requirements regarding how cities and counties can put a proposed charter before the voters. Increases the noticing period from the regular 72-hour noticing requirement to a 10-week process. AB 912 (Gordon) expedites the dissolution of special districts.   Vetoes SB 847 (Correa): Medical Marijuana Program: zoning restrictions: residential use.  SB 386 (Harman): State parks: proposed closures: public notice.

With friends like the cities of Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Mateo, who needs enemies? Certainly not the California High-Speed Rail Authority.  When Proposition 1A, the $9.95 billion bond measure to fund planning for California's proposed high-speed rail system, passed with 52% of statewide votes in 2008, voters in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties approved at rates over 60%. Since then, however, cities along the Peninsula have been some of the most vocal critics of the plan—with some going so far as to sue the authority in order to force the project to scale down. Opposition on the Peninsula could prevent high-speed rail from completing its final northern leg from San Jose to San Francisco. Cities there are currently promoting a hybrid alternative to build on current Caltrain service. "The communities along the Peninsula were resoundingly in support of Prop. 1A," said Seamus Murphy, government affairs manager at Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the Peninsula. "But I don't think anyone was predicting at the time how the design and engineering, and environmental review process would unfold on the Peninsula." Many in the region are now less excited about the prospect of having high-speed rail stations in cities such as Palo Alto than they they are concerned that trains traveling through their communities at 200 mph dozens of times per day could irreparably undermine their quality of life—regardless of opportunities for transit-oriented development.  "We don't want some huge wall to come through our city, which is a pedestrian and bike community," said Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel. "It's got a very down-home, small-city feel. We don't want to lose that with some enormous thing." The authority's initial business plan, published in 2008, projected that eight trains would run per hour in both directions at peak times of time, for a total of 71 trains each way per day for 100 million annual passengers. Those numbers have been subject to criticism and are being revised downward, by as much as 50%, by the authority.  Whereas urban freeways were often notoriously planned to cut through low-income areas, the high-speed rail route between San Jose and the system's northern terminus at San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, would pass nearby, and even through, some of the wealthiest communities in the nation. While many of these communities embrace environmentally friendly principles like transit-oriented development and mass transit, many have realized in the past three years that threading a major infrastructure project through the corridor poses no small impacts. "You have tension between folks who are seeing the physical introduction of a new transportation system versus the ones who plan on using it or that have business interests that see the benefits of connecting different parts of the state," said Gregg Albright, executive program director at CHSRA and a former high-ranking Caltrans official.   While state and federal officials have been contemplating what the $40 billion system would do for the state, Peninsula cities have been concerned about minute, but important, local impacts such as grade crossings. The overall project has been subject to a statewide programmatic EIR/EIS, while seven segments have their own project-level environmental reports; the 50 miles from San Jose to San Francisco is one of those seven segments.  "Those cities have downtowns right next to the track and have multiple grade crossings and the rights of way aren't particularly wide," said Andy Chow, president of the Bay Rail Alliance. "There's fear among the communities that if high-speed rail comes through, adding two more tracks and grade separations are not something that they would want."  The City of Burlingame, for instance, would have seven crossings if the line remains at grade.  "The gates would be down almost all the time," said Nagel, who wants the line to run in a trench below grade.  A series of lawsuits has been moderately successful in challenging CHSRA's environmental reviews and ridership projections. A coalition of Peninsula cities and environmental groups filed the lawsuits when initial plans called for the authority to build a total of four tracks along the right of way of Caltrain commuter rail. Two groups, the Peninsula Cities Consortium and the San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership, have been voicing Peninsula cities' concerns about high-speed rail.   That right of way currently has only two tracks, and the other two tracks would require either the construction of aerial structures or significant takings of property to widen the right of way. Neither option has pleased cities along the corridor.  Nagel said that CHSRA lost credibility with an initial business plan that she described as "laughable."  The cities have generally accused CHSRA of being insensitive to local concerns and even of wildly inflating their traffic projections. The latest proposal – a so-called "blended solution" – that has been championed by a trio of Peninsula legislators relies on more modest traffic projections that could be accommodated by the existing two-track Caltrain right of way, plus a proposed passing spur midway up the Peninsula that would allow high-speed trains to operate efficiently among slower Caltrain traffic.  U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto), state Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) and state Assemblyman Rich Gordon (D-Menlo Park) have been promoting that option, which the authority is now studying.  Next month the CHSRA will issue a new business plan that will assess the efficacy of the blended solution. The authority is also waiting from the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris to find out whether it must apply federal funds to a proposed initial segment in the Central Valley or whether those funds can be applied to the Caltrain right of way. Whatever that plan implies, officials from both the cities and the authority hope that future discussions will be more amicable than the often adversarial debates that have taken place in the past year.  "On a scale of 1 to 10 for rancor vs. peace, I'd put it at a 9 or a 10 last year," said John Grubb, chief of staff at the Bay Area Council, which has take part in the discussions between the cities and the authority. "It was a very rancorous." Officials from Peninsula cities say that CHSRA's initial approach offers a case study in how not to plan a major infrastructure investment.  "The tenor last year was basically of two camps fighting with each other: It was either our way or your way," said Grubb.  But Grubb and others said that the mood has improved dramatically, as the "blended solution" has mollified many cities. Grubb said that with the blended option, "the project has been brought literally back down to earth."  The officials from the authority admit that they did not initially pursue the most congenial approach and that the current pause in planning has allowed them to come to a new understanding of how to collaborate with local stakeholders.  "A collaboratively built transitional strategy is probably the biggest benefit that has come out of this tension," said Albright.  "The lessons that we learned and that the authority learned was that we have to have a more unique approach to this process," said Caltrain's Murphy. "We need to conduct a planning process instead of a design and engineering process and see if there was a different solution that would make sense."  CHSRA is the lead agency on the project.  Many cities, such as Fresno, eagerly welcome the advent of high-speed rail and especially of the economic boost that may come from a station. The City of Palmdale is even suing the authority over the possibility that the line would not go through the city. But many Peninsula cities are not overly eager to plan their futures around the project. In fact, Peninsula cities are more enthusiastic about the old-fashioned Caltrain than they are about a futuristic bullet train. Peninsula cities are, therefore, more inclined to support high-speed rail because of what it can do for Caltrain than for high-speed rail per se. If funding is approved, development of the high-speed rail line would entail improvements to Caltrain, including electrification of the line, which would lead to significant service and environmental benefits.  "If high-speed rail can help leverage better service on Caltrain, then that's certainly something we'd support," said Emslie. However, if high-speed rail requires more tracks, it could actually derail some cities' existing plans for transit oriented development. CHSRA has earmarked $4.5 million for station-area planning grants of up to $200,000 each. But the prospect of those grants means little to communities that see the train as a disruption.  "The rail line goes down the heart of our city and there are many homes and businesses very close to it," said Nagel. "We approved new downtown plan, and it would be really damaging to have our development stymied by the equivalent of a four-lane raised freeway." Officials in nearby Redwood City feel similarly.  "Redwood City has had a TOD plan prior to the introduction of high-speed rail, so high-speed rail is not the reason for establishing TOD in Redwood City," said Peter Vorametsanti, Acting Engineering Manager for Redwood City. He added that the city recently adopted a new downtown plan in the general plan, which is geared towards transit develop. The story is the same in Palo Alto, which, unlike Burlingame, would have high-speed rail station stop.  "We don't see high-speed rail having a lot of influence over transit oriented development," said Steve Emslie, deputy city manager in Palo Alto. "Because we have two stations now, we're gearing up and planning for TOD around our train stations." Albright noted that if and when high-speed rail comes to cities like Palo Alto, the cities will have to rethink their notion of transit-oriented development.  "It's not a BART station. It's not light rail. It's something distinctly different," said Albright. "It's going to be higher density than what you'd see around a BART station." Indeed, most experts say that a high-speed rail station is similar to a small airport in its operations and impact. As such, the cities are not compelled to welcome just any high-speed rail plan. But, contrary to the message sent by last year's lawsuits, they are not roused to oppose it anymore either.  "I think there's collective concern about significant visual and noise impacts," said Emslie. " I think those were pretty universal, but as we're getting down to finer grain and local impacts, it's more driven city-by-city." "I think that what may have looked like unified opposition really wasn't," said Grubb. "A lot of city council members and mayors… still support high-speed rail. They just have one important concern. So they've banded together all their individual concerns. But I wouldn't call that a really strong coalition." Contacts:  Gregg Albright,  Executive Program Director, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 916.324.1541 Andy Chow, President of the Bay Rail Alliance, http://www.bayrailalliance.org/ Steve Emslie, Palo Alto Dep. City Manager, 650.329.2100 John Grubb, Chief of Saff, Bay Area Council, 415.946.8705 Terry Nagel, Mayor, City of Burlingame, 650.558.7200

The retirement of Peter Douglas, the 26-year executive director of the California Coastal Commission, has unleashed a tsunami of superlatives from admirers: "legend," "tremendous," "staunch advocate." For decades, Douglas has been a lighting rod of both praise and criticism for the Coastal Commission. Some say that, under his direction, the commission has protected coastal resources that otherwise would have been lost. Others say that during his tenure the commission has been too strict, too capricious, and too dismissive of property rights.   Many credit him with singlehandedly enforcing, and strengthening, the 1972 ballot initiative that gave rise to the Coastal Act of 1976, which he helped draft and has helped enforce as a commission staff member for the better part of a generation.  "There's nothing you can really say that isn't a cliché," said Mary Nichols, chair of the Air Resources Board and longtime environmental advocate.  "Peter is the single most defining force of the implementation of the Coastal Act," said Susan McCabe, a lobbyist and former commission member. "He has shaped the coast of California." While nearly everyone involved with environmental protection or coastal development agrees on Douglas' influence—he has never shied away from inflammatory rhetoric in defense of a pristine, accessible coastline—agreement on his virtuousness is far from unanimous. He is known for inviting debate and for agreeing to disagree amid the passionate debates that surround land use and environmental protection. But some contend that his pursuit of conservation ran roughshod over principles of justice.  "As the leader of one of the most abusive agencies in the state, I can't think of anything that I admire in his leadership," said Paul Beard, Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public service law firm that supports private property rights. "He has sought to extort land or money from property owners."  While Beard expressed sympathy for Douglas' medical plight—he is stepping down because he has been diagnosed with lung cancer—he represents a common view among many coastal landowners and would-be developers that the Coastal Commission's review process under Douglas has overstepped the bounds of not only the Coastal Act itself but in fact of the U.S. Constitution. The Pacific Legal Foundation and other critics have long fought the commission, claiming that some denials have constituted illegal takings.  Now that they won't have Peter Douglas to kick around anymore, speculation is rampant about whether anyone else will have the temerity to uphold his legacy. Otherwise, a more mellow Coastal Commission office could lead to fewer controversial permit denials and, as a consequence, some cozier quarters along the state's 1,100-miles coastline.  Predicting future of the Coastal Commission's decisions depends in part on how much influence Douglas wielded in the first place.  Though Douglas was known for speaking out in favor of a pristine coast, formal decision-making power lies in the board of commissioners, a group of 12 state appointees. (For are appointed by the governor, four by the Senate, and four by the Assembly.)  "It isn't as though Peter Douglas controls the process. That's a bit of an exaggerated misinformation that the Pacific Legal Foundation never gets tired of trumpeting," said Mark Massara, longtime coastal advocate and current general counsel and vice president of social responsibility for Santa Cruz-based O'Neill Wetsuits, which has supported coastal protection campaigns. "Peter's just the chief of the staff. That's all he's ever been." As chief, however, Douglas oversaw the process by which staff chose potential violations of the Coastal Act to investigate and deliberate on. The force of those recommendations often, say both critics and fans, led directly to votes by the commission.  "He leads a full-time staff who investigate and research and analyze different permitting issues," said Beard. "They come up with staff reports that the commissioners read….and based mostly on what the staff said whether to issue a permit." Beard claimed that Douglas was especially attuned to "cutting-edge," precedent-setting decisions.  "A lot of permits are routine," said Beard. "The law is what the law is and there's not that much room for discretion." McCabe confirmed that the commission almost always abides by staff recommendations, especially if the staff recommends a denial. Commissioners are impressionable in part because they serve for relatively short durations. "Peter is the institutional knowledge of the commission," said McCabe. "Commissioners come and commissioners go." The staff review process, critics say, gave Douglas and the staff enough leeway to pursue agendas that pushed the purview of the Coastal Act. That was in fact, his goal, according to Nichols.  "Peter Douglas was exceptionally skilled in recognizing and finding ways to continually push the envelope a little bit further in finding ways to preserve open space and access to the coast and to protect the environmental values of the coast," said Nichols.  Nichols said, however, that in pushing the envelope, the commission has not always been as aboveboard as it could have been. Its decisions essentially set policy through cases rather than by promulgating policies through more open channels.  "If I have any overarching criticism of the commission, it is that they didn't do enough by policy or rulemaking but always made policy on a case-by-case basis," said Nichols. In that sense, Douglas' friends and foes are in almost unanimous agreement about Douglas' impact. Douglas' zealousness has often garnered accusations of power-grabbing and egoism.  "One of the hallmarks of his integrity is that he never second-guesses the work of the staff," said Massara. "It's not as if he was some politically motivated ideologue. It's quite the opposite." Massara said that the competency, and of the staff all but ensures that staff recommendations will not change much. The most pressing challenge facing the commission staff is, in fact, budget cuts that have led to a reported backlog of 1,500 cases.  "I view this as an opportunity for their many talented staff to be able to show that they're capable of continuing on in a consistent manner and providing the world's most experienced coastal planning expertise," said Massara.  Beard, however, said that change cannot come too soon to the organization.  "We think that this retirement will bode well for property owners in the sense that we may finally see a more pragmatic leadership that respects property owners," said Beard. The commission, itself, is in charge of appointing the next executive director. The staff is currently being led by interim executive director Charles Lester, whom Massara said would be an ideal successor.  According to Bruce Reznik, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, said that the best way to honor Douglas' work is to forget about Douglas himself.  "If it gets caught too much up in one person, it really is a very limited legacy that he would leave," said Reznik. Then again, the vacancy could set off a frenzy, with political aspirants jumping at the chance to lead one of the state's most powerful agencies.  "The worst possible result would be a sort of beauty contest with every retiring politician in Sacramento trying tot get the job just because it's a corner office in San Francisco," said Massara. Such a frenzy could, according to Massara, fundamentally alter what he considers to be a relatively apolitical staff.  Some political leaders who don't agree with the commission, or very much like Douglas, include local officials whose land use decisions have been upended by Coastal Commission rulings. Many see those rulings as unwelcome intrusions from Sacramento into matters that some consider the nearly sacred provenance of local government.  "Over the last 15-20 years they've tried to micromanage the most local activities imaginable," said Beard. "Ideally these sorts of decisions would be left to local governments and planning agencies." Whoever leads the commission staff, henceforth, will not have just the choice of following the "Douglas way" or not. New challenges await the next incarnation of the Coastal Commission. In fact, questions of property rights may become moot for owners whose property will, because of climate change, cease to exist.  "We've spent the better part of three decades acquiring, carefully deliberating on land use, and restoring wetlands, resources, and beach access, providing for protection of public resources, that in all likelihood, in the next century are going to be drowned," said Massara. "Nobody is willing to move back one inch. All of the challenges that Peter and the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act have faced are only going to become more challenging in the future."   Others are more sanguine, regardless of climate change and even ideological battles. "This is California," said Nichols. "Its coastline is unique and iconic and I don't think that will change regardless of who the next executive director is." Contacts Paul Beard, Lead Council, Pacific Legal Foundation,  916.419.7111 Mark Massara, Senior Counsel and VP of Social Responsibility, O'Neill Wetsuits, 800.538.0764 Susan McCabe, Principal, McCabe & Company, 310.821.1004 Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board, 800.242.4450 Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Planning & Conservation League, 916.822.5631

P.J. O'Rourke once referred to the United States government as a "vast, rampant cuttlefish," writhing and squirting ink all over the place to no useful effect. I think D.C.'s tubluence has far exceeded even that metaphor, but taking its place lately are California's municipal general plans. In one of the most chipper of this week's sessions at the American Planning Association California Chapter's Annual Conference, we heard some compelling ideas about how cities can rein in their general plans and reconfigure them for the 21st century, even while the rest of the world is going to pieces.  Looking on the Bright Side Elaine Costello, chair of the California Planning Roundtable, pointed the audience to reinventingthegeneralplan.org , which chronicles the Planning Roundtable's efforts. She presented ten principles for reinvention that the working group has settled on:  1. Create a broad vision that involves the community 2. Manage change by allowing a community to have the information that allows them to make choices and adapt to unforeseen changes.  3.  General plans should "make life better." 4.  Build community identity; express people's pride in what their community is.  5.  Promoting social equity and economic prosperity, with a variety of businesses.  6.  Care for and enhance the environment.  7.  Engage the whole community, reducing the number of elements as needed in order to make it more accessible.  8.  Look beyond local boundaries.  9.  Prioritize action; drive public investment, operational decisions, and even day-to-day actions.  10. Be universally attainable.   Of course, planners could probably interpret these guidelines into ghastly documents. But as a vision for general plans, they appear far more reasonable than much of the minutiae that planners often drown in on the way to producing a politically palatable document. I have to take issue, though, with the forth point. Community identity is important, and cities should differ from each other. Too many places have too little identity. But the obverse of identity is exclusion: a place that asserts a strong identity necessarily repels people who do not fit that identity. Planners must, therefore, tread lightly when they envision what a city should be "like" so that they emphasize identities that can be chosen and not those that are dictated by ethnicity or class.  Signs of the Times Planning consultant Barry Miller was not quite so sanguine about the prospect of reinventing the general plan. His presentation focused, without mincing words, on ten forces that have influenced general plans -- for better and worse -- since 1984, with the seven basic elements were established.  1.  Big Data. Planners must be wary of the explosion of data available to them, raging from Google Street View to the piles of studies that a single EIR can generate.    2.  Subject Creep. The 1000-page is not a good thing, especially when it opines on everything under the sun. Miller even suggested that discussions of public health and obesity do not belong in general plans. "We need to put our general plans on a diet as well," as well. He even mentioned plans in other states that address criminal justice.   3. Ever-changing plan map. Miller noted that the GP map is supposed to be general, and yet GIS allows maps to get too detailed. GP maps should not be a zoning map. He and Costello both suggested that general plan maps show how parts of a cities will "change" (if at all).  4.  Telescoping geography. Breaking the city down from vision to citywide policies to areawide policies to community plans.  5. Adapting to fiscal distress. General updates are not cheap. Therefore, cities have been deferring updates, doing only basic housekeeping, employing city/consultant hybrids, and resorting to creative funding. All of these, he said, make for weaker general plans.  6.  CEQA. Miller insisted that fear of legal challenge should not drive generals.  7. Ascendency of the Housing Element. Miller invoked "the Dreaded letter" from Housing and Community Development that could upend a plan. He said that cities rely on "smoke and mirrors solutions" in order to comply rather than pursuing "creative, context-sensitive planning."  8.  Measurement. Miller lamented the tendency to try to make everything measurable. He noted that the pursuit of sustainability has prompted planners to try to boil down everything to numbers like GHG emissions and vehicle miles traveled.   9. New Transportation Paradigm. Miller celebrated the "death of level-of-service" ratings for roads and the shift away from mode-specific silos.  10. New Face of Public Input. With electronic and social media, Miller said that the good outweighs the bad. He encouraged cities to put up videos and maintain Facebook pages for their general plan updates.  Brave New World Pasadena planning director Vince Bertoni offered a new paradigm, borne out by the latest census data : general plans need to start accounting for population change, not population growth. With the aging of the baby boomers, Bertoni said that cities will have to rethink how they plan and for whom they are planning.  At the same time that the population is aging, Bertoni called on cities to embrace the new. Bertoni offered not the obvious advice for cities to employ new technologies. Rather, he cautioned planners to be mindful of the rate of technological change and the impacts that those changes can have on the built environment. He pointed to the trend in "open" offices that almost no one was planning for even ten years ago. His point was that general plans need to be flexible enough to adapt to technological changes that have not yet occurred, especially when general plans often take more than five years to produce -- "if you're lucky," said Bertoni.  In other words, once iPhones are old hat, we may want different sorts of places in which to chat on our cyborg phones. Even in "Old Town" Pasadena.