Search Results

The California Supreme Court has accepted Cleveland National Forest Association v. SANDAG , the controversial case that raises the question of whether a governor's executive order must be taken into consideration in CEQA analysis. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court let stand an appellate court ruling striking down San Diego County's climate action plan, meaning the county will now have to set strict greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for itself as it had promised to do in its General Plan. In taking the SANDAG case, the Supreme Court limited its review to that one narrow -- but extremely important and controversial -- issue: Whether the environmental impact report for SANDAG's regional transportation plan must include an analysis of consistency with Executive Order S-3-05, which calls for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In a split ruling in November  here=">here"> , the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that t he executive order must be taken into consideration in the EIR.  SANDAG has argued that it complied with state law because the RTP (which also serves as the sustainable communities strategy under SB 375) met the 2020 GHG emissions reduction target contained in AB 32, the state's climate change law, even though the RTP showed an increase in emissions after that. The environmentalist plaintiffs in the case argued that Schwarzenegger's executive order constitutes the state's climate change policy and therefore must be taken into consideration in the EIR. By a 2-1 vote, the Fourth District agreed with the environmentalists.  The Fourth District also covered a number of other issues , but the Supreme Court did not include them in its review. In a commentary, CP&DR  Publisher Bill Fulton has argued that the Fourth District's ruling gives the governor too much power by permitting him to create state policy unilaterally through executive orders.

The new Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation (SALC) program only has $5 million so far, but land preservation and farm groups greeted approval of its opening guidelines with enthusiasm � especially given the fact that the Williamson Act was defunded in 2009. The California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN) gushed : "Applause erupted yesterday in response to the unanimous vote of the Strategic Growth Council..." Then it quoted Natural Resources Secretary and SGC member John Laird: "All speakers essentially said yes to the program, only sooner and bigger." Ag preservation optimists are looking past that opening $5 million at the strong possibility that SALC has permanent dibs on 1% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is expected to swell from new cap-and-trade auction proceeds. SALC is also one of the few fresh moves available to a state government that in recent years has run short of ways to either buy or mandate agricultural land preservation. Traditionally, the Williamson Act was the state's major ag preservation program. Created in 1965, the Williamson Act program fosters agreements in which landowners agree to continue agricultural uses for fixed periods in exchange for reduced property taxes. In turn, the state backfilled lost property taxes to the counties. But the program was already losing effectiveness when it lost state funding in 2009. As Napa County Planning Director David Morrison noted, rising land prices, and the advantage of low Prop 13 assessments for long-term owners, have outgrown the modest tax breaks the Williamson Act can offer.  From 1972 until 2009 , the state payments to counties averaged $23.3 million per year and for some rural counties became an important source of unrestricted funds. Without subvention payments, counties have to decide again each year whether to keep up the program while carrying the cost of carrying the whole tax expenditure themselves. The program is still popular in agricultural areas, so most counties have stayed with it, but it is doing little in the urban peripheries where conversion to urban use is most likely. Last year, Assemblymenber Susan Eggman, D-Stockton, got little traction for two bills that would have used regulatory mandates to slow agricultural land conversion. AB 823 would have required local lead agencies to require mitigation easements or in-lieu payments from developers proposing to convert ag land. It hit resistance from the building industry, business groups, water and utility districts, and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). AB 1961 , which also failed, would have required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to add agricultural land preservation rules to its general plan guidelines. CSAC opposed AB 823 on local control grounds and opposed AB 1961 as an unreimbursed mandate. CSAC lobbyist Karen Keene said, "The policy we typically voice at hearings is supporting policies that preserve ag land but when the state is considering new policies affecting ag land preservation that they really should consider the individual plans of the counties." Where the money is To see the trouble with ag preservation, Ed Thompson said to look at the empty circles around the cities. Thompson, who is the American Farmland Trust's director for California, meant the detailed maps that the state Department of Conservation (DOC) prepares to show lands contracted under the Williamson Act. Contracted areas are thick in the Central Valley agribusiness heartland: prime agricultural lands under 9- to 10-year contracts marked in green, and "Farmland Security Zone" properties under 18-to-20-year contracts, marked in yellow. "Non-prime" protected rangelands appear in brown along the hot dry slopes of inland foothills.  But in much of California's core farming country, when there's a pink spot of "Urban and Built-Up Land," it's surrounded by a thinned-out welt of bare space. (Zoom in on this mid-density statewide map to see the effect.) Contracts are likewise patchy in coastal farming areas near urban development. The Salinas Valley is an urgently cited example.  John Lowrie, the DOC Assistant Director who heads the Division of Land Use Protection administering the Williamson Act program, knew that Thompson tells people to look at the circles: "Ed likes to do that. I have no reason to disagree with his analysis." The closer you get to metro areas in the Central Valley, "the less prevalent you will find Williamson Act contracted land on the periphery." The reason is opportunity cost where development potential raises land prices. Further, Morrison said a lot of land on urban peripheries is optioned or owned by developers thinking 30 to 50 years ahead. Meanwhile, California continues to lose agricultural land every year. Thompson put the figure at 38,000 acres a year. Some estimates pick 30,000. Either way, a lot.  Counties trudging on This is what Natural Resources Secretary John Laird has meant by saying, repeatedly, that the Williamson Act is "hanging by a thread." While it may not be about to drop all at once, it's fraying.  Lowrie said counties and landowners have not dropped out of the program as quickly as some feared at first. Only Imperial County has withdrawn from the program fully. Several counties stopped entering new contracts but former Sonoma County Planning Director Pete Parkinson wrote that some of those "have started up again" and "home-grown support will likely sustain the program." (Both Parkinson and Morrison commented at the suggestion of CSAC's Keene.) The Department of Conservation's 2012 status report on Williamson Act said local governments claimed $71.71 million in unpaid subvention payments during 2010 and 2011. (A March 3, 2010 legislative hearing documented the state of the program then.) Because some counties have not reported to DOC, it's unclear how much contracted acreage is gone. Between 2008 and 2011, counties that continued to report lost 24,479 acres.  The Legislature has made a few adjustments to keep landowners interested.  In 2011 counties got the option to set contract durations at nine and 18 years instead of 10 years for standard contracts and 20 for Farmland Security Zones. Last year SB 1353 extended this option past 2016. By then 11 counties had taken the 9/18 choice. Last year the Legislature also passed Eggman's AB 2241 , which allows owners of lower-quality agricultural land to convert Williamson Act contracts to solar-use easements for photovoltaic panels. AB 551 , by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, added "urban agriculture incentive zones" to the Act's possibilities. 'Hanging by a thread' and what comes next Secretary Laird's most recent "hanging by a thread" speeches about the Williamson Act were comments at the SGC meetings in the context of the new SALC program's design. He came back to the phrase on June 3 and July 10 and again on October 6 . (He said it bef ore that elsewhere too.)  He hinted at looking for ways to connect the old program to the new one. In July he said: "The Williamson Act that we have, as I keep saying, is hanging by a thread, and we have to figure out what is coming next in terms of it morphing, it continuing, a new thing being put in its place." He said it served the cap-and-trade goal of GHG emissions reduction to prevent conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use, "And because counties are making their decisions about continuing to participate, time is really important."  It was also last July he said, "I also don't want to sit at any budget hearings next spring without having done something significant on this."  SALC prospects The focus for now is on SALC, and the $5 million in its 2014-15 budget. Of that, $1 million goes to grants for local public-private planning, and the rest to buy easements on "strategically located, highly productive, and critically threatened agricultural land." Morrison said good farmland in Yolo County a year ago cost $15,000 an acre, while a high-quality Napa vineyard acre could cost $400,000. "So, four million dollars may get you 200 acres? It's an eyedrop." Except, that eyedrop could become a significant funding stream.  SALC's funding flows from last summer's SB 862 budget bill allocating cap-and-trade auction proceeds to the SGC-administered Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. AHSC received $130 million for 2014-15 but  SB 862 promised it 20% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in each subsequent year. The 2015-16 state budget proposa l presumes AHSC's 20% in the coming year will be $202 million. Lowrie said the $5 million was an artifact of early discussions in which the total AHSC budget was to have been $100 million, of which SALC would receive 5%. For the coming year, he said $10 million was being discussed as SALC's share -- again about 5% of AHSC's total. That works out to dibs on 1% of the growing cap-and-trade fund.  SALC builds on the Department of Conservation's existing California Farmland Conservancy Program (DOC-CFCP). That program already uses Proposition 84 bond money to help nonprofits buy agricultural easements and is working to mitigate ag land effects of the High-Speed Rail line. Lowrie said frequent references to DOC-CFCP in an early draft of the SALC guideline s were dropped to avoid "confusion" but so much has in fact been borrowed from existing practices that "sometimes it's confusing for us too."  To Lowrie the major differences between the two programs are SALC's primary statutory goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its effort to choose the most urgent needs. He said SALC emphasized local control but he named some areas of focus: "There's a great deal of effort and thought" going into balancing farming and urban needs in the Salinas, Santa Maria and Pajaro Valleys, he said. Likewise, he said, the San Joaquin Valley, Sonoma and Mendocino. Other directions Without major state spending, and with state mandates limited, other ag land preservation approaches involve mitigation requirements, economic agreements among local players or outright land use restrictions. Lowrie said the Department of Conservation had become "really curious" about data on local ag land conservation measures such as mitigation requirements and growth ordinances. He said: "We're starting to see some real progress in thoughtfully defining growth boundaries for cities," including in Tulare County and the San Joaquin Valley. He said the efforts were to "start to shape those growth boundaries accurately" where some boundaries "were larger than they needed to be to accommodate the anticipated growth" over the next 40-50 years. Thompson said local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) contributed to sprawl if they approved unnecessarily large spheres of influence � though Parkinson suggested that "these bloated spheres were approved because they were consistent with� sprawl-based general plans," a situation which might not recur. While Thompson focused on the value of land that mitigation easements could protect, Morrison said with one acre's mitigation for one acre of development, "you by definition lose 50% of your farmland."  Discussing relatively prosperous Napa, Sonoma and Yolo Counties, Morrison said outright voter-controlled growth restrictions and sharp growth boundaries work where they are supported by local political wil. In Yolo County, where his work included the county Climate Action Plan , he described a mixed approach: development boundaries under the general plan, strategic purchases of conservation easements to guide growth, and urban limit lines fixed by popular vote. He said Solano County uses urban growth buffers and "very aggressive city-county agreements" limiting development to cities but sharing tax revenue with counties. Other recent recommendations on ag land preservation include a project involving Thompson, the "Greenprint: State of the Valley" report by the San Joaquin Valley Greenprint Steering Committee, and a "call to action" issued in July 2014 by the California Roundtable on Agriculture and the Environment.

Local voters in California gave oil a split decision on Tuesday. Voters in La Habra Heights shot down an anti-fracking ballot measure, while voters in Hermosa Beach rejected a ballot measure that would have permitted E&B Natural Resources to construct 34 onshore wells in the city. Meanwhile, Redondo Beach voters rejected a development plan that would have included razing the power plant that has long occupied a critical spot near the beach. In La Habra Heights, voters rejected Measure A , the anti-fracking initiative by 60%-40%. The initiative would have prohibited new oil drilling, halted reactivation of old wells, and specifically prohibited fracking. It was placed on the ballot in large part to block Matrix Oil's plan to drill on an 18-acre site owned by the Southern California Gas Co. Californians for Energy Independence, a pro-oil PAC, spent $400,000 to defeat the measure in the city of 5,300 residents Meanwhile, in Hermosa Beach, E&B had proposed amending the general plan and approving a development agreement to approve the drilling of 34 wells. But the measure went down 79%-21% . Almost 5,000 voters turned out -- a large number for a spring election run by the city, not the county elections office, in a city of 19,000 people. Meanwhile, the defeat of AES's development plan in Redondo Beach is the latest in a long series of battles over new development and the future of the power plant in Redondo Beach. As an incentive to voters to support the development, AES promised to tear down the power plant . The project would have include 800 units of residential, a hotel, and a park. However, residents voted the development down by 52%-48%. Less than two years ago, voters went the other way , rejecting a plan to phase out the AES plant.

By a 5-2 vote, the California Supreme Court has issued a complex ruling that tends to support CEQA exemption for a large house in  Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (Logan) .  Monday's opinion is largely favorable to computer industry pioneer Mitch Kapor, founder of the  Lotus software company, and Freada Kapor-Klein, who have been trying since 2009 to build a large house in the Berkeley hills. Their proposed single-family house and garage together would measure nearly 10,000 square feet, on a lot that is itself much larger, but that is situated on a steep slope reached by a small road. Berkeley applied two categorical exemptions from CEQA to the project: single-family and infill. Project opponents argued that the house was so big that it presented "unusual circumstances" and should be denied the safe harbor of a categorical exemption. Among other things, the issuance of the ruling will permit another CEQA "unusual circumstances" Supreme Court case to move forward. Writing for the majority, Justice Ming Chin endorsed a "two-step" approach to the "unusual circumstances" question. Chin wrote that when a lead agency decides a project is eligible for a categorical exemption from CEQA review, it must review the record for "unusual circumstances." It held that when the agency decides if such circumstances exist, it acts as "finder of fact", so any court reviewing that determination must let it stand if there is "substantial evidence" for its validity.  However, the majority held that once the lead agency takes the first step of finding "unusual circumstances", it must take a second step calling for an analysis more receptive to environmental and neighborhood challengers. For projects that have already been found to present "unusual circumstances", the court found the categorical exemption can be defeated by a "fair argument" that supports a reasonable possibility that significant environmental effects will result from the "unusual circumstances." It held the agency decision "is reviewed to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, 'proceeded in manner required by law'."  Justice Goodwin Liu filed a lengthy concurrence, joined by Justice Kathryn Werdegar. Liu disputed the majority's procedural view of "unusual circumstances" and complained of "the court's novel and unnecessarily complicated approach to the standard of review." Liu's 18-page concurrence, taking positions sympathetic to appellants, debated the majority opinion point by point on what qualifies as "unusual" and why it matters.  The majority opinion remanded the case back to the First District Court of Appeal for further consideration. In doing so it cautioned the appellate court to show appropriate deference to the city's discretion, so that it should "order preparation of an EIR only if, under the circumstances, the City would lack discretion to apply another exemption or to issue a negative declaration, mitigated or otherwise." The court wrote: "to establish the unusual circumstances exception, it is not enough for a challenger merely to provide substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, because that is the inquiry CEQA requires absent an exemption... Such a showing is inadequate to overcome the Secretary's determination that the typical effects of a project within an exempt class are not significant for CEQA purposes. On the other hand, evidence that the project will have a significant effect does tend to prove that some circumstance of the project is unusual."  The project, planned for Rose Street in Berkeley, would place a 6,478-square-foot house on a 3,394-square-foot ten-car garage, on a steeply sloped 29,714-square-foot lot. The Berkeley Zoning Adjustment Board approved the project based on the infill and single-family categorical exemptions. On appeal by objecting neighbors, the City Council approved the project in April 2010 -- over arguments that an exception existed to the categorical exemption, including analyses by an expert critic, geotechnical engineer Lawrence Karp. The trial court sided with the City Council, supporting the project. An appeal followed. In 2011 the First District Court of Appeal refused requests that it block the demolition of an existing cottage and the start of construction.  The First District Court of Appeal gave appellants their first victory in February 2012  (the opinion has since been modified ). The opinion followed one of the earliest CEQA court rulings, Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, to find that "where there is substantial evidence that proposed activity may have an effect on the environment, an agency is precluded from applying a categorical exemption" (emphasis in original). It found that the rule without the need for an independent finding that an "unusual circumstance" existed because "the fact that proposed activity may have an effect on the environment is itself an unusual circumstance." The appellate court then said challengers, must only show "substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact". In contrast to the appellate court ruling, Justice Chin's opinion refused to rely on Wildlife Alive , saying that case was decided before the "unusual circumstances" rule was written, the discussion cited by appellants was "hypothetical" and "summary", and its holdings were constrained by a 1993 statute, Sec. 21083.1, instructing courts not to interpret CEQA laws or guidelines to require new requirements beyond those "explicitly stated". After a detailed history of the "fair argument" standard, the court majority wrote that its use for the second step of the analysis was supported by No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, which requires an EIR when a project "may have a significant effect on the environment."  Both the majority and concurrence agreed in doubting the part of appellants' case based on predictions by an expert critic, geotechnical engineer Lawrence Karp. The majority rejected Karp's vivid insistence on "the probability of seismic lurching of the oversteepened side-hill fills." This was in part because the court viewed the record as showing no "side-hill fill" would be involved in the project as approved. But more fundamentally the court rejected Karp's opinion because he was predicting a consequence too many moves ahead of the current proposal. In a phrase that Liu also quoted and accepted in his concurrence, the majority wrote: "a finding of environmental impacts must be based on the proposed project as actually approved and may not be based on unapproved activities that opponents assert will be necessary because the project, as approved, cannot be built." The majority reasoned that if further earthworks turn out to be needed, they will require further approvals whose affects can be addressed as of the new application. Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, who argued the case for the plaintiffs and appellants, wrote in response to queries on this week's opinion: "On remand under the direction of the opinion we are optimistic that we will prevail on our record. In light of the concurring opinion we plan to seek rehearing since the case will set statewide precedent. Yes, we are glad the Court rejected the City's request to abandon the fair argument standard." She wrote: "the rehearing petition will focus on the categorical exemption exception in Guideline section 15300.2(c)," referring to the core unusual-circumstances regulation: "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." The court majority included two justices who are no longer on the California Supreme Court: Justice Marvin Baxter, who was authorized by a special order to remain on the case past his January retirement, and Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren of the Second District Court of Appeal, who sat as assigned justice pro tempore. Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Leondra Kruger had not yet taken office as of the oral argument and their names do not appear on the opinions. The high court had deferred briefing on a second "unusual circumstances" case until after its own Berkeley Hillside decision. With that ruling completed, briefing can commence on  Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State of California ex rel. 14th District Agricultural Association . That case concerns an environmental review petition brought by opponents of resuming rodeo events at the Santa Cruz County fairgrounds. The petitioners appear to oppose rodeos in part on moral and animal-welfare grounds, but their challenge highlights an alleged risk of manure contamination to nearby Salsipuedes Creek, and to what the Third District state appellate court summarized as "proximity to residential and agricultural land, or a public safety risk of bull riding." The Third District's opinion, issued last March , upheld a Class 23 categorical exemption for "normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings." The opinion adopted the "two-step" approach of considering first whether unusual circumstances exist, and only then whether they result in environmental effects. It reasoned that although a rodeo had not been held at that fairgrounds for many years, other equestrian and livestock events were held there regularly, with similar likely environmental effects. It rejected a contention that the rodeo proponents' adoption of a Manure Management Plan as "in effect acknowledging potential environmental effects" sufficiently to justify full environmental review.  Matt Dixon assisted with this report.

I don't like the idea of building an NFL stadium, presumably for the relocated St. Louis Rams, in Inglewood. You know who really doesn't like he idea? Anschutz Entertainment Group. But do you know who does like it? ISIS. Or al-Qaeda. Or the Taliban. I'm not really sure, but, apparently, one of those groups hates the stadium so much that they're going to want to blow it up. We can imagine why an extremist terrorist group wouldn't like an NFL stadium. Western decadence and all. AEG's position is more complicated. AEG doesn't want the stadium built because it cares. You see, AEG is worried for the stadium. Worried that one of those groups will make it a target. They don't want to see Rams owner Stan Kroenke spend a billion or so of his hard-earned dollars only for his pride and joy to suffer a terrorist attack.AEG's concerns came out in a report published last week on the security of the potential Inglewood stadium. Co-authored by Tom Ridge, the former DIrector of Homeland Security, the report warns that the Inglewood stadium would indeed be a ripe target for terrorism. It sits almost directly under the flight path of LAX and therefore is only a tip of the yoke away from tragedy. Alternatively, terrorists with incredible weaponry and impeccable timing might try to shoot down an otherwise innocent plane so that the debris crashes into the stands. Ridge told the Los Angeles Times that the stadium has "a significant risk profile with the potential to produce consequences that will not only the impact the airport and region, but global interests." Interestingly, this report wasn't commissioned by Kroenke or by a government agency. (The FAA has signed off on the plan.) It wasn't, as far as I know, commissioned by Al Qaeda either. It was commissioned by � and this is odd! � AEG.  For everyone who lives outside of Los Angeles, and for everyone in Los Angeles who lives under a rock, AEG is the biggest player in the city's live entertainment industry. It owns Staples Center, the Kings hockey team, and the Nokia Theater. It also holds a ton of real estate and is credited with driving the revival of downtown Los Angeles.  AEG has one other little project on the drawing board. What might that be, you ask? Could it be�.a football stadium? No, it's not a stadium. OK, you got me. It's a stadium!  AEG's plans for the already christened but utterly nonexistent Farmers Field was once the frontrunner among proposed venues that are vying for an NFL team. Now it has serious competition, from both Inglewood and  a possible Chargers-Raiders partnership in Carson. To be honest, I'm sick of writing about, and even sicker of thinking about, the six-stadium circus that is the NFL's non-plan to return to L.A. But, it's the story that will not die.  Now that AEG's desperation is in full swing, what sort of altruism will we see from them next? Maybe they'll draw up plays for the Anaheim Ducks. Maybe they'll hire an interior decorator for the Forum. Maybe they'll give Sacramento advice on its stadium. Maybe they'll put up billboards with disturbingly banal inspirational sayings, for all the word to see. (Actually, they already do that last one .) But let's stick to the matter at hand. It's just so convenient that someone proposes a competing stadium and that someone's biggest, and increasingly most desperate competitor, just happens to produce a report linking that project with Americans' single greatest fear. What terrifies me is that AEG thinks Angelenos are stupid enough to fall for this craven gambit. It's a target because its under the flight path? I'm sorry, but it's not as if the World Trade Center was under the flight path. The whole point of planes is that they can fly. Subways, however, cannot fly. But they too lead to terrorism, at least when you ask their opponents.  If L.A.'s Purple Line is built under Beverly Hills High School, terrorists will, of course, stop the train and blow up the school . (Have you ever tried to blast through a subway tunnel? It's not easy.) Must every major debate be reduced to terrorism? And how much damage are we going to inflict on the public realm in the process? We've seen, and I've written about, this paranoia play so many times before. By all means, cities must take reasonable security measures . But crying wolf over terrorism does grave damage, both to public discourse and to the public realm. In the wake of the LAX shooting, I wrote that the shooting had little to do with the fact that LAX is an airport. Danger is a natural part of living in public. And, fortunately, the dangers of terrorism, even at airports, are unspeakably rare. But when we talk about terrorism so much � as AEG is doing with this latest kerfuffle � the politics of fear casts a pall over our places. What AEG wants is not for public officials to rationally expect a stadium attack. What they want is for every Rams fan to walk through the turnstile thinking, "What if�?" If that happens, it doesn't mean the terrorists have one. It means AEG has won.  Really, though, we all lose. if the Inglewood stadium would be a target, then surely Staples Center, Dodger Stadium, and every other public and semi-public place not only in America but also in Los Angeles are already targets. The great thing is, though, they're still standing. Life goes on. We only need to enjoy it.  Of course, American cities do face real dangers. Terrorism is one of them. But they also face the danger of pollution. They face the danger of automobile collisions and pedestrian deaths. They face the danger of obesity in places that discourage walking. They face the danger of anomie and ennui in places without civic life. Fortunately, they decreasingly face the danger of crime. But poverty, poor schools, and police misconduct persist.  While things are turning around in many cities, public life in the United States remains too stunted as it is. We don't have the plazas or great shopping streets of Europe. We don't have neighborhood pubs like the UK does. We don't have the street markets of Asia. We sit in our cars and, though we used to go to malls, now we sit at home and stroll the aisles of Amazon. As I said, I don't care where or whether a football stadium is built in L.A. And I don't care what ISIS, the Taliban, or Al Qaeda thinks about it (let us hope that all are gone long before the NFL kicks off in L.A.). And I increasingly don't care what AEG thinks about anything. For all the ways that good planning and good development can get disrupted in California, frivolous cries of terrorism should be out of bounds. I care about real, present dangers that face our cities, and so should every planner and developer in California.

Considering their importance, the public hasn't heard much about Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority and Kings County v. Surface Transportation Board . The two cases, respectively before the California Supreme Court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, could end California environmental review of public rail projects in California – most notably the High Speed Rail project and might indirectly affect private rail operations including oil trains. The cases shaped up this winter into tests of whether the Surface Transportation Board (STB) can block environmental reviews of rail projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The STB and two state rail agencies contend that CEQA review crosses onto the STB's exclusive regulatory turf under the 1995 Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 49 U.S.C. §10101 et seq.  The state Supreme Court granted review December 10 in the Eel River case on the proposed revival of a coastal freight rail line by the public North Coast Railroad Authority. The Kings County case is a February 9, 2015 appeal of a December 12 STB ruling that declared California's High-Speed Rail (HSR) line was "categorically exempt" from CEQA review. Because STB rulings are appealed directly to federal circuit courts, that case is already before the Ninth Circuit as No. 15-70386. (Dignity Health, a participant in ongoing HSR disputes, appealed the same STB ruling to the District of Columbia Circuit as Case No. 15-1030.) Ironically, the cases pit a broad alliance of CEQA petitioners against not only the STB, but also against two state rail authorities that have argued for federal limits to their own power. The Eel River petitioners are environmental groups while the Ninth Circuit petitioners are a mix of municipal, farm, community, environmental and transit-specific groups involved in litigation against the HSR system, and significantly including CEQA attorney Stuart Flashman.  Although the emphasis is on review of public rail projects, projects that are fully private could be affected indirectly as well. Rulings in Eel River or Kings County could clarify, and might broaden, the scope of the existing recognized rule that ICCTA preempts state and local environmental regulation for private rail operations.  Partner Donald Sobelman of Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp LLP suggested projects that could be affected include crude-by-rail operations, and freight rail operations in connection with intermodal facilities and capacity expansions. (Sobelman co-wrote a commentary last November with associate Nicole Martin suggesting that Eel River could help freight rail projects; as of the interview for this article he was not assisting any clients with amicus briefing on the matter.) Eel River and Atherton In taking up Eel River , the California Supreme Court justices announced they would address a split between state appellate districts on whether the "market participant" doctrine shields a CEQA process from preemption where a state agency is itself a participant in a rail project. Additionally they planned to consider whether the ICCTA preempted "a state agency's voluntary commitments to comply with CEQA as a condition" for using state funds or property.  In the Eel River appellate decision , the state First District court of Appeal upheld a Marin County Superior Court ruling that the ICCTA preempted CEQA review of a project by the state-created North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA). The NCRA planned to reopen the Northwest Pacific Railroad line  from Napa County to Arcata. The court found CEQA review was preempted although NCRA's agreement with its private contractor, the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, required that NCRA comply with CEQA. The Third District in Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority , on appeal from litigation in Sacramento County Superior Court, upheld the HSR planning process but also ruled that the Authority's public status invoked the "market participant" exemption, making it unnecessary to consider whether CEQA review was preempted. The "market participant" doctrine distinguishes the role of the state when it conducts CEQA reviews not to regulate private activity, but to guide its own participation in the transportation "market". The HSR Authority, though substantively the winning party, asked the state Supreme Court to depublish the case last fall. The high court refused , allowing the "market participant" exemption ruling to stand. (See CP&DR 's December 2014 PDF issue, Page 17.) The facts in Eel River sharpen what's at stake, according to the directors of two law school clinical programs working with petitioners. Prof. Helen Kang, director of the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic at Golden Gate University, wrote that the project itself, a "300-mile rail line," was "monumental" in itself. She wrote that the project "will likely disturb toxic chemicals along the rail line and rail facilities where chemicals are stored; and since the line traverses some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of California, including the Eel River, a wild and scenic river, environmental review is particularly important."  Prof. Deborah Sivas, director of Stanford's environmental law clinic, noted the case had a complex history in which early disputes concerned the adequacy of the EIR, not whether to prepare one at all. A disputed EIR was prepared on one segment of the proposed rail line project. But as of the CEQA preemption ruling, no EIR had begun on a long remaining segment that includes the sensitive Eel River Canyon. If the state Supreme Court finds CEQA is preempted, no such review will be conducted. Since there is no federal role in the project beyond STB permitting, review is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). So neither state nor federal environmental review would happen. STB declaratory relief The Ninth Circuit case will test the STB's December 2014 holding that CEQA review was "categorically preempted" by the ICCTA on California's entire high-speed rail line. If allowed to stand, that ruling could wipe out the seven HSR lawsuits at a stroke, and would broaden the federal road that ICCTA cuts through CEQA review of public or private rail projects alike. The STB majority, outgoing chair Daniel R. Elliott III and Deb Miller (now acting chair), reviewed federal preemption case law and the current California disputes in detail; they noted the California Supreme Court had granted review in Eel River just two days earlier. The majority acknowledged the HSR Authority wasn't asking for full CEQA preemption, only an order to prevent injunctions so work could continue during CEQA litigation. But the decision kept things simple anyway: "As a practical matter, we find it difficult to separate the prohibitive injunctive remedy available under CEQA from a California state court's ability to enforce compliance with CEQA itself."  The dissenting member, vice chair Ann Begeman, protested, "In other words, there is now no means of enforcing CEQA with respect to the Project. Authority claims of CEQA compliance will be merely claims, and deviations from any of the CEQA provisions included in the Board's own-approved EIR/EISs will not be challengeable." Sobelman noted that the Ninth Circuit should trump the state Supreme Court in interpreting federal law, but it's not clear what scope the Ninth Circuit will choose for its decision. The question is, how simple is the question? If CEQA simply doesn't apply to rail projects, there's little more to say. Likewise the analysis is simple if state or local action becomes preempted as soon as it stops or delays a rail project that the STB regulates. That kind of simplicity might come as a relief for planners wearied by problematization -- but for petitioners a lot rides on persuading the California Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit that detailed case-by-case preemption analysis is appropriate.  Kang wrote, "Hopefully, it's an opportunity for the Ninth Circuit to right where it went wrong with the City of Auburn decision that came out shortly after the was enacted." She meant City of Auburn v. U.S. Government (9th Cir. 1998) 154 F.3d 1025 , which is the awkwardly placed eight-ball on the table from petitioners' point of view. Like Eel River, the Auburn case involved a planned rehabilitation of a lapsed rail line, through the Stampede Pass in Washington state. Unlike in Eel River, the project was private, without state agency participants. Auburn held state and local regulation of the project were broadly preempted.  The 1998 Auburn decision rejected an argument that "Congress only intended preemption of economic regulation of the railroads" as opposed to environmental review. But Sivas argued the court did not consider legislative history. She contended that, when Congress passed the ICCTA in its "deregulatory mood" of 1995, its focus was on standardizing economic regulation. She wrote that other courts have agreed that for preemption purposes "regulation" should be understood as "'managing' or governing rail transportation." And she said some courts have acknowledged local governmental authority in areas such as public safety issues at railroad crossings.  Sivas said: "It can't be that everything that has some potential out there to affect some future operation of a rail line is preempted." The petitioners raise Tenth Amendment arguments along those lines as a separate matter from the "market participant" exemption; for example, the Ninth Circuit appeal argues the STB ruling infringes on a state's power "to oversee its own subordinate governmental entities."  Sivas argued that as a state agency the NCRA rail agency had a right to use CEQA as a "decision tool" in evaluating its own proposed choice to authorize a private contractor to run the railroad for the state agency and to support rehabilitation of the line with $60 million in state funds.  Rather than consider CEQA's effects of delaying and possibly blocking projects, petitioners emphasize CEQA's purpose of gathering information about the project rather than telling the operators how to run a railroad. The HSR petitioners' appeal to the Ninth Circuit argues that the STB order "ignores the fact that CEQA is not a regulatory statute, but an informational statute" meant to inform decision makers and the public.  Private rail projects too As Sobelman and Martin's article suggested, the Eel River/Atherton/King County clutch of cases could have indirect effects on oil trains, transport of supplies such as "frac sand", and other elements of plans to move crude oil by rail from inland hydraulic-fracturing zones to processing sites nearer the coast. Sobelman also saw implications for intermodal container transportation projects, which he noted often face CEQA challenges: "A clear and broad preemption ruling would remove this litigation risk and make it more efficient and less expensive to complete these projects." He saw similar effects for capacity-building projects such as building new lines, better access to ports, rerouting, or replacing bridges or outmoded crossings. Stuart Flashman wrote, "It is pretty clear already that local/state regulation of private rail projects is preempted - at least in most cases." But he wrote, "It is less clear whether CEQA's application to a private rail shipment would be precluded, because I think a good argument can be made that CEQA, like NEPA, is basically an informational, rather than a regulatory statute." Sobelman noted two current lawsuits on crude-by-rail shipment projects in Richmond and Bakersfield, saying these were among the first of their type, and further crude-by-rail proposals would likely also face CEQA challenges.  The Richmond terminal case pitted environmental groups against the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and corporate entities of Kinder Morgan and Tesoro. The petition contested the air district's choice to approve increased crude-by-rail operations without an EIR but Superior Court Judge Peter J. Busch dismissed it on timeliness grounds. The petitioners' appeal is before the First District . The Bakersfield case, filed this fall, challenges an EIR by the Kern County Supervisors and Planning Department on plans for expanding crude-by-rail operations at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. Environmental groups' opening petition specifically protests the EIR's choice not to review "mainline rail transportation impacts... on the assumption that CEQA is preempted by federal law regulating mainline rail activities." Sivas had heard of informal arguments made to regulators even that an oil terminal at the end of a new rail spur was under STB jurisdiction, precluding other environmental review "or any kind of local control." In that case, she asked, where does STB jurisdiction stop? "That's the monster that eats the whole world, right? Because we're all at the end of some rail line."

In recent weeks, we've seen a lot of moves that suggest it may be time to change the way California funds transportation, including the following: Board of Equalization Member George Runner has been touting a 21% cut in the gas tax as part of the "fuel tax swap" formula from a few years ago. A committee headed by former San Diego City Councilmember Jim Madaffer is looking at how to implement a mileage tax as an alternative to the gas tax. Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins has proposed  a $52 annual fee on most drivers as a way to raise almost $2 billion for road repairs. The gas tax isn't the only source of funds for transportation in California, of course. Local transit agencies and some local street and road repairs are funded by the sales tax on gasoline – not the same, obviously, as the gas tax. Most large counties have an additional sales tax on gasoline to pay for transportation and road repairs. But most of the state's big-ticket transportation projects are paid for out of the gas tax, and the buying power of that funding source has been in decline for decades. Typical of California public finance, the whole gas tax story is so convoluted it's nearly impossible to understand, primarily because of the "fuel tax swap" back in 2010, which increase the gas tax in exchange for reducing the sales tax on gasoline. But for all practical purposes the gas tax has not increased since the year that today's college seniors were born – 1994. (Yes, the tax has increased but only as part of a deal that reduced other taxes to maintain the pool of transportation revenue even.) Since then, the state has added about 7 million new residents. Yes, gas tax revenues have gone up in recent years. But hybrid engines and greater fuel efficiency has cut into the growth in gas tax revenues. The value of every sales tax dollar has dropped by 40% due to inflation. Taxable sales of gasoline dropped every year from 2005 to 2013, though it's since recovered. It's no wonder, then, that the state and its local governments still struggle to pave streets and roads and fund the long list of transportation projects that comes to Sacramento for consideration every year. And it's no wonder that the gas tax looks to be on its last legs. Though it's technically a tax on the purchase of gasoline, the gas tax has always functioned in effect as a user fee: The more you drive, the more you pay. And the gas tax has always been the financial foundation for the California freeway system. It was the passage of what was then known as the Collier-Burns Act in 1947 – which increased the gas tax by 50% -- from 3 to 4.5 cents per gallon – that funded the freeway system and helped California avoid toll roads in the postwar era. (Gas cost 23 cents a gallon at the time.) For most of the postwar era, the gas tax formula worked fine. But a wide range of factors – inflation, the rising environmental and labor costs of transportation projects, and better fuel mileage to name just a few – have conspired to undermine the gas tax as a stable funding source. Policymakers in California have known about this problem for a long time. I can remember back in the ‘90s running into Richard Katz – then the chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee – shaking his head. He'd just gotten pathbreaking California's electric vehicle law passed, only to realize that if it worked it would reduce the gas tax revenues he needed to move other parts of the transportation agenda. In case you haven't noticed, the federal government has had the same problem. Rather than raise the gas tax – or reduce transportation spending – Congress has been shoring up the federal transportation trust fund by borrowing billions of dollars every year from the federal general fund. So California – like other states and he federal government – is faced with a bunch of tough choices. Here are some of the things the state might do: 1. Raise the gas tax – though this is both politically difficult and, for the reasons described above, an imperfect approach. (Among other things, the fuel tax swap has resulted in California having one of the highest gas taxes in the country.) 2. Switch to a mileage tax – something that may have legs in California, since the main criticism seems to be that the government will know your driving habits, which is a Republican criticism rather than a Democratic one. 3. Create some additional fee on drivers, as Speaker Atkins has proposed – though there might be some pushback against this as being an additional tax. 4. Or, of course, live with the money we get now. This last one is tough but actually worth thinking about. The problem for both states and the federal government in recent years has been pretty simple: There's enough money to maintain the transportation system we have  or  build new transportation facilities, but there's not enough money to do both. That's why some mostly left-wing advocates have argued for a "fix-it-first" approach, on the theory that focusing on maintenance will mean the current system will be in better shape but sprawl will be discouraged because new facilities won't be built. Even conservative politicians, of course, like to be able to cut ribbons on new facilities, so "fix it first" may not have legs. But something has to give. The gas tax era is over.

In the ever-lasting debate over sprawl, the most enduring argument centers on the definition of sprawl itself. The latest entrant is, perhaps, the oldest entrant: density.  As reported by Richard Florida in his CityLab  column  this week, NYU doctoral student Thomas Laidley has introduced a new method to measure sprawl. Laidley's "Sprawl Index" uses the following methodology:  "Laidley uses these aerial images to estimate sprawl at the Census block level, the smallest level available, estimating the share of metro population in those blocks below three key thresholds: 3,500, 8,500, and 20,000 persons per square mile. His index is based on the average of these three values, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of sprawl." Laidley essentially posits that density and sprawl are inversely related. And by "posits," I mean he makes a circular argument, in which he defines sprawl according to the things that he thinks define sprawl.  From this, Florida reports that it has the highest overall density of any metro in the country, Los Angeles isn't actually sprawling. He notes that "the biggest surprise" is that Los Angeles is the "least sprawling metro in the country," in part because it is so dense. Interesting, sure. But I'm not sure how surprising it is. Really, it's surprising only if you don't read much  Richard Florida .  In fact, that density figure has been reported and debated for years, not just by Richard Florida but by plenty of others ( here ,  here ,  here ). Then, as now, it's important to note that measures of density depend mainly on how you define a given metro area. You don't need a spreadsheet to know that L.A.'s urban core is not more dense than Manhattan or San Francisco. Those metros just include a greater share of vacant and low-density land than the L.A. area does. Density is a mathematical  trick , and a crude one at that.  The real reason why Laidley's project is doomed to be disappointing, if not outright misleading, is that sprawl is by definition a subjective notion. Density may be quantifiable. But sprawl is a qualitative matter. Though his heart is in the right place, Laidley is using the same modernist objective approach as did the 1950s planners who got us into this mess in the first place.  For better or worse, sprawl entails judgment of value and aesthetics. Some people use it as a pejorative; others think those people are being fussy and effete. A new "index" isn't going to settle that argument.  Granted, critics of sprawl probably agree that low densities often correlate with sprawl. Certainly the types of urban neighborhoods they prefer require high(ish) densities. But density is not enough. My own neighborhood is plenty dense. But I can't walk to the end of the block for a carton of milk, and I can't take a bike ride without taking my life in my hands. At rush hour it can take an hour to drive five miles. That's not sprawl, I guess. But if sprawl is bad, then whatever LA is certainly isn't good.  The evaluation of sprawl and non-sprawl entails, most importantly, questions of efficiency, diversity, design, walk- and bike-ability, and a whole other range of aesthetic considerations. And let's not forget the origin of the word sprawl. Sprawl is a spatial concept. It refers to territory. Any urban area that covers 13 areas codes, five counties, and thousands of square miles -- where you can't see one end from the other because the horizon gets in the way -- is sprawling. Any metro where regulations and financing mechanism encourage the paving over of farm land and wilderness is sprawling. Any metro that has dying tract homes on its edges is sprawling, regardless of what is going on in the center.  I guess I don't care how neatly a regression model, using data captured from 30,000 feet in the air, can work out when so many places before my very eyes so ugly. The quality of a city depends at least as much on the quality of neighborhoods and blocks as it does to the functioning of the region as a whole. Density and good urbanism in one part of a city does little for the people in the other parts.  We can't look at Los Angeles, or any other high-density metro, and say, "Great! It's dense. Our work here is done."  In other words, density is not an end in and of itself. Density in L.A. presents an opportunity, and a tremendous one at that. It's an opportunity to take all the people, buildings, capital, and spirit that are crammed in here at 6,100 people to the square mile and figure out how to design our buildings, transportation network, public spaces, and civic life in a way that makes the most of what we have.  That index tells us that we're No. 1 at density. So what? Let's be even better at something else.

A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the City of Sacramento's ban on camping in public parks – and allowing only limited camping on private property -- may move forward because the plaintiffs have stated a valid equal protection argument, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. In response to concerns about the homeless, Sacramento adopted an ordinance banning camping on public property and in public parks and permitting camping on private property for only one consecutive night. In 2009, the city cracked down on a group of homeless people who were camping in a fenced lot on private property with the property owner's permission. Several times in September of 2009, the homeless people were arrested and their belongings were seized even though they were camping on private property.  The homeless residents and two social service providers sued, claiming among other things that the anti-camping ordinance was unconstitutional on its faced based on a variety of grounds, including a violation of the constitutional protections of due process, equal protection, and freedom to travel. A number of other causes of action were also brought – for example, that the criminalizes the status of homelessness in a way which is prohibited under Robinson v. California (1962) 370 U.S. 660. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Change ruled in favor of the city, granting a demurrer with leave to amend. Rather than filing an amended complaint, however, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal.  The Third District upheld Justice Change on virtually all causes of action. However, the court did rule that the plaintiffs had set forth a potentially valid claim that the anti-camping ordinance, as applied to the plaintiffs, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, meaning the case can go forward in Superior Court.  "The first amended complaint alleges the City selectively enforces the camping ordinance against homeless persons and those non-homeless persons who support the right of the homeless to be in the City," wrote Justice Louis Mauro for a unanimous three-judge panel. "We must read those factual allegations liberally and assume their truth on a demurrer." Mauro went on to make it clear that the Third District was not – and did not need to – rule on the constitutionality of the anti-camping ordinance.  "Here, we conclude the allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for declaratory relief asserting an as-applied challenge based on equal protection," he wrote. The Third District ruled that the plaintiffs did not mae a sufficient as-applied constitutional challenge based on several other grounds, including: 1. Cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 2. Right to travel 3. Arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of laws 4. Substantive due process 5. Protections against vague laws.  The Case: Allen v. City of Sacramento, No. C071710 The Lawyers:  For Homeless Plaintiffs: Mark Merin, mark@markmerin.com For City of Sacramento: Chance L. Trimm, Senior Deputy City Attorney, CTrimm@cityofsacramento.org

LOS ANGELES--State-level policymakers have engaged in more than their share of debates over the future of smart grown in California this year. They've debated level of service vs. vehicle miles traveled. They've debated the neediness and definition of disadvantaged communities . They've clamored for cap-and-trade funds. They've tried to reform CEQA and get rid of CEQA (well, not quite).  By contrast, today's technical assistance workshop on concept submittals for the inaugural funding round of the  Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program was a staid affair. Today's event was one in a series of statewide meetings conducted by staff members from the Strategic Growth Council and the Department of Housing and Community Development, which are administering AHSC. The program is designed to disburse $120 million to municipalities and other entities for planning and partially funding affordable housing, transit-oriented development, and other projects that help California reduce its carbon footprint.  While the audience -- a nearly packed house of 100 or so of mostly city officials and affordable housing developers -- posed its share of questions, rancor was minimal. That's probably because the deadline for the initial applications, called "concept submittals" is February 19. Even these pre-applications are extensive, and no one has a moment to spare.  The concept submittal process is designed to help SGC staff determine whether a project is eligible for AHSC assistance. SGC will announce a short list of candidates around March 11, with full applications due April 15. Staff will evaluate those applications, pick their favorites, and submit them to the SGC board for approval by early July. As the program is new, SGC Deputy Director Allison Joe, who led the workshop, admitted that they do not know how many applications they will receive.  So, the clock is ticking.  Here are highlights of the criteria for the concept submittal round:  Projects must either be "transit oriented developments" or "integrated connectivity projects." TOD's are assumed to be near high-frequency, high-capacity transit lines while ICP's are more loosely connected to transit. SGC expects that most ICP applications will be from suburban and rural areas.  At least 40% of funding will go to TOD's and at least 30% will go to ICP's.  At least 30% of funding must go to disadvantaged communities, regardless of whether projects are TOD's or ICP's.  • \t Funds may be directed towards capital improvements, affordable housing, planning and planning of programs that support AHSC goals; all projects must have benefits that long outlast the expenditure of AHSC funds.   • \t Projects must meet statutory thresholds, including those mandating greenhouse gas reductions, implementation of Sustainable Communities Strategies; they may also meet other state priorities, including promotion of infill development, equity, and protection of natural resources and agricultural lands.  • \t Program-specific thresholds largely relate to the viability of projects. They must have their environmental clearances and entitlements, and they must essentially be shovel-ready.  • \t Projects will be scored as follows: 55% on greenhouse gas reduction, 30% on policy objectives, such as affordable housing, walkabilty, bike-ability, anti-displacement, etc.; 15% on feasibility and readiness, including leverage of different funding sources.  The application, which is found online at the state Water Resources Board's FAAST system, includes a 29-item checklist of vehicle-miles traveled reduction strategies. Every project must identify at least one strategy on which SGC will evaluate it; projects may check as many items as are applicable, but projects do not necessarily need to check multiple items. SGC is, essentially, looking for quality, not necessarily quantity. The concept proposal application asks applicants to provide detailed information about their projects, including extensive information about their finances. It's a complex  application  process but, to their credit, SGC staff made it seem reasonably  straightforward, with transparent criteria,  for those  applicants  willing to put in the effort.  One attendee wondered whether the collective effort among cities and other applicants will be justified by the amount of funding that SGC disburses. SGC staff admitted that they are running an experiment and that their efforts to essentially reconcile transportation funding and affordable housing funding -- an admittedly gargantuan task -- requires cities to be patient and cooperative. SGC staff pledged that they will push for $200 million in AGSC funding for 2016, when many kinks may be worked out.  This article has been updated since its initial public to reflect the involvement of the Department of Housing and Community Development.

The following is a fictitious letter written, by the magic of anthropomorphosis  and creative license, by the Oakland A's baseball team to the City of San Jose. It stands to reason that any statement attributed to these entities is fictitious. Only the facts are real. My dearest San Jose, This is a hard letter to write. Just a few short years ago; you asked for my hand and I was ready to accept. I felt happy about leaving the mean streets of Oakland, especially that horrid stadium, which everybody agrees is the worst place in the world to play baseball, which I am forced to share with a …  football team ! Can you imagine anything more unbecoming? My outfielders have to watch their step, for fear of getting bits of brain and bone on their clean uniforms. You, San Jose, tried to give me, the Oakland A's, what I have so desperately long for: An exit strategy! I planned on leaving Oakland, and travelling 50 miles to live with you, San Jose, in a 32,000-seat love nest, Cisco Stadium, that was to be built just for us! Oh, it was a beautiful dream, darling, but it was fated to be only a dre—(At this point, a splattered tearstain smudges the ink on the page.) Yes, darling, it was just the two of us against the world:  The hard-slugging ball club from the town that Tech forgot, and the least glamorous city in Silicon Valley. Together, we had a reason to hold our heads up: The A's would be a suburban ball club with a fan base that is rich, rich,  rich ! And you, San Jose, my funny valentine, could finally become a Destination, not just "whudda they call it, you know, that place with the airport."  Well, we had our "trip to the moon, on gossamer wings," didn't we, darling? But there was a problem. My daddy, Major League Baseball, didn't approve of the match. In 2011, I had three suitors – San Jose, Fremont and my estranged husband, Oakland. Daddy Baseball promised to study their proposals and choose a husband for me. But before Daddy made up his mind, my younger sister, the San Francisco Giants, eloped with the City of Santa Clara. They were married and, er, consummated their union quicker that we could. As a wedding present, Daddy Baseball gave them "exclusive rights" to professional baseball market in Santa Clara County, which includes the proposed site of  Cisco Stadium, only six miles away. Despite the fact that we asked first, and that Daddy Baseball never made up his mind in a timely way about which city was going to marry the Oakland A's, the marriage of San Jose and the baseball club was a no-go. That's just a fact. And facts, my dear San Jose, are something you're going to have to accept, sooner or later. Yes, we vowed eternal love. You, San Jose, vowed to fight Daddy Baseball, who was acting in a controlling way, just like the father played by Charles Laughton in  Hobson's Choice . (You can see it now and then on Turner Classic Movies. I recommend it.) Oh, gallant San Jose! You went to court, accusing Daddy Baseball with racketeering and being unfair, because he never decided who was to marry the Oakland A's. And you couldn't understand why people were laughing. You see, Daddy Baseball is very powerful.  He has an anti-trust exemption given him personally by his friend, the U.S. Supreme Court, back in the 1920s.  Even more than other sports leagues, Daddy Baseball is a power unto himself. He decides which teams get married to which cities, and which don't.  San Jose, you sued Daddy and lost, then appealed the case and lost again. Now San Jose, darling, you're about to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. Beating Daddy Baseball has become an obsession for you, like a man raving in a fever. Don't you realize that suing Daddy is like a mosquito trying to sting a catcher's mitt? The mosquito is only going to hurt himself. Besides, dear San Jose, I've met someone. He name is Coliseum City, and he's a developer. He wants to tear down my horrid old stadium in Oakland and build a new stadium on the same spot, just for me! Meanwhile, those dreadful footballers (what do they call them – The  Waders?  The Faders?) can get their own stadium, too, if they can ever stop losing long enough to sign the deal. In addition, Coliseum City says is going he's going to build lots of houses and apartment buildings and stores, which promises a good return on capital for the $2 billion (swoon!) he plans to spend on me. This guy is rich. I haven't made up my mind, San Jose, but I think this baseball club from Oakland is going to fall in love with Coliseum City, that is, if he can, er, perform.  We're going to have a modern stadium!  We're going to have sky boxes for every damn Fortune 500 in the Bay Area! I'm sorry to let you down, San Jose. You must shake this off; you're beginning to act like a stalker. Big Daddy Baseball has the muscle and Coliseum City has the bucks. End of story. I'm sorry to lose you, sort of, but I'm going to be rich, you hear me, RICH! Oakland and I will renew our vows in our new temple in front of tens of thousands of guests – maybe we'll get a ring out of it someday! Our story is just like the end of Stella Dallas, the old, old movie starring Barbara Stanwyck. I, the baseball team, am just like Stanwycks's daughter in the picture, who marries the rich boy from the high-class family.  And you, sad San Jose, are like Stanwyck, who has been rejected by her daughter and who hasn't been invited to the wedding, forcing Stanwyck to stand outside in the snow and watch her child get married through a window. Oh, the heartbreak, the ingratitude! Everybody in the audience is in tears. Thank God for Turner Classics! They don't make three-hanky movies like that anymore.  Yours, The A's

Last week's UCLA Extension Land Use Law and Planning Conference included a session on updates from the faraway land of Washington, D.C. Federal policymakers ended the year with a few new developments, and continued policies, that may be of interest to planners. This summary comes courtesy of Steven Preston, planning director for the City of San Gabriel, who collaborated with staff members at the American Planning Association's Washington office.  Pending Issues In the coming months, the continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire, and the debt limit will be reached in March. More importantly for cities, the MAP-21 law expires and, with it goes the funding for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Debates over replacement funding are ongoing in Washington -- including proposals to raise the federal gas tax -- with little resolution in sight. Extension of Tax Provisions Congress voted to extend a host of tax provisions at the end of 2014, and the president is expected to sign. These provisions include the following:  New Market Tax Credits:  Credit Rate for Low-Income Housing: 9 percent fixed rate for low-incoming housing tax projects Energy Credits: energy efficient construction of residential and commercial buildings Parking and Transit Tax Benefits: restores parity between parking and transit tax benefits for commuters Omnibus Spending Bill The Omnibus Spending Bill funds all agencies, except DHS, through September 2015. Some of the areas and programs that this budget affects include (as detailed in the APA's blog ):  Community Development Block Grants HOME Choice Neighborhoods Homeless Assistance Grants TIGER Grants Bike and Pedestrian Safety Highways and Transit Water Infrastructure Hazard Programs Brownfield Mitigation Climate Preparedness and Resilience The session also highlighted the findings and recommendations of President Obama's Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience. The task force released a tool kit to aid cities' climate resiliency plans.  FCC Wireless Communications Rules As reported in CP&DR last month, the Federal Communications Commission released new rules regarding the siting and modification of towers and antennae for cell phones and other wireless communication technologies.