The Sierra Club's Marin Group of chapters brought a court challenge July 10 seeking to reverse the Coastal Commission's May approval of the Marin County Land Use Plan Update. Filed by attorney John E. Sharp of San Rafael, the writ petition alleges violations of the Coastal Act, principally in the update's provisions allowing farmers to obtain permits as of right for more houses and other structures under a broadened definition of "agriculture." It further alleges noncompliance with CEQA through failure to analyze feasible alternatives or mitigation measures -- an argument founded on the requirement that, although local coastal plan revisions need not prepare a full EIR, they must include findings functionally equivalent to those required by CEQA. As of Monday county staff responded that they had not yet seen the suit and spokeswoman Sarah Christie said the Commission had not yet been served. The Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC), which had sought more development restrictions in the spring, chose not to file suit. Amy Trainer, executive director of EAC, listed continuing criticisms of the May-approved plan, but wrote: "EAC is committed to working with the Coastal Commission staff to address our concerns in the Implementation Plan. We decided that a lawsuit at this time was not in our best interest." The contested update forms the initial, most substantial part of the pending Marin Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA), which would be the first update to the program since 1981. The Commission has been waiting to take up the implementing ordinances that complete the LCPA until they are rewritten to reflect the tangle of last-minute amendments that the Commission added to the Land Use Plan in May. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3493 for details from the meeting.) A press release from the Sierra Club Marin Group quoted Executive Committee member Elena Belsky as warning that "if allowed to stand, the Commission's process and decisions regarding the Marin Local Coastal Plan Amendment will substantially weaken environment protections along the entire California coast." A further statement attributed to Belsky warned against "the precedent set of poor process and lack of environmental review, which could become the standard for updates of other LCPs around the state." The release and petition said the existing plan failed sufficiently to respect public participation rights and to consider the plan's effects on natural habitats, the appearance of the area, and the preservation of prime farmland. The petition included claims in an area disputed during the May hearing: that because the amended land use plan allows extra "intergenerational" farmhouses and other added farm housing, and because "the amendment redefines 'parcel' as 'legal lot of record'," the plan could "expose the coastal zone to over 1,000,000 of new residential development on agricultural lands, insofar as conversion from 'parcel' to 'legal lot of record' can be accomplished administratively, without scrutiny or regulation." It was not clear if this phrasing was meant to renew a concern raised in the May debate that permits for new farmhouses might be granted per 60-acre buildable lot, rather than allowing one set of the defined types of buildings on each entire farm. Trainer did not respond to the text of the Sierra Club petition, but she appeared to take a different view in an email answering queries about EAC's decision not to sue. She wrote that the Commission had "clarified" that the allowed construction was per farm, not per legal lot. But would that rule create an incentive to divide existing large farms into smaller 60-acre ones, potentially for hobby farmers? She wrote, "We are concerned about that but understand that most agricultural operators in the coastal zone have no intention currently to do this. We are hopeful that the Marin Agricultural Land Trust is working to secure both conservation easements and affirmative agricultural easements to prevent hobby farms." (Arguments from Coastal Commission staff that each farm gets just one set of farm buildings appear in the first addendum to the staff report on Pages 8-9 of the PDF in the May agenda item packet at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/5/Th12a-5-2014.pdf.) The Sierra Club Marin Group's press release said the contested plan would allow construction of "between 129 and 210 new residences in the next ten years." As discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3493, the potential number of houses that could be built on West Marin farmland under the new policy was calculated variously during the May debates as ranging from 110 under the county's view of conditions under the Land Use Plan, to a possible 263 if current Williamson Act restrictions on farmland were lifted. Trainer's email and the Sierra Club press release each criticized the broadened definition of agriculture, which allows a first, second, and (on 180-acre properties) a third farmhouse to be built on each farm, with specified other structures allowed that could include 5000 feet of commercial processing space. The agricultural designation makes these principally permitted uses, allowable as of right and only appealable directly to the Commission in certain circumstances, such as for properties nearest coastlines or watercourses. Trainer wrote, "Sometimes Marin County's Development Agency simply gets it wrong, and when that happens the public should absolutely have the right to seek review before the Coastal Commission." EAC's past comments, like the Sierra Club's complaint, had called for environmental analysis that would qualify as the functional equivalent of an environmental impact report. In her recent email Trainer renewed a CEQA-type concern along similar lines that "little to no environmental cumulative impact analysis was performed" for "significant changes" to the LCP. The Sierra Club press release pays extra attention to the role of Marin County Supervisor and Coastal Commission Chair Steve Kinsey, saying he has been criticized over the years for "aggressively promoting development" and saying he has discussed a wish to make the Commission "more 'streamlined' and 'user-friendly'". The Sierra Club suit's docket is available at http://bit.ly/1p4rRbO. Belsky wrote that the petition would soon be posted on the Marin Group's Web site, which is at http://www.sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/Marin/.

Walnut Creek officially began preparation last month of a West Downtown Specific Plan focused on links between the city's BART station and downtown, with related attention to nearby major boulevards. The city's initial Notice of Preparation papers are at http://bit.ly/WAz7Wv. Linked thence, the main West Downtown Specific Plan page at http://bit.ly/1lpCXH0 says "This important plan will focus on making it easier to walk and bike between the BART station and downtown; and plan for new homes and businesses between Olympic Boulevard and the BART station, while preserving the Almond-Shuey neighborhood." The site reports the city has begun its work by sampling public opinion in small groups and workshops, and with a consultant's report on expected transportation and land use changes. It offers a "Self-Guided Transit Oriented Development Tour" (http://www.walnut-creek.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7944) featuring model transit-oriented projects around the Bay Area: projects at the Pleasant Hill and Colma BART stations and in Redwood City, San Jose and Oakland. The most recent completed public document is a May 2014 "affordable housing and anti-displacement strategy" report by BAE Urban Economics at http://www.walnut-creek.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8649. A first draft of the Specific Plan itself is expected to appear in October. Fairfax Town Council backs off from zoning for housing The Fairfax Town Council in Marin County has repealed a zoning ordinance that would have allowed construction of 124 new housing units. The decision, per the Marin IJ , "leaves in limbo the future of a plan to build 40 single-bedroom affordable apartments for seniors at the Christ Lutheran Church property on the west end of town." (See http://bit.ly/1o4q89O.) The repeal followed a start on a referendum petition that got 1000 signatures opposing the ordinance, and a tough meeting July 12, in which officials explained the city's 2010 General Plan provisions and ABAG-determined housing goals, and critics accusing town planners of zoning for too much new housing. See http://bit.ly/1lpGhBY for the Marin IJ on the meeting. The city's main site at http://www.town-of-fairfax.org/ offers handouts from the event under "Current Topics" and promises to post video of it soon. Sacramento Kings seek $100 million bond from CEQA plaintiffs If environmental and social advocates are going to hold up the Kings basketball arena with lawsuits, the team's owners want a guarantee against the potential consequences of opening their stadium late. The Sacramento Bee reports at http://bit.ly/1nwGzwG that the team's demand for a $100 million bond is based on the possibility of losses if the stadium isn't open by October 2016, and, more starkly, an agreement allowing the NBA to move the Kings elsewhere if they don't have a Sacramento stadium by fall 2017. According to the Bee , the main case in question is Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento , a CEQA-based environmental impact suit filed in May. That case challenges the constitutionality of special CEQA leniencies provided to the arena project under SB 743, questions the commitment of public funds to the project, and claims the EIR has failed to address harmful environmental impacts to be expected from noise, crowds, and the remaindering -- hence blighting -- of the existing Sleep Train Arena. The paper says a second, more recent case may be consolidated with Saltonstall . That would presumably be Sacramento Coalition for Shared Prosperity v. City of Sacramento , the claim filed in late June by housing and environmental activists who, before filing suit, sought a Community Benefits Agreement to compensate for the arena's alleged future effects on the environment and local economy. (See http://bit.ly/1nHc0TI.) The Shared Prosperity suit and Saltonstall make overlapping claims about environmental impacts and the validity of SB 743. State Lands Commission challenges SF's Prop B height limit The State Lands Commission has filed a petition to stop the city of San Francisco from enforcing its newly passed Proposition B waterfront height limit. It alleges that "Proposition B is invalid because it specifically targets state-owned tide and submerged lands over which the Legislature has expressly precluded the right of local initiative." It says the the port lands addressed in the June ballot measure are not subject to local voters' control because they belong to the state and are governed by the Port Commission for the whole state's benefit. The petition is worth a look for its exploration of the history of tidelands as public trust and the lands' current status under the Burton Act. Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco, is one of the Commission's three members. City Attorney Dennis Herrera posted a defiant response at http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=605. It argues that the city's port lands are managed under a combination of authorities, including the local Planning Commission and Supervisors, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the State Lands Commission as well, in a framework provided by the Waterfront Land Use Plan mandated under 1990's Proposition H, a local initiative measure. Further, it questions the Lands Commission's reliance on Public Resources Code Sec. 6009, passed in 2010, as authority for preempting local ballot measures on Port lands. Herrera's statement cites to an uncodified section of the statute saying 6009 is not intended to change existing law. (For the 2010 bill, SB 1350, see http://bit.ly/1lpcQQq.) The SF Chronicle 's Bob Egelko reported at http://bit.ly/1oG6BsL that similar arguments were made in a lawsuit filed by developers last winter, and initially part-funded by the San Francisco Giants, in an effort to take Proposition B off the ballot. He reports the old and new cases may be consolidated. The case docket, which provides the complaint in PDF form, is at http://bit.ly/1wU6qOJ. For our June post-election look at Proposition B and San Francisco port lands, see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3510. (See today's ballot measure report at https://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3532 for potential effects on the pending Pier 70 ballot measure proposed for November.) How to regulate boarding houses fairly in LA? The LA Times reports Los Angeles' planners and City Council are debating how to regulate boarding houses, pushed by neighborhood complaints about disorder at particular buildings but seeking to avoid endorsing social prejudice or fair housing violations. The definition of a "family" under city ordinances is of particular concern for properties serving groups of people, sometimes with disabilities or in addiction recovery, who live together but who are not related by blood or marriage. See http://lat.ms/1lpJIsj. Fourth District grants leeway to transfer a taken property's Prop 13 advantage In a narrow ruling highlighting a lesser-used form of reassessment exclusion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found a business property owner could make a late request, even after four years had passed, to transfer the low Prop 13 base year value of a property taken by eminent domain, so that it lowered the assessment for tax purposes on a second property bought to replace the first. The swap invoked a right under Proposition 3 of 1982 that as modified by the Legislature's Revenue & Taxation Code Sec. 68, may be invoked within four years after the eminent domain condemnation. However, the court held the base year value claim could be filed later than four years, provided the replacement property was itself purchased within four years after the eminent domain condemnation. The case is Olive Lane Industrial Park, LLC vs. County of San Diego . See http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D063337.PDF. Street washing, some sidewalk washing, still allowed by state water rules Municipal street washing, and sidewalk washing if the sidewalks really need it, are reportedly exempt from California's new water conservation rules. A change in the proposed rules exempts the washing of streets and buildings statewide; washing of sidewalks is allowed where a health and safety exemption applies. See the SF Chronicle at http://bit.ly/1myVPTF. Comparing the final July 16 statewide rule with the initially proposed July 8 version on the State Water Board's page at http://bit.ly/U4HBmI, both contain the health and safety exemption but two major changes are noticeable: one is that many (not all) references to "water" are replaced with "potable water", and the other softens a ban on "the application of water to any hard surface, including but not limited to driveways, sidewalks, and asphalt." The new comparable rule reads simply, "the application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks." The exemptions were especially sought by the city of San Francisco, which has an energetic sidewalk and street washing program. (See http://bit.ly/1m2eV4e.) San Francisco has been accused of using water trucks both to clean up waste left by sidewalk campers and to remove the campers themselves. http://alj.am/1gGjTVs HOAs lose power to enforce lawn watering Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2100, by Assemblymember Nora Campos, D-San Jose, to stop homeowners' associations from fining members for watering their lawns less or not at all during a drought emergency. See http://bit.ly/1tsryM1 for details. The bill is closely similar to AB 2104 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, and even closer to SB 992 by State Sen. Jim Nielsen R-Gerber. Mountain View activists want more housing in shopping center mix The Mountain View City Council was reportedly leaning toward approval of a plan for more housing at the planned San Antonio Center shopping center project -- a significant change from February, according to the Mountain View Voice at http://bit.ly/1n8nZKj. The paper reported the Campaign for a Balanced Mountain View activist group had threatened to place a measure on the ballot unless the affected shopping area's San Antonio Precise Plan was readjusted to balance housing with jobs. See http://balancedmv.org/. Active transportation promoters include Ed Begley, Jr. True to his many Everyman roles, actor Ed Begley, Jr. showed up at a meeting of the Los Angeles Metro policy committee as part of a group seeking more funding to encourage and ease walking and bicycling in LA. The public comment effort last Wednesday was organized by the LA County Active Transportation Collaborative, which includes the Safe Routes to School organization (see http://saferoutescalifornia.org/2014/07/16/at_financestrategy_lametro/). The committee passed a motion to create an active transportation finance strategy for the county that would measure "improvements for walking and biking" in order to define and fund goals and measure their degree of attainment. Streetsblog LA livetweeted the meeting on the hashtag #metrofundwalkbike, including Begley's part of it around https://twitter.com/StreetsblogLA/status/489530460540653569. In other news: The city of Pico Rivera held a community meeting July 21 on its proposed general plan revision. See the city site at http://www.pico-rivera.org/depts/ced/planning/plan.asp  San Diego's City Council decided to wait until September for a vote on increasing commercial development fees for affordable housing. See www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/17/linkage-fee-delay. LA Curbed celebrated its own "Outdoors Week" with a roundup on the rebranding of the LA River as cleanable water and amenitizable waterway. See http://bit.ly/1qKACKn. Exide, the Vernon-based battery recycler cited repeatedly for lead and arsenic emissions, has been allowed to reopen under a settlement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Some critics, including Maywood Mayor Oscar Magana, questioned whether it ought to reopen at all. See http://lat.ms/1kP61rp. Google has bought the 188 Embarcadero building on San Francisco's waterfront and has announced plans to lease 250,000 square feet in nearby Spear Tower. (That's per Bloomberg and the Mercury News via the SF Business Journal . See http://bit.ly/1jIzcl9.) Maybe now fewer Google workers will commute from San Francisco to Silicon Valley? In another choice likely to mute criticism of those big white Google Bus commuter coaches, the company has begun to offer free shuttle buses for the public in Mountain View. See http://bit.ly/1kOCQVu for the basics. Per the Mercury News at http://bit.ly/1kODh1Z, routes for the four electric shuttles aren't established yet but the idea is to connect riders to movie theaters, shopping, errands, and the Google headquarters itself. At the other end of San Francisco's sumptuary scale, a pilot program will be placing portable public toilets with attendants at the three Tenderloin locations with the worst accumulation of feces on sidewalks. See http://bit.ly/1ktTjhy. With trial now over in the Martins Beach public access lawsuit, Vinod Khosla, the Sun Microsystems co-founder at the center of the fight, told the LA Times he started out by allowing visitors access to the beach property for a fee as the prior owner had done, but then he decided to close the gate because of "unreasonable" demands from county planners and the Coastal Commission. See http://lat.ms/1nQ0XDi. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty issued its annual report on the criminalization of homelessness. Findings include a 60% increase since 2011 in local citywide bans on camping in public and a 119% increase since 2011 in bans on sleeping in vehicles. See http://nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place.

Since our last discussion of architect Peter Zumthor's proposed new design of the Los Angeles County Art Museum, aka the Black Hole on Wilshire Boulevard (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3442), several important events have taken place: The Page Museum, which employs paleontologists to excavate bones of ancient mammals from tar pits that lie east of the museum, pointed out that the new museum would overlie several active research sites. Emergency IM to Switzerland: Mr. Z, your tar pit museum has become mired in the honest-to-God tar pits! Back to the drawing board! To leave the tar pits undisturbed, Zumthor has now re-arranged the amorphous black mass of his new museum, which remains as soft-edged and angle-free as before. As newly redesigned, the bulk of the new building remains on the existing museum site on the north side of Wilshire. Then, in a surprise move worthy of Alien, a black mass surges out of the belly of the beast, leaping across the boulevard in the form of a bridge and landing (splat!) on a museum-owned lot on the south side of the street. This ingenious solution preserves the size of the museum while sparing the tar pits. No oxen gored here! No wonder public officials have been quick to endorse the design solution. Who could object? Well, bridges that span streets tend to block views, and views are important, especially on Wilshire, the thoroughfare once described by Reyner Banham as the "linear downtown" of Los Angeles. The view looking east from Fairfax Boulevard, in fact, is one of the best-known street scenes in the city. Only Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards have comparably famous street perspectives. (Some historically minded people might add the views of Broadway, Spring and Seventh streets, all in downtown LA, to that list.) Getting to the point, blocking the view of arguably the most prominent street in the city from a major intersection (Wilshire and Fairfax Boulevard) damages the city, period. It doesn't matter that the bridge may turn out to be an object of architectural interest. A single building, even one designed by the illustrious Peter Zumthor, is not worth the loss of the view of an entire boulevard. To solve one problem by creating another is not a good solution. The better approach, I think, would be to add height and mass to the "satellite" site on the south side of Wilshire. That parcel is located among high-rise office buildings, so a new tower would not look out of place. Insofar as the MOCA campus already consists of several free-standing buildings, the new Wilshire-South location would not be out of keeping, especially if the city provides a signalized pedestrian crossing on Wilshire to take the anxiety out of walking across a wide street. A free-standing building is a better solution than an above-the-street bridge, which will be extremely expensive due to seismic standards for public buildings. There are better uses for public money than obliterating the view of the Miracle Mile from the Fairfax District and Beverly Hills. Message to Peter Zumthor: It's time for Round Three.

November's local ballots aren't quite final; officials are still checking signatures on many petitions. But it's late enough in the season to have a sense of what's headed for a vote. (Especially in San Francisco and Santa Monica.) Here are some highlights of local measures likely to be on November ballots that are related to land use: City of Alameda: The Crab Cove Open Space Expansion Initiative would rezone a property in the disputed Neptune Point waterfront area that had been the subject of a housing development plan. The proponents' site is at http://friendsofcrownbeach.com/. More on related City Council action at http://bit.ly/1rl90xy. Four counties -- Butte, Mendocino, San Benito and Santa Barbara -- have fracking bans headed for their ballots; Mendocino's would be especially strict. Costa Mesa's City Council has definitely placed a city charter proposal on the city's November ballot. This is a second try: a similar charter proposal, Measure V, was defeated in 2012. See http://bit.ly/1mgfUhj and, for a prior mention with links, http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3467. The charter description is linked from the city site at http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1675, as are materials from March 18, April 22 and July 1 meetings on the issue. City of Pismo Beach: would make additions to city's sphere of influence for development in Price Canyon: See http://bit.ly/1nOA5mZ. City of Placerville: would ban roundabouts and traffic circles unless specifically approved by voters. The proponent group, Friends of Historic Hangtown, discusses the underlying Main Street roundabout dispute at http://saveourcounty.net/projects/placerville-roundabout-main-st/. A Google terrain view of the intersection described, showing the awkward not-quite-meeting of Cedar Ravine and Clay Streets at Main, is at http://bit.ly/1mY8OOZ. City of Santa Monica: A ballot measure would increase the real estate transfer tax only for sales of $1 million or more, and a companion advisory measure would "allow voters to express their preference" that the funds be spent for affordable housing. See http://www.smvote.org/BallotMeasures/. The Santa Monica Lookout reports a third housing measure will appear on the ballot as well, to increase registration fees for landlords while reducing how much of that can be charged to tenants. See http://bit.ly/1wSbAL3. Proponents of continuing aviation at Santa Monica Airport have qualified a measure that would require future voter approval to convert the site to any other use. It's the latest round in a fight that has included federal litigation against the FAA (see http://lat.ms/1k8IpDq), allegations by aviation proponents that airport commissioners have conflicts of interest (see http://lat.ms/1t5xM4d) and a legal challenge by opponents of the ballot measure who have called the airport a hazard to nearby residents: (see http://bit.ly/1jSbfYi and http://bit.ly/1zYB3qK). The Santa Monica City Council decided to rescind its approval of the Hines "Bergamot Transit Village" development in May, preempting a petition against the project that had the signature to go to the voters. See the final item at http://www.smvote.org/BallotMeasures/ and a commiserating developer's eulogy for the project via http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-69407. City of San Francisco: San Francisco has an especially large number of ballot measures pending for November. Among them: Proponents of two rival San Francisco housing measures have agreed to withdraw them from the ballot in favor of a single affordable-housing proposal. Supervisor Jane Kim had obtained the required four Supervisors' votes for a "Housing Balance" measure to require 30% affordable units in new residential construction. Mayor Ed Lee had responded with his own "Build Housing Now" proposal to invalidate Kim's proposal and remove other regulatory constraints on residential construction, while stating policies in favor of affordability. Pressures to avoid a public battle between the two measures included a widely shared critical commentary on both by Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, available at http://bit.ly/1qZ6yL3. The San Francisco ballot measure status page at http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=2969 still shows the proposals as filed but news reports said Kim and Lee agreed June 24 to cooperate on placing a single new measure before the voters that sets housing goals and policies and calls for planning in favor of affordability. See http://bit.ly/1xtqFDm. The alternative SF Bay Guardian criticized the new proposal as unenforceable. See http://bit.ly/UIJKEC. An "anti-speculation tax" measure would impose an extra tax on real estate that changes hands within five years. (See Morris Newman's commentary on whether it will work, at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3519.) Two mutually exclusive measures on the Golden Gate Park athletic fields renovation, where controversy has flared over the proposed addition of astroturf, bright lights, and added space and facilities for spectators. All through the spring, signature collectors haunted organic grocery stores and left-leaning events with  petition against the astroturf plan, and their persistence paid off by qualifying the measure. In response a majority of the Board of Supervisors approved a ballot measure for the disputed astroturf, lights and other construction. For details see http://bit.ly/UrzQHz. Proponents of redevelopment at Pier 70's Union Iron Works complex have gathered signatures for a measure measure approving redevelopment of the Union Iron Works complex at Pier 70, in a preemptive response to the June-passed Proposition B restriction on waterfront height limits The measure is likely to pass, but whether it will take effect depends in part on the newly filed State Lands Commission lawsuit against Prop B, which argues that state port lands are not subject to governance by local city voters. The State Lands Commission complaint, which is available at http://bit.ly/1wU6qOJ, alleges that the Pier 70 ballot measure shares this defect with Prop B. The "Restore Transportation Balance" proposal, a pushback against the city's use of new parking meters and increased rates to push people toward active and public transportation. Streetsblog SF notes in a link-rich item at http://bit.ly/1rkqNVR that the measure is backed by Facebook co-founder Sean Parker. It has been greeted with sarcasm from several quarters (including Streetsblog at http://bit.ly/1mSrCEo), but the conservative Potrero View neighborhood paper was cheering for the group at http://www.potreroview.net/feat10582.html. The group's own home page is at http://www.restorebalance14.org/. The initiative would mandate free Sunday parking, condition new and variable-rate meters on a local neighborhood petition process, freeze city parking rates for five years, and increase representation for "motorists" in SFMTA governance. (In the meantime SFMTA restored free Sunday parking in most of the city. See http://sfmta.com/news/notices/sunday-parking-meter-changes-effective-july-2014.) For an incomplete but helpful general roster of local California ballot measures on all topics, see Ballotpedia at http://bit.ly/1nuVCqG.

The Strategic Growth Council (SGC) held a celebratory but serious public meeting July 10 to take stock of its budgetary good fortune under California's cap-and-trade program. Under the SB 862 budget trailer bill enacted in June, SGC suddenly has $130 million to fund the first year of a new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program, and after that has been promised ongoing funding from 20% of the state's ongoing cap-and-trade auction revenues. Previously funded by one-time grants (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3513), the council now has a permanent funding source. Amid mutual congratulations, the July 10 meeting had aspects of a founding convention -- and moments of the uncertainty that blank pages induce -- and moments, too, of the early-stage shouldering that new prospects of public money induce. SGC has a program to design. Not that it's starting from scratch: The money has destinations and priorities fixed by statute, and SGC can call on cooperating state agencies for staff to administer it. But the program as yet lacks precise rules for allocating the money and a definite pipeline for the money to flow through. The Council has to build both, largely in deference to a public process, more or less in a hurry. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program will fund planning and construction to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by means consistent with SB 375 and AB 32, coordinating energy-efficient transportation, land conservation and compact housing growth. Under requirements in the new SB 862 budget trailer bill and 2012's SB 535, half of the money must be spent on "housing opportunities for lower income households" and, as a separate requirement, half must benefit disadvantaged communities. Ten percent must be spent on programs actually within disadvantaged communities. Other environmental legislation passed since AB 32 conditions the program's responses to GHG reduction and its obligation to monitor success at the task. Those rules left room for a lot of questions at the meeting. Would the program focus on urban transit-oriented development, or could it fund more varied and more rural projects? Among the goals of housing, conservation and transportation efficiency, would one predominate? Would one of the state agencies partnering with SGC assert primary control? How much power would locally affected people and organizations have over the nature of promised benefits to disadvantaged communities? How would larger nonprofits be involved? And -- as Bill Higgins of the California Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG) has suggested -- should regional planning entities help allocate the money? Delegation to agencies of some powers, not all The July 10 meeting's agenda was simple: Hear briefings from agencies, hear public comment, make basic delegations of new duties. The Council accepted a staff recommendation to delegate administration of one program component, the Sustainable Communities Agricultural Land Preservation Program (SCALPP), to the Natural Resources Agency or Department of Conservation (which is housed in Natural Resources), and administration of the rest to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). At the initiation mainly of Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, and of the Council's public member, Bob Fisher, the Council removed a clause from the delegation phrasing that appeared to privilege those two agencies over others in working with SGC to develop the new program's rules. At the last minute members took out the word "separately" from a reference to the SCALPP program because it might imply lack of interest in coordinating land preservation with other aspects of projects. Speakers from advocacy groups repeatedly asked for and got reassurances that the SGC itself would retain approval power over the program's guidelines and distributions. Laird particularly said he had been lobbied by callers suggesting money given to HCD to administer would get stuck there, "and you'll never see it again." Susan Riggs, deputy secretary for housing policy at the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, parent agency to HCD, said the agencies given the delegated administration tasks would handle technical processes such as scoring and reviewing grant applications under SGC's direction. Council members and staff presenters confirmed to each other that additional agencies, prominently including Caltrans and the Air Resources Board (ARB), would consult as necessary, in a program especially meant to encourage projects combining multiple agencies' expertise. For example, SGC chair Ken Alex noted, only the ARB had the expertise to monitor and quantify projects' effects on GHG emissions. For an account of the meeting by the National Resources Defence Council that emphasizes the definition of roles, see http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aeaken/strategic_growth_council_clari.html. Staff from SGC and cooperating state agencies presented a calendar calling for quick work on a double track. Edie Chang, deputy executive officer with the ARB, told the panel the hope was to have draft interim guidance ready in August for agencies' use in September to "start getting money out the door later this summer and early this fall." Among its tasks, ARB has begun designing methodologies to measure various types' of projects' success in reducing emissions. On a parallel, longer-range track, SGC planned three workshops, in Northern, Central and Southern California, for public discussion of the program's long-term guidelines. On July 29, SGC announced at http://sgc.ca.gov/ that it would hold workshops on the guidelines as follows: August 12, 2014, at Fresno City Hall, 1-4 p.m. August 14, 2014, in Oakland's ABAG office, 1-4 p.m. August 15, 2015, in LA's Caltrans district office, 9 a.m.-noon For the main announcement document see http://sgc.ca.gov/docs/SGC_AHSC_Public_Workshop_Notice_August_2014_FINAL.pdf. The document includes links to register for the limited number of seats at each workshop. At the July 10 meeting, SGC Deputy Director Allison Joe said the plan was to bring guidelines initially to the Council in October, then back for final approval in December, so a solicitation for funding proposals could go out to candidates in January. Deadlines for applicants would fall in March or April of 2015, with awards to follow in May or June. Laird, who is one of several state agency chiefs serving on the Council, warned that the continuing funding was only "as good as the next budget vote, so keep that in mind." But discussion at the meeting presumed the first year's work would put a structure in place for longer-term use. (For detailed June budget bill coverage see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3509.) SGC Executive Director Mike McCoy described a careful staff process seeking to propose enough structure to start operations, while purposefully leaving many details imprecise to avoid pressuring the public guideline-drafting process. He told the panel, "We worked very diligently to not have undue influence from any existing set of guidelines of anyone's, whether it be the SGC's or Housing and Community Development or transportation programs of various stripes... We started out with a seed document that was an amalgam of a couple of different programs, and decided that it had too much precision and we didn't want to preclude valuable discussion by the Council or the public, so we backed off from that..." Staking out early claims There was push-and-pull already in the public comment period, which was populated entirely by administrators and advocates closely familiar with past transportation and housing programs. Speakers associated with the SB 535 Coalition and affordable housing and social equity groups, including Joshua Stark of TransForm, asked for careful definitions of who counted as low-income, which communities counted as "disadvantaged," and how to measure benefits to either. Some called for transit pass subsidies and emphasis on affordability for genuinely low-income residents. Several said funding awards should be conditioned on protections against displacement of low-income residents, and that projects causing displacement should not be funded. There were related calls for technical assistance to potential grantee groups in disadvantaged communities, where the capacity might not already exist to prepare competitive grant proposals. Several speakers called for a full review of the program's new structure and direction after a year of operation. And was there an ideal model in mind for AHSC projects, or should there be? One project discussed at the meeting, but not exactly put forward as a prototype, was the Union City Intermodal transit-oriented project: 800 new housing units, of which 251 are affordable, surrounding a BART station built in the 1970s, with new public investment in the affordable units and in a new entrance and approaches that shortened the walk to the station from the new housing. Acting Director Randy Deems of HCD presented the project as an example of environmentally sound work done through the past Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) grant and Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) programs funded by Proposition 1C, the 2006 housing bond. Mark Evanoff, redevelopment manager for Union City, gave a more detailed, enthusiastic description of the project, saying it would need more funds to complete its buildout and making a pitch for release of 2011 redevelopment bond funds through the proposed AB 2493 and SB 1129. But Rob Wiener of the California Coalition for Rural Housing said the new program shouldn't be entirely for transit villages at the kinds of transit stations that only can exist in urban areas. He said the existing TOD program, though worthy, has only awarded funds in 7 counties to date, and over half of that in Alameda and Los Angeles Counties. He pointed the Council's attention toward San Bernardino, the Inland Empire and San Joaquin Valley, all places with terrible air quality: "They are transit-poor. They don't qualify for TOD." On the other hand, he said, they are exemplars for projects reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and for construction with zero net energy use -- projects that could qualify for funding under the new SGC program. For similar reasons, Rachel Iskow of Mutual Housing California, said she feared the new SGC program, like TOD, would "effectively become one more contributor to the 'two-California' phenomenon," aiding the more prosperous coastal cities while inland towns suffered from poverty, air pollution and unhealthy housing. As an alternative example to the TOD transit village model, Iskow offered a project of her own, planned for the small town of Woodland. She said Woodland's only public transit is a bus system with low service levels, but the development will be a zero net energy project, exclusively for agricultural workers and their families, allowing them to live in healthy housing near a bus stop, with lowered utility bills and a chance to contribute to the grid through their new rooftop solar panels. It wouldn't be TOD, she said, but it would help "close the green divide and California's own divide." Less frequent speakers leaned toward preserving farms and open land against sprawl, especially at urban boundaries. Jeanne Merrill of the California Climate and Agriculture Network called strongly for integrating the conservation of agricultural land with the rest of the sustainable communities goals. She argued projects should have to show how they will avoid converting agricultural land or open space, and that the project should not fund projects counter to those goals. Further, she called for long-term permanent protection of land at risk of development, calling conservation easements the best tool for the task. Uniquely, she argued that SCALPP land preservation projects in disadvantaged communities should be counted toward the required percentages of disadvantaged-community spending under SB 535. But Laird warned that conservation easements and other traditional open-space preservation measures can be expensive enough for one such project to eat the whole new program's budget, creating a need instead to "leverage this or stretch the reach as far as we can." Since the meeting the Sacramento Bee 's Jeremy White has published a look at the AHSC program's possibilities from an agricultural land preservation point of view. See http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/19/6568511/cap-and-trade-could-aid-preservation.html. A role for regional government councils? Bill Higgins of the California Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG) called attention to a pre-hearing letter submitted as public comment by State Sen. Darrell Steinberg, the legislator most credited with bringing through funding for the sustainable communities program. (See http://www.sgc.ca.gov/docs/Public_Comment_Letters_071014.pdf.) Steinberg had written that SGC should be the lead agency in ranking projects and distributing funds, and that councils of governments should be involved formally as they have been on prior SB 375 implemntation, emissions reduction should be maintained as the chief goal, and there should be flexibility for future changes. Higgins asked for more clarity on how to involve the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the new program, and separately suggested "regional delegation" could be an element of the program as well as competition for grants. Expanding on his comments after the hearing, he wrote: "We believe strongly that MPOs and regional agencies outside of MPOs are the right level of government to make project level determinations about funding. It's what MPOs and RTPA do with existing sources of federal and state funding. Our members have existing staff expertise—we do not have to staff up. And it makes sense that the agencies responsible for implementing the SB 375 mandate have discretion over project selection. To be sure, the state should have a significant role in setting clear, comprehensive guidelines about how such funds could be awarded. But as Senator Steinberg noted, putting this 'knowledge and expertise' to use is 'crucial to the success' of the AHSC program." Higgins also suggested a longer view might be in order on grantmaking. At the meeting he said, "What's good for this year might not be good for five years from now." He suggested creating a process to offer "funding certainty" for new kinds of projects. Later he wrote, "Members of the council stated that they needed to develop a program quickly to demonstrate effectiveness to the Legislature before the next budget cycle. While it is understandable, there should be an acknowledgement that more effective programs could be developed with more time. The short term need for speed should not affect long-term design options that may be more sustainable and equitable.The Council should commit to continuing to examine longer-term options during and after the first year." A full video recording of the meeting is at http://www.sgc.ca.gov/s_071014_meetingmaterials.php with links to the meeting agenda, handouts, and pre-meeting comment letters.

The Coastal Commission had plenty to worry about this month but the big-ticket item, the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Program (LCP), was at last not problematic. After 28 years of difficult stop-and-start negotiations, the final Local Implementation Plan (LIP) approval session sounded like a Thursday morning at the Oscars. The first "I'd like to thank..." litany of gratitude came from Jack Ainsworth, senior deputy director for the Ventura-based district office with responsibility for LA County. That was after he'd announced full agreement between the County and Coastal Commission staff on the 600-odd suggested modifications to the original LIP, which he termed "nothing short of a miracle." Then it was the turn of termed-out LA County Supevisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who drove the LCP to completion as his legacy project. And then more mutual thanks: to Yaroslavsky, the Coastal Commission staff for long hours against tough deadlines; County Planning Director Richard Bruckner and his staff; the Commission, the public, homeowners' associations, equestrians, voters. A unanimous vote of the Commission that day gave the plan its last substantive approval. It now goes to the County for re-endorsement as amended, then back to the Commission for endorsement, then becomes fully final. The plan covers 50,000 acres of steep canyonlands above the City of Malibu's coastal strip: a territory of fragile habitats, expensive houses, organic farms and vineyards, parks -- and locally traditional horse corrals. Per the program's last and toughest negotiations, new farming is discouraged, new vineyards are banned outright, and the horse corrals will be either helped toward compliance or, if that's impossible, allowed to phase out, even allowing limited nonconforming uses to continue a while after sales to new owners. (For more background see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3474.) Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network used her public comment minutes to recall, by contrast, the 2002 conflict when the Legislature required the Coastal Commission to draft and certify an LCP for the city of Malibu. "What went down during that fight was -- I can't even describe really what it was like but it was terrible. It was contentious. There was anger on all sides. And it finally got done but it was -- it left everyone really bruised." Whereas this time -- she professed herself "nothing short of amazed" to see letters of support from Malibu City Council members. She said, "This is a very progressive LCP -- well, it's not there yet, but almost." Consultant Don Schmitz spoke as he had in April for the Coastal Coalition of Family Farmers, a group formed this spring in alarmed response to the planned restrictions on agriculture. Schmitz's group had especially fought the LCP's moratorium on new vineyards. He made two last appeals at the July meeting: first, to let farmers add a little more growing space in the ten-foot "fuel modification zones" required along roads, and, second, to let them install more solid barriers than the required wildlife-permeable fencing around organic farmland. He lost on both counts. Heal the Bay's last-ditch effort, less insistent, was to call for more mitigation during the "temporal loss" created by the temporary grandfathering of nonconforming horse properties. The group also called for more careful monitoring of stream impacts. Again, no changes were made to the addendum worked out between county and Commission staff before the meeting. At last the deal was done. The main July agenda document at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/7/Th15a-7-2014.pdf includes as attachments the LCP's two now-completed parts: the Land Use Plan, approved in April, and the Local Implementation Plan, approved in July. The main document starting at Page 141 includes richly textured maps showing the new patchworks of land use categories, followed by categorizations of potential land uses, from "Arboretums and horticultural gardens," to "Convents and monasteries, stand-alone," to bait and tackle shops, tasting rooms, union halls, youth hostels, and "Wild animals, the keeping of, either individually or collectively for private or commercial purposes." Agenda materials for this and all July Coastal Commission items, with votes noted, are at http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm14-7.html. San Diego port district plan withdrawn over visitor affordability The Port of San Diego withdrew a proposal to rezone East Harbor Island, which it owns, after the Port, Commission staff, and the Commissioners themselves could not agree on rules for lower-cost visitor accommodations on the site. The case drove the Commissioners to renew discussion about the meaning, purpose and appropriate quality of "lower cost" accommodations, and to ask whether Commission staff were making policy on the subject backhandedly in negotiating mitigation fees case by case. Current zoning on East Harbor Island calls for a single 500-room hotel. The property's long-term lessor, Sunroad Marina Partners, LP, proposed to divide those 500 rooms among three different hotels. The Commission found that troubling because it would take up more space, crowding out other possible lower-cost visitor accommodations such as campgrounds or a hostel. The Port's proposal called for the developer to "develop or designate its fair share of on-site or off-site lower cost visitor accommodations or pay an in-lieu fee based on a study conducted by the District." But the Commission found that short on specifics. By contrast the Commission staff were calling for a very specific, and rather steep one-third of the hotel units -- 166 rooms -- to be lower-cost overnight accommodations. Asked where the one-third fraction came from, a staff member  explained late in the discussion that the proposal called for three hotels, the one-third proposal was made at "the beginning of our negotiations with the port," and discussion on the subject hadn't gone farther. The port district and developer were seeking to push back more specific commitments on low-cost visitor accommodations until it could complete a study on the subject. Randa Coniglio, Executive Vice President for Operations at the Port, described the study as investigating demand, location and types of lower-cost accommodations "that will be successful and drive visitors to San Diego Bay." The study would come back to the Commission as a Port Master Plan Amendment, she sad. Speakers supporting the staff recommendation for one-third affordability included a UNITE-HERE union representative and a hotel worker who said he was paid minimum wage and had student loans to pay off, so he looked for low-cost public amenities to enjoy with his fianceé -- as someday he would look for ways to take his kids to the coast. Commissioner Jana Zimmer argued that as owner of the island the Port, as a public agency, had a duty to maintain public access: "When a public agency like a port is acting as a property owner and looking to maximize the revenue from that publicly owned land," she said they should consider whether they had complied fully with Coastal Act objectives. She didn't want to wait to receive the study "as a fait accompli". Commissioner Gregory Cox, the local San Diego County Supervisor on the board, asked for a broader conversation about "this whole concept" of lower-cost accommodations, but also wanted to see the Port's study results for a practical sense of what would work on the site. Others asked for clarity on the distinction between "lower cost" and genuinely low-cost accommodations; on whether an equally pleasant and comfortable vacation experience should be made available to the lower-budget public in compensation for high-priced coastal uses; on what becomes of "in-lieu" fees; on the proper percentages of hotel units to be held at lower rates or compensated for through in-lieu fees. Commissioner Martha McClure, a Del Norte County Supervisor, was also bothered by the meaning of "lower cost," which she said had a different meaning "in my part of the world" than in San Diego. Considering "the average family of four that might be on their way to Disneyland or might be on their way to Sea World or somewhere on the California Coast," she asked if they would really want to stay in a campground or hostel. While supporting approval for the Port's project, she asked for a study of what accommodations count as lower-cost and where they should be. "I'm thinking that some of these in-lieu fees go to the developer who agrees to develop and run a low-cost hotel for the next 45 years," as "a Holiday Inn Express or I don't know what." Commisison Chair Steve Kinsey of Marin agreed with her: "We shouldn't push every lower-cost accommodation into a tent." It was Kinsey who pursued the question of why Commission staff had asked for one-third of the units to be set at lower costs or compensated. He said he was uncomfortable with the answer, and wanted "a more specific way of getting there." Coniglio withdrew the application, saying "We absolutely understand your concerns and have the same concerns ourselves." With the application withdrawn, it was left that the Port would return after making progress on the study. It wasn't clear when the Commission would next discuss or draft general rules governing lower-cost accommodations but the pressure for such a discussion appeared to have risen. Ventura's 'Triangle Site' primed for development A relatively easy affordability discussion wrapped up what Ainsworth called a "long hard negotiation" in Ventura on the so-called "Triangle Site." The long-debated site, also known as the "Promenade Parcels," is an undeveloped bluff-top area isolated by railroad tracks and the inland side of Highway 101 but close to Ventura's beach and pier. It was before the Commission for approval of a requested LCP amendment to allow a promenade and other development including potentially houses or hotels. The essential term of the city-Commission agreement provided that any future proponent of residential development on the site would need to pay a $1.8 million mitigation fee to support lower-cost visitor accommodations, presumably elsewhere. The fee was based on the calculation that a 210-room hotel could be built on the site under the zoning sought, imposing a fee based on 25% of those rooms at an in-lieu fee of about $34,000 (inflation-adjusted from a 2007 study that recommended $30,000 per room). Plans under the new zoning called for construction of parking and a bluff-top promenade more strongly linking the site to the waterfront. Requirements called for parking areas accompanying new development to install infrastructure from the start for electric car charging stations, but with plans held in reserve to build the charging stations themselves only when they become needed. The city was seeking the amendment at the initiation of owner Lloyd Properties, which was seeking to either develop the property or sell it to a developer. Larry Bucher, chair of the Lloyd Properties board, offered support from the owning family for the agreement. He said the family had owned the property 75 years "and I personally have been involved in trying to do something with it" for 30 years. "We're not developers, this is something that we've owned for 75 years and we're attempting to find a solution. With this amendment I think we're on the right path." The Commission granted approval to the LCP change, but with a revision sought by City of Ventura representatives: adding the city as a party to the Memorandum of Understanding for administration of the fee, along with the Coastal Commission itself and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Ainsworth accepted the three-party structure reluctantly, saying he didn't want disputes about state parks management within the city to "somehow get mixed up" with the new MOU discussion. Possibilities for use of the money included improvements to existing campgrounds. One possible site the city had recommended was the Emma Wood State Beach group camping area. But State Parks District Superintendent Rich Rozelle said the site was unsuitably located in the river flood plain and the whole $1.8 million could be used up running a sewer line there. The only outright opposition was in a complaint letter to the Commission by the Pacific Legal Foundation, questioning the legality of the $1.8 million fee. (Commissioner Zimmer said PLF's client wasn't clear; PLF's @TheCoastWatch Twitter feed clarified within minutes that the letter was "submitted on behalf of PLF only.") At Zimmer's suggestion, the attorney for Lloyd Properties committed on the record to making it a condition of sale for the purchaser not to contest the in-lieu fee in future. The agenda materials are at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/7/Th15b-7-2014.pdf. Donald Trump's flagpole issue still unresolved For now, a 70-foot flagpole will continue to fly a large U.S. flag next to the clubhouse at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes but the flagpole's future isn't resolved. First set up in 2006, the pole was locally approved in 2007 but never got Coastal Commission approval. In this month's Coastal Commission session, the Trump organization sought retroactive approval of the flagpole together with permission for less debated improvements such as a driving range. In a two-hour debate July 9, members of the Coastal Commission more and less stoically received edification on the national flag's symbolism by Trump counsel Jill Martin and a parade of ardent public commenters. Commissioner Jana Zimmer delivered a lecture of her own on national values attached to the rule of law. But the discussion's real sticking point was unmoving insistence by Commission staff that the flagpole was restricted by a 26-foot building height restriction in the local municipal code, which is part of the Local Coastal Program. Rancho Palos Verdes town officials testified that the 26-foot limit had been intended to limit the heights of houses, whereas a flagpole was more like a radio antenna and shouldn't be regulated as to height at all. The hearing ended in an understanding: the proponents withdrew the flagpole portion of their proposal while the Commission approved the other proposed work on the property. It was left that the proponents would seek local approval -- which was clearly likely to be popular -- for a proposed Local Coastal Program revision legalizing the flagpole. The Commission would then consider waiving or reducing the filing fee -- otherwise potentially $500,000 -- to come back with the proposed LCP revision and the request to have the flagpole approved. With all eyes on the flagpole, it became a side issue that the golf course does not use recycled water and does not now have infrastructure to do so. Martin told the Commission it was "something that we are actively exploring," and an area where the company wanted to improve because it was "incredibly expensive to maintain our golf course with the water resources we have now." Also at the Coastal Commission: The Commission issued a notice of violation and a cease and desist order to Robert and Judith McCarthy, who had upset neighbors by fencing off a hiking trail in Avila Beach. The San Luis Obispo Tribune has details at http://bit.ly/1jvIUa0. The news account also describes the Commission's rejection of a county plan to add paving and a restroom to the visitor areas at Pirate's Cove Beach. After hearing from local opponents, the Commission granted only limited approval, for a coastal trail to be built linking the area to Pismo Beach. The Commission agreed to hold a separate public hearing about proposed major renovations to the former Aliso Creek Inn and Golf Course in Laguna Beach. The project proponent said the planned work would not increase the buildings' square footage but appellant Mark Fudge presented environmental, public access and affordability concerns. See http://bit.ly/1slwtR9 and http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/coastal-panel-ropes-ranch-another-review/ The Commission easily approved a movie theater conversion in the third floor of the Santa Monica Place Bloomingdale's and an office remodel by Google in the city of Venice. The Commission gave permanent approval to a temporary revetment of boulders placed to stop erosion at Port Hueneme Beach. For details see the city's own site at http://www.ci.port-hueneme.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=1000. Governor Jerry Brown has signed AB 474, broadening requirements for disclosure of Commissioners' ex parte contacts. Prior law required Commissioners to report who spoke or wrote to them and what was said. Now they must also report who if anyone the speaker was representing in making the ex parte contact and who else was "present during the communication," and must provide copies of "all text and graphic material that was part of the communication". See http://bit.ly/1jvQaTj and http://bit.ly/1sluhcc. The August Coastal Commission meeting will be a four-day session, Tuesday through Friday, rather than the ordinary three-day monthly meeting. The agenda, already available at http://coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html, includes a major proposal: the I-5 expansion from San Diego to Camp Pendleton. See http://bit.ly/1zoq0FS for a preview. Other expected agenda items include the perennially debated future of the Children's Pool seal haulout area in La Jolla. At its July meeting the Commission approved, with modifications, a revised map of the eternally debated sites of public beach access areas in the city of Malibu. The maps are at the end of the agenda item's document PDF, which is at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/7/Th15c-7-2014.pdf, but if you're actually looking for a place to sun yourself, it may be wise to study up on the disputes and modifications mentioned earlier in the same PDF.

The agenda for this month's Coastal Commission session, which starts tomorrow, calls for one big bookend and a lively pile of locally debated items. The bookend is the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Plan (LCP). After decades of false starts and uncertainty, and a stormy April approval of the policy-level Land Use Plan (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3474), the July agenda calls for finally sewing up the LCP by approving its final local implementation ordinances. If and when that work is done, Los Angeles County will finally receive delegated authority over coastal building permits in the steep, expensive and environmentally fragile canyon country above Malibu. Fewer issues remain to resolve than in April. The staff recommendation calls for a thicket of changes to the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) but many are procedurally required to resolve settled matters, simply because the LIP draft currently before the Commission is still the one that LA County submitted before the Commission made changes at its April hearing. Areas to be reconciled include a "special compliance program" spelling out a relatively gentle process to bring the mountains' long-established equestrian facilities up to Coastal Commission code. The agenda item is 15a on the Thursday calendar currently at http://coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html. Because nothing coastal is ever particularly over, there's a Malibu LCP amendment on the same part of the agenda. But it's comparatively a minor one. More significantly, an LCP amendment in Ventura would allow for new development on the 11-acre waterfront "Triangle Site". Commission staff are recommending major changes to the proposed amendment on several Coastal Act compliance grounds, with special concern for keeping some coastal overnight visits affordable. The staff report does not mention specific hotel development plans but does say the proposal would allow a 210-room hotel to be built, and calls for a $1.8 million mitigation fee based on that room count. Development plans for the site have been debated locally for years. Elsewhere on an agenda packed with small intense items, Google is proposing an office building remodel in the city of Venice; the Santa Monica Place Bloomingdale's wants to turn space on its third floor into a movie multiplex; and Commission staff want Donald Trump's golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes to scale back its 70-foot flagpole (see http://bit.ly/1zn7QoU). Strategic Growth Council meets July 10 on cap-and-trade funds The League of California Cities notes at http://bit.ly/1jm08qB that the Strategic Growth Council will open discussion in a July 10 meeting on how to allocate the $130 million in cap-and-trade funds that it was given to administer under the 2014-15 state budget. The agenda, at http://www.sgc.ca.gov/docs/July_10_Council_Agenda.pdf, includes an action item on delegation of powers. A brief staff report describes the statutory framework for the allocations at http://www.sgc.ca.gov/docs/Agenda_Item3_AHSC_Admin_Staff_Report.pdf. It notes that applicable law requires half of all Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funds to be used "to provide housing opportunities for lower income households." A brief staff recommendation calls for the SGC to delegate powers to the state Department of Housing and Community Development to "implement the housing, transportation and infrastructure components of this program," and to delegate program components involving agricultural land preservation to the state Natural Resources Agency or Department of Conservation. The recommendation concludes: "This implementation will include, but not limited to, working with the Council to develop program guidelines including grants and loans, evaluating applications, preparing agreements, monitoring agreement implementation, reporting and amendments." For prior coverage of the cap-and-trade budget agreement see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3509. Westlands Water District contracts found exempt from CEQA California's Fifth Appellate District approved the Westlands Water District's 2012 renewal contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, saying the changes they represented were exempt from CEQA review sought by environmentalist challengers. Per the decision's text, Westlands serves 600,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley farmland and has held rights over about 1 million annual acre-feet of federal Central Valley Project water. The case is North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District . The July 3 ruling is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F067383.PDF. Cupertino General Plan amendments out for review Proposed General Plan and housing element updates for the city of Cupertino are available for comment through August 1. Mercury News coverage is at http://bit.ly/1md0IpV and the plan revision site is at http://www.cupertinogpa.org/. Goals of the housing element include energy conservation and encouraging mixed-use development to work toward the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal of 1064 housing units at different levels of affordability. Issues at the most recent study session in April included whether second units at existing single-family houses are an appropriate way to meet affordable housing goals, or what can be done to encourage mixed-use development and construction of small, affordable apartments. A staff commentary said only 31 second units had been built in Cupertino in the past seven years. San Pablo Avenue plan goes to hearings An Oakland Tribune report at http://bit.ly/1lRMNRf sets the stage for tomorrow night's public meeting on the draft EIR for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. A collaborative effort between El Cerrito and Richmond, the plan would call for landscaping, polishing and pedestrian/bike amenities along 2.5 miles of commercial corridor.   San Joaquin COG approves transportation plan The Stockton Record has details at http://bit.ly/1mFODuJ on an $11 billion transportation plan adopted by the San Joaquin Council of Governments. Following new sustainability requirements, the plan proposes to protect 10,000 acres of prime farmland, add bike lanes, improve sidewalks and expand transit. The Regional Transportation Plan can be viewed under "Programs" at http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/Index/20. Moscone Center expansion nearing approval A plan to expand San Francisco's Moscone Center and environs, mostly upward along Howard Street, has SF Chronicle reviewer John King encouraged about recent plan revisions at http://bit.ly/1mbGo37. However, minutes from the June 5 Planning Commission meeting say John Elberling of the community development nonprofit TODCO told commissioners to "mitigate or litigate" pedestrian safety aspects. The current plan would raise heights and densities but would humanize streetscapes, at least by comparison with earlier designs. Moscone Center is part of the Yerba Buena complex occupying the large city blocks north and south of Howard Street between Third and Fourth Streets in San Francisco's downtown South of Market neighborhood. The complex at present invites approach only from a few directions, mostly through its landscaped northeastern corner at Mission and Third. It presents less welcoming walls to the public along much of its perimeter. When those walls were built, they faced into poorer parts of South of Market. While the neighborhood still harbors residents at many income levels, Moscone Center is now at the center of San Francisco's tech-driven real estate boom, and the Fourth Street subway extension is under construction along its west edge. The SF Business Times described commercial hopes for the expanded convention facilities at http://bit.ly/1n350NX. More recently Andrew Ross of the SF Chron 's editorial page did the same at http://bit.ly/1znmLj8. A city tourism press release said construction was expected to begin this December: http://bit.ly/1mde45H The Planning Commission reviewed but did not vote on the plan June 5. Minutes from that hearing, with a link to detailed agenda packet materials, are at http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3857. The comment period closed June 16. The official expansion site is at http://mosconeexpansion.com/. Direct links to the EIR are at http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1828. The Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, which includes TODCO, had posted criticisms of the original Moscone Center expansion plan at http://bit.ly/1s2753s, including an argument that the plan did too little for existing pedestrian safety and sidewalk crowding. TODCO's own less specific proposals for the area, including Moscone Center, are at http://www.todcocentralsomacommunityplan.org/our-plan/. TODCO's role is historically resonant because it owes its creation to the 40-year-old conflict over demolitions of low-income and last-resort housing at the Yerba Buena site, which had been San Francisco's Skid Row. The organization now primarily owns and works with affordable housing properties but it also has taken a role urging protections for existing low-income residents in the city's transportation-focused "Central SoMa Plan" for the South of Market area from Moscone Center west to Sixth Street. (See http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2557.)  A separate group, Save Yerba Buena Gardens, posted a statement this week at http://www.saveyerbabuenagardens.org/ saying it may seek signatures for a ballot measure protecting the public park that was built as part of the site's 20th-century redevelopment on the north side of the Yerba Buena complex. And as you've probably heard by now: The Oakland City Council will vote July 29 on whether to take the new Oakland A's Coliseum deal. Council members are divided on whether to approve the plan, and local officials disagree on whether the Council even has power to stop it. The plan won approval from the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority board after owner Lew Wolff threatened to take his team elsewhere. For San Francisco Chronicle coverage see http://bit.ly/U1HDMf. Legislators are still negotiating possible revisions to the much-criticized $11 billion water bond measure, first drafted in 2009, that is still scheduled to appear on this November's state ballot. The statutory deadline has passed for new November ballot measures, but the Bee reports in a helpful background piece at http://bit.ly/1stbs4g that waivers are possible to swap in a fresher, possibly more popular proposal. The Mercury News reported at http://bit.ly/1kyGqmk that the city of Milpitas has won a court ruling that will delay construction of a trench for the BART transit extension into Silicon Valley. The city opposes the transit project's proposed closure of a major local artery, Dixon Landing Road. The State Water Resources Control Board has already taken up administration of the state's drinking water under authority transferred to it from the Department of Public Health by a state budget bill. For materials on the transition see http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/drinkingwater/index.shtml. Per the Association of California Water Agencies, long-term drinking water administrator Cindy Forbes has been transferred from the old office to the new one, now to serve as deputy director of the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water. (See http://bit.ly/1nbt8Rt.) Business groups and legislators campaigned intensely in early July against a fuels element of the California cap-and-trade program that they call a hidden gas tax. See http://bit.ly/1lCAgkK for San Bernardino Sun coverage of an Ontario press conference last week. The Sacramento Bee at http://bit.ly/1vmj4FA has more on the industry lobbying origins of the campaign.

A planning change to reconfigure San Jose Airport for more corporate jet traffic does not need full environmental review under a state appellate case newly ordered published. The planning document challenged by Citizens Against Airport Pollution (CAAP) was approved by the City Council in 2010 as the eighth addendum to the EIR for San Jose's Airport Master Plan. It responded to projections for slower growth in the airport's cargo and passenger capacity than previously expected, and changed the planned use of a 44-acre area from air cargo facilities to general aviation "in order to accommodate the forecast that large corporate jets will comprise the majority of general aviation". Further, it called for modifying two taxiways to better accept corporate jets. City staff argued there would be no new significant environmental impacts beyond those addressed in previous planning rounds. CAAP claimed the modified plan needed assessment in a supplemental or subsequent EIR because it called for construction work affecting "noise, air pollution and... burrowing owl habitat". The group additionally argued new rules on greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate change assessments had not been properly applied. In a three-judge opinion authored by Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukain, the Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings and its rejection of the environmental challenge. The trial court had found air and noise impacts from the most recent iteration of the plan were no worse than envisioned in previously approved versions and, in the appellate court's paraphrase, "the effects of greenhouse gases do not constitute new information that could not have been known at the time the 1997 EIR was certified as complete." It had found effects on the owl habitat from the proposed work on the taxiways (again in paraphrase) "could be mitigated, and therefore the severity of the previously identified impact on the burrowing owls would not be increased." The court declined to rule on the city's claim that CAAP had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, where CAAP claimed the addendum process was not sufficiently formal to offer remedies to exhaust. The process amounted to meetings hosted by the city, followed by a notice of determination, while CAAP had responded with letters making "general comments" only. On the noise standard issue, the court followed Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose , 114 Cal. App. 4th 689 (2003) and Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v. City of San Diego , 196 Cal. App. 4th 515, 532 (2011) for the rule that an EIR must be conducted initially if there is substantial evidence for significant environmental impact -- but after environmental review has been conducted, "the statutory presumption flips in favor of the developer against further review." At that point, said the court, the question becomes whether the record contains substantial evidence for a finding that the proposed changes are *not* substantial enough to require a supplemental EIR. Thence the court found substantial evidence for the eighth addendum's conclusion that the new changes would not result in substantial noise impacts. CAAP argued for a fresh assessment of GHG emissions based on new legal requirements added in that area since the 1997 EIR and 2003 Supplemental EIR. The appellate court saw no need, noting that awareness and regulation of the GHG problem dated back to the 1970s. The court dealt with other air quality matters briefly, noting a finding that daily aircraft operations were actually projected to decrease from 2010 to 2027. The parties agreed on one definite impact: the new plan would cause the loss of four acres of burrowing owl habitat. But again flipping the presumption, the court found substantial evidence that the changed construction plans, as mitigated under an existing plan, would not make enough difference to call for a supplemental EIR. The city's 1997 "Burrowing Owl Management Plan" called for designating four substitute acres as "owl management area," moving previously created artificial owl burrows away from the taxiway work, and using one-way doors to keep owls from becoming trapped in their burrows by construction. CAAP argued, however, that even more detailed owl habitat mitigation plans had been found inadequate in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced , 149 Cal. App. 4th 645 (2007). The court said that case "did not involve review of an EIR addendum and is otherwise distinguishable." The airport case is CAAP v. City of San Jose , available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H038781.PDF The decision was first made public June 6, then ordered published July 2. The publication order cited requests from the real estate law offices of Remy, Moose, Manley, LLP and Nossaman Guthner Knox, and from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

California's rethinking process for transportation impact assessments under SB 743 is still waiting for a formal proposal from state officials. The July 1, 2014 deadline for publication of a new draft standard from Governor Brown's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) came and went without the expected new document. Siddharth Nag, OPR's legislative coordinator and legal counsel, wrote in response to an inquiry: "The draft is not quite ready for release, but we hope it will be in coming weeks." He confirmed it would be possible to sign up for immediate notification of the draft's release by joining a listserv linked from OPR's SB 743 Web site at http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php. The American Planning Association San Diego had scheduled a presentation on the revision process, but circulated an email about possible rescheduling that said, "We have been informed by OPR that the revised transportation metric guidelines will not be available in time for our event scheduled for July 11, 2014 (The legally required release date was July 1, 2014.)" A SPUR San Jose event on the issue was still scheduled for July 17 as of this writing. (See http://www.spur.org/events/2014-07-17/what-auto-los-reform-means-san-jose.) To date, the main public OPR statement on the subject is a "preliminary evaluation" of possible new metrics that the office issued last December at http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PreliminaryEvaluationTransportationMetrics.pdf. In that text, OPR staff said they were posting the document early to invite preliminary comment though no proposal was required until July. Almost a hundred public comment responses are posted at http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/SB743_PublicComments_INDEX.pdf. Last year's SB 743 legislation required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to post an initial draft by July 1, 2014 of an alternative standard to measure transportation impacts under CEQA. The new standard must depart from the Level of Service (LOS) approach, which has been criticized as outdated, crude and even harmful because it focuses on avoiding auto traffic congestion. In its posted materials about the mandate, OPR begins by arguing a case against the LOS standard, saying LOS-based project reviews and mitigation designs work to the detriment of other transportation goals such as improving access by foot, bicycle or bus or reducing overall travel distances. Per the law's text (at http://bit.ly/1lM4qY8), OPR's July 1 deadline was to propose "criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, the office shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section." The December "preliminary evaluation" prominently considered switching over to the "Vehicle Miles Traveled" (VMT) standard, saying travel distances were easier to predict than congestion levels and that mitigation approaches focused on reducing VMT would do more to promote bicycle, foot and mass transit methods of travel. The VMT choice is thought to be the most likely, but the December document also invited discussion of other standards: Automobile Trips Generated, Multi-Modal Level of Service (including LOS ratings for transit, walking and biking), Fuel Use,  and Motor Vehicle Hours Traveled. Further, it suggested some areas could be placed categorically under a "presumption of less than significant transportation impact" category to allow new development in central areas already well served by transit. A June 26 explanatory article by the SPUR organization, posted at http://www.spur.org/blog/2014-06-26/can-new-law-free-cities-car-oriented-development, says some cities including San Francisco and San Jose are already moving away from the LOS standard. It suggests smaller and more rural cities may however seek to retain LOS because it suits more rural areas better and replacement approaches may be expensive to adopt. The SPUR article and OPR's SB 743 Web page identify the CEQA Guidelines Listserv as the place to subscribe for notification of the new standard. The sign-in form is available in the OPR listserv menu at http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_e-lists.php. The same list allows subscription to an additional listserv for SB 743, described as providing "information about Alternatives to LOS," but it's not clear how the two lists may overlap.

In San Francisco parking news in June, a startup tried to auction public parking spaces, activists sought CEQA review of a proposal to re-authorize free parking on Sundays, new data appeared on variable-rate parking, and drivers peeved at "transit first" policies were collecting signatures for a November ballot measure. No, really: in late June the City Attorney's office told a startup company, MonkeyParking, to stop auctioning public parking access to the public: http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70046. CityLab 's Eric Jaffe looked at some new data on the city's SFPark variable-rate meter system and found that in many ways it successfully rations parking by raising its price, reducing the amount of circling in search of spaces. However, he presented additional data from academic researchers Daniel Chatman and Michael Manville suggesting that, while the meters did successfully control overall occupancy by discouraging those willing to pay less, the result didn't guarantee that a space would be open when someone willing to pay for it wanted one: http://bit.ly/1mpUJOe. In a separate SFMTA proposal that a spokesman described as "part of our efforts to make parking in San Francisco more efficient overall," the city was considering charging at meters even if drivers or their passengers had disability placards: http://bit.ly/1luEAlO. And remember the CEQA appeal of the repeal of Sunday parking meter charges? The dispute is still going. As of mid-June the Planning Department and SFMTA argued that allowing free parking on Sundays wasn't a CEQA-reviewable decision, as recounted by Aaron Bialick of SF Streetsblog at http://bit.ly/1mg7FHD. The Board of Supervisors took the same position June 17 by voting to endorse CEQA exemption for the whole SFMTA two-year budget, including the Sunday meter repeal. For Bialick's account of the meeting see http://bit.ly/1qMvzKh. The legislative tracking page for the item is at http://bit.ly/1jFiAVN. Whether court action will follow remains to be seen. The Sunday parking issue, together with other SF parking restrictions, was becoming a cause not just for bike, pedestrian and environmental activists but for a car drivers' pushback group, Restoring Transportation Balance in San Francisco. It has been greeted with sarcasm from several quarters (including SF Streetsblog at http://bit.ly/1mSrCEo), but the conservative Potrero View neighborhood paper was cheering for the group at http://www.potreroview.net/feat10582.html and the group itself, with a home page at http://www.restorebalance14.org/, was working to gather signatures by July 7 for a local ballot initiative petition. The initiative would mandate free Sunday parking, condition new and variable-rate meters on a local neighborhood petition process, freeze city parking rates for five years, and increase representation for "motorists" in SFMTA governance. (A similar fed-up drivers' group in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Parking Freedom Initiative, was working toward creation of a ballot measure according to its Web site at http://www.parkinglosangeles.org. While it appears there's no definite ballot measure text yet, KPCC reports the group has begun to get some policy traction with Mayor Eric Garcetti: http://bit.ly/1jFmjm8) After all of which, you'd be surprised how many street parking spaces there really are in San Francisco. Aaron Bialick decided to count them. He found that, lined up end to end, they would run 900 miles, exceeding the length of California's coastline: http://bit.ly/TzKE6G.

With a budget passed, California's Legislature has turned to policy committee reviews of bills and to negotiations over a water bond facing a July 3 deadline to be finalized for November voters. So this roundup takes a look at June legislative developments other than the budget that are of interest in land use and city planning. As discussed in last week's coverage, especially http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3509, a budget bill has been passed and signed, and it includes some policy measures such as a new power for the Coastal Commission to impose fines for violations of coastal access rights. (See SB 861 at http://bit.ly/1na4EDS.) Six measures are now on the November 2014 ballot, including the water bond bill placed on the ballot in 2012 and Governor Brown's bill for a state "rainy day fund" reserve. For current versions of the November ballot measures, see http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm and news coverage at http://lat.ms/1iNQQmC. Thus far the Legislature has failed to agree on a new water bond proposal to replace the 2012 version, as discussed in last week's news briefs at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3518. But an advocacy analysis by the California Economic Summit said negotiations for a different water bond were still in progress. See http://bit.ly/1qdJRV0. The LA Times was reporting negotiators meant to propose a new replacement bond package to the Assembly Appropriations Committee July 1. See http://lat.ms/1pG7LLb. As a function of legislative deadlines, every bill that is still officially making progress in the current session has been passed by its house of origin and by a policy committee in the other house. So, for example, AB 1537, to redefine Marin County as "suburban", has been passed both by the full Assembly and by the State Senate's Transportation and Housing Committee. Following is a review of June fates of bills relevant to land use and city planning. (For descriptive notes on many of the bills' provisions see our prior discussions at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3498 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3503.) Bill standings, end of June 2014: SB 1439 , the Ellis Act restriction bill to slow San Francisco evictions, was defeated narrowly in the Assembly housing committee and Sen. Mark Leno, its sponsor, announced he would not press the bill farther this session. For more see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3518. SB 2372 , the business property transfer restriction earlier viewed as a breakthrough toward possible Prop 13 reform, is still formally a live bill but may have lost liberal supporters. SB 1021 , also a property tax tweak at the edge of Prop 13's application, failed in committee. See our separate report at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3521. AB 1537 , to redefine Marin County as "suburban" rather than "metropolitan" for housing element purposes, passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee 8-1 on June 25. It goes to Appropriations next. The bill would reduce the default housing density for Marin County local housing elements from 30 units per acre to 20 units per acre. The Marin IJ at http://bit.ly/1x2WZi6 and the latest legislative summary at http://bit.ly/1lrbdAY cited an argument for the bill that default densities of 30 units per acre were interfering with negotiations to build affordable housing at all. Arguments against the bill include that housing element planning processes are free to adopt other densities, and that exemption from the 30-unit default density might set a bad precedent of relaxing standards designed to promote affordability. (On that last issue see Ethan Elkind's May 27 commentary at http://bit.ly/1qLpvln.) As argued by former Marin Assembly member Vivien Bronshvag, the measure is pushback against ABAG requirements viewed as imposed arbitrarily on a regional rather than locally suited basis: http://bit.ly/1mM1que. The Sustainable Cities Collective reported at http://bit.ly/TIxhAw that although Marin County housing stock grew by just 0.25%, Marin County towns gained population by about 1% in 2013 (excluding unincorporated areas, which grew more slowly). For more background from May see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3503. SB 968 , for public access to the disputed Martins Beach, was approved 7-1 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee June 26, but in significantly weakened form. The Mercury News reported that the original bill called for the State Lands Commission to make a forced purchase of the access road if owner Vinod Khosla wouldn't open it, but the current bill only calls on the commission to consider buying it. The news report attributed the change to lobbying by former Assembly member Rusty Areias, now with California Strategies and representing Khosla. See http://bit.ly/UJxiVZ.The bill's author, Sen. Jerry Hill of San Mateo, told the paper, "This keeps the bill alive and keeps the conversation going." (For legislative history see the CACities page at http://bit.ly/1vqgONB -- the official page may not be fully updated.) The case has drawn wide attention meanwhile, including a recent feature news writeup in the New York Times at http://nyti.ms/1z3t0s7. The Surfrider Foundation's lawsuit in San Mateo County Superior Court on the same issue is currently set for trial July 16. Briefs in the matter can be viewed at http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/civil/default.asp under Case No. CIV 520336. One particularly remarked brief, filed by attorneys for Khosla's LLCs in early June, reaches back to an 1859 land case interpreting application to the site of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for authority against Surfrider's claim of access rights under the Coastal Act. SB 270 , to ban single-use carryout bags, has amended the provision mentioned at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3481 that encourages local governments to pass their own plastic-bag bans before the state-level one comes down. The current bill withholds state-level preemption from local plastic bag ordinances that go to a first reading before September 1, 2014 and are adopted by September 1, 2015. Localities recently banning plastic bags include: The city of LA, where a prior ordinance just took effect for small grocers: http://lat.ms/1lFAEU6 Davis passed a ban in late June, and Sacramento Bee coverage notes bans now exist in 110 California jurisdictions, including bans within the year by Chico, Truckee, South Lake Tahoe, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs and Nevada City: http://bit.ly/1vpVcRl The League of California Cities has been noting cities working on bans, including Encinitas: http://bit.ly/1pFDGeG and Martinez: http://martinezgazette.com/archives/15028 The city of San Jose and creekside cleanup activists each say they're seeing less plastic bag litter since the city's bag ban took effect in 2012. See http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=1526.  AB 2130 was signed by Governor Brown just three days before the mandatory effective date of a public health bill that would have required all food handlers to wear protective gloves -- even bartenders and sushi chefs. Assemblyman Richard Pan brought the measure to undo his own earlier bill. See http://bit.ly/VBch0d. For last year's tongue-in-cheek commentary and background from Josh Stephens, see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3438. SB 69 , to replace Vehicle License Fee revenue for four newly created municipalities, including Jurupa Valley, was still moving and still appeared to have a chance. For details on this compensation bill for new towns stranded by 2011 budget cuts, see our recent news feature at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3515. AB 1521 , similar to SB 69, would replace funding that was expected as of 2011 for recent annexations to existing cities. Itw as approved by its first Senate committee but with a revised funding formula. See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3516 and, for the recent amendments, http://bit.ly/1qCEuQQ. AB 1513 was still moving through the Legislature on a public safety track but tenant advocates feared it could be bad for tenants' rights in housing. The bill would create a pilot program in Lancaster and Palmdale allowing an owner of residential property labeled as "vacant" to resume possession of it "by declaration" in an expedited, police-enforced 48-hour process. The process would place the burden on occupants of the property to prove they had rights to be there. It's presented as an anti-squatter measure but tenant advocates fear it could be used to short-circuit the procedural guarantees of the eviction process in conventional landlord-tenant relations. See the final item in prior legislative briefs at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3498 for some concerns on this unusual bill. The June 23 Senate committee analysis explains the concerns further with some intensity, breaking into anxious block capitals at several moments. See http://bit.ly/1iooOZ2. AB 2145 , to change rules on community choice aggregation for clean electrical power, dropped a provision that would have required individual electricity customers to opt in to clean power rather than being automatically enrolled. The Santa Rosa Press Democrat at http://bit.ly/1mfIsgE attributes the change especially to advocates for the existing Sonoma Clean Power community-choice aggregation utility. The opponents' site at http://www.no2145.org celebrated removal of the provision but criticized others that remained, and looked toward a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in August. The bill, sponsored by the Coalition of California Utility Employees, is supported by PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, significant organized labor groups and a few chambers of commerce. The opponents (a longer list) are mainly city governments, small utilities and environmental groups. The state legislative page for the bill is at http://bit.ly/1p5rUqk. SB 1199 , to designate almost 37 miles of the Mokelumne River as "wild and scenic," passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee June 23 in a version previously amended to adjust the affected area around EBMUD's Pardee Reservoir and to defer to upstream water districts' rights and projects. These amendments did not resolve a further question about the bill's future that was raised earlier this season in a news analysis by East Bay Express co-editor Robert Gammon (http://bit.ly/1qduHzh). Writing back in May, Gammon suggested that EBMUD might push to condition the scenic designation on what he termed a "poison pill": a requirement for a community approval process (in addition to legislative approval) that would fail if agreement couldn't be won from conservative local officials upstream. The bill appeared to have achieved Assembly Natural Resources passage June 23 without picking up such provisions. A June 24 statement on the vote by the Foothill Conservancy, which has campaigned for scenic designation, was celebratory in tone but said sponsor Loni Hancock "has pledged to work with the opponents of the bill on amendments to address their concerns." See http://bit.ly/1iUn3Ja. AB 2293 , to impose added insurance requirements on "ride-sharing" services, passed the Senate Insurance Committee June 25 in what Patrick Hoge of the SF Business Times called a "significant defeat" for the Uber and Lyft services. The bill would require Internet-dispatched car services, defined as "Transportation Network Companies," to carry defined levels of liability insurance coverage for drivers while they have their phone apps turned on waiting for calls, in addition to coverage already required by law for drivers who have actually accepted calls. The legislation responds in part to a tragedy last New Year's Eve in San Francisco, when an Uber driver who was between calls struck and killed a six-year-old girl, Sophia Liu. Witnesses at the June 25 hearing included Sophia Liu's mother, Huan Kuang, who was also injured in the crash. Outside, cab drivers picketed in support of more regulation. For details see http://bit.ly/1x90bZo and http://bit.ly/1z3ZD9c. The Insurance Committee legislative analysis of June 23 at http://bit.ly/1iPRGjl is especially detailed. KQED has a more detailed but earlier discussion at http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/06/17/2014/Uber-Lyft-Insurance-crack-down. It includes description of AB 612 , a bill on permit conditions for drivers such as drug testing that would imitate current requirements for taxi drivers. Bills also in play The following bills were also passed by their policy committees, hence are still alive in the session. Many of these were previously profiled in our May and June legislative analyses. (Bill information, including legislative analyses, is at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.) SB 1424 , City of Martinez tidelands transfer. SB 2135 , affordable housing priority for surplus public land AB 2104 , overriding HOA landscaping rules to save water AB 2493 , post-Redevelopment release of $750 million in project funds to cities. SB 1129 , post-Redevelopment cleanup AB 2280 , re-create some elements of Redevelopment with a housing emphasis AB 1404 , allow and require San Francisco Redevelopment's successor agency to rebuild over 5000 affordable housing units lost to the city through "urban renewal" demolitions 1955-1975 AB 2417 , provide CEQA exemptions for "purple pipe" distribution of recycled water AB 1739 & SB 1168 , groundwater management: see ACWA comment at http://bit.ly/UJPNtd AB 2453 , Paso Robles water district governance by a locally controversial "hybrid" board structure SB 1077 , pilot program imposing auto tax based on miles traveled AB 1999 , state historic rehabilitation tax credit -- see League of CA Cities tracking page at http://bit.ly/1r9uezM Gut-and-amends Two bills that were originally written for post-Redevelopment purposes are now gut-and-amends directed toward other goals: AB 2292 was originally proposed as a quasi-Redevelopment bill, to expand infrastructure financing districts (IFDs) specifically for Oakland's Coliseum City, Howard Terminal and Oakland Army Base sites, all of which were already development targets. However, the June 11 State Senate Governance and Finance Committee approval was for an amended bill that replaced all references to the three sites with authorization for IFDs to fund broadband communications network facilities. AB 2549 , originally to create a local commission on Milpitas' post-Redevelopment funding losses, passed the Governance and Finance Committee as a gambling control measure.

Two bills and a lawsuit that sought to limit Proposition 13's restriction of commercial property taxes were failed or flagging as of late June. The Sacramento Bee 's Dan Walters reported at http://bit.ly/UMvc7E that AB 2372 was losing momentum as it entered the State Senate. The bill had been hailed earlier as a breakthrough compromise to close a Prop 13 commercial property tax loophole. But Walters wrote that lobbyist Lenny Goldberg, representing the California Tax Reform Association, pulled support from the measure June 25, the same day it passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Goldberg, he wrote, had been a key party to a compromise announced in May that brought together perennial opponents and defenders of Prop 13 to support the bill. The bill, by Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, and Raul Bocanegra, D-San Fernando Valley, would block a method of avoiding reassessment for property tax purposes when business real estate changes hands: instead of transferring the property formally to a new owner, control over the owning entity is divided among a new group of people or entities, invoking an existing definition of corporate reorganization that currently exempts such transactions from reassessment. The bill would impose reassessment if 90% or more of the ownership interests changed hands within three years -- though successive amendments have narrowed its application. For prior coverage see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3494 and the Socketsite real estate blog at http://bit.ly/1qpbGeF. Walters quoted Goldberg's withdrawal letter to Assembly sponsor Tom Ammiano as saying the bill did not "provide real reform" because it would not apply retroactively to the kinds of exemption it was meant to stop and would allow too many other ways around reassessment. Walters suggested that, if the measure failed, it might strengthen the possibility of a ballot initiative for a "split roll" giving different tax treatment to residential and commercial properties. Also in June, the LA County Assessor's challenge to a version of this type of transaction was defeated in Ocean Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles . The Second District Court of Appeal found on June 3 that reassessment was not triggered when three entities closely linked to Michael Dell of the Dell computer company acquired ownership of the LLC that holds the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica. (The June 23 committee analysis of AB 2372 at http://bit.ly/1i0mbN1 mentions that outcome specifically, saying "more than $1 million" in tax liability was saved.) The Second District issued orders slightly revising the decision and publishing it as of June 24. See http://bit.ly/1m0Wn8C. For a detailed analysis of the case -- written on the assumption that AB 2372 was likely to pass --  see the Pillsbury law firm's site at http://bit.ly/1k3I7Id. SB 1021, a measure allowing limited higher commercial parcel taxes that was criticized by opponents as a "split roll" proposal, still had prospects when Walters' article on AB 2372 went to press, but the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee rejected it 4-1 the same day. On June 26 the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association crowed on Twitter, "Yesterday SB 1021 was defeated... changed how education parcel taxes are assessed for tens of thousands of properties. Victory for #prop13." (https://twitter.com/HJTA/status/482283390432198656). For the bill's formal history see http://bit.ly/TIgFcl. For more detail and links see our prior coverage at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3494.