Search Results

When San Diego’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) was adopted a decade ago, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt declared it “a model to the nation for how to plan for and balance the needs of man and nature.” Ambitious in geographical scale, daunting in jurisdictional complexity, the plan was intended to regulate development across nearly a quarter of the fast-urbanizing county in such a way as to minimize conflict over scores of rare, threatened or endangered species and their habitats. It wasn’t long before environmentalists began finding fault with the plan, arguing that it did more to protect the profits of developers and landowners than the survival of imperiled plants and animals. In 1998, a year after the plan was adopted, a coalition of groups filed suit to block it. Late last year, a federal judge agreed with the critics and forced a halt to many of the projects approved under the plan, ruling that it would “permit monumental destruction” of the species it purported to protect. Environmentalists hailed the court’s decision as a “precedent-setting” rejection of key elements of the plan — and, by extension, hundreds of similar plans that have been or are being negotiated nationwide. For the same reasons, representatives of the building industry expressed alarm. But the October 13 ruling is both more and less than it might seem. The decision by Judge Rudi Brewster of the U.S. Southern District of California Court throws a roadblock in front of only a small percentage of the development plans regulated under the San Diego MSCP. Yet at the same time, the ruling provides a disquieting look inside the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) program as implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), lending support to critics’ claims that sloppily drafted agreements can expedite rather than curtail habitat-wrecking activities. The San Diego MSCP was one of the first large-scale HCPs negotiated. Although they were first authorized by Congress in 1982, HCPs were used only sparingly until the mid-1990s, when the Department of Interior under President Clinton began encouraging them as a way of blunting enthusiasm for a wholesale rewrite of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the new Republican majority in Congress. Before 1994, only 20 had been adopted. In the next two years, USFWS approved 196. (There are now 484 in effect.) HCPs are voluntary agreements negotiated under the ESA between the federal government and private landowners, states or local governments, allowing the “incidental take” of listed species during the course of otherwise lawful activity. An HCP must accompany any application for an incidental take permit, spelling out how the effect of the permitted activity on a protected species will be minimized and mitigated. In theory, an HCP incorporates measures that actually improve a species’ chances for survival — allowing destruction of a small amount of habitat in one place, for example, while requiring preservation of an even greater amount elsewhere — while also enabling farmers to continue farming, loggers to continue logging, and builders to continue building. The San Diego MSCP encompasses 900 square miles in the southwestern part of the county, including the City of San Diego, and was intended to preserve native habitat for many species rather than focusing efforts on one species at a time. The heart of the plan is establishment of a 172,000-acre preserve, referred to as Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA), which is to be assembled from public land, property donated by developers, and real estate purchased by private or public agencies. Inside the MHPA, development is limited to protect 85 plant and animal species. In return, the federal government has authorized local jurisdictions to hand out incidental-take permits to developers and landowners, so long as their projects comply with the plan. The court ruling did not invalidate all such permits. It focused specifically on those related to development of property containing vernal pools — shallow, seasonally flooded ponds and puddles that constitute one of the rarest and most threatened habitat types in California. Those in the San Diego area are home to seven listed species: five plants and two varieties of fairy shrimp. Judge Brewster faulted the USFWS for not evaluating the impact of development on vernal pool species before authorizing incidental-take permits. The agency had deferred such review to the future, deciding that because any project that affected a vernal pool would constitute disturbance of a wetland, specific developments would therefore require Clean Water Act permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Potential impacts and suitable mitigation could be determined then, according to the USFWS. But in a 2001 decision ( Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States ACOE , 531 U.S. 159), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Corps of Engineers had no authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate disturbance of “isolated wetlands.” Brewster concluded that this ruling requires USFWS to go back and conduct an environmental review of the effect of development on San Diego’s vernal pool species before any permits can be issued. According to the San Diego Planning Department, a handful of projects — construction of a half-mile road, a church and a housing development — will be stalled while their impact is analyzed. The judge didn’t stop with vernal pools. He noted that no secure funding mechanism was identified for acquiring land for the MHPA, meaning the preserve might never be assembled. Of greater significance to HCP negotiators everywhere, he also took issue with the MSCP’s assurance to developers and landowners that USFWS would not require additional land, restrictions, money, conservation measures or mitigation over the 50-year life of the agreement. These “no surprises” guarantees are among the most hotly disputed aspects of the HCP process, with critics arguing that strategies must change over time to reflect new data. Brewster noted that it’s possible to build adaptive management techniques into the HCP process — pointing specifically to one negotiated for the Natomas Basin near Sacramento — but he concluded that the USFWS had dropped the ball in San Diego. The agency did not analyze the effect of development on vernal pools because it expected the Corps of Engineers to do that in the future. Yet the USFWS also signed an agreement promising that no additional future restrictions would be imposed. In essence, the judge concluded, this meant that even if future analysis concluded that development would harm listed species, USFWS could do nothing because it had given away its legal authority to require protection. A hearing on federal officials’ request for clarification of Judge Brewster’s ruling is scheduled for this month. Sources David Hogan, Center for Biological Diversity, (619) 574-6800. Neil Levine, Earthjustice, (303) 623-9466. Betsy Miller, San Diego Planning Department, (619) 533-4543.

It could almost be a story from a Charles Dickens novel: Nearly 800 lower-income households find themselves evicted from an apartment complex in the Venice district of Los Angeles by developers who reportedly want to build luxury housing. The City Council opposes the deal but is defeated in court. After various attempts at mediation, the developers beckon sheriff’s deputies to lock out hundreds of renters from their apartments, only to call off the authorities at the last minute. As this is being written, 40 holdouts are currently refusing to leave their apartments, saying the developer cannot legally evict them. The agony and what some might call the folly of Lincoln Place has been playing out for nearly 14 years. Although the legal details, which I will attempt to synopsize, are important, they are not the main story. The real issue is: How did this impasse happen, and could it be fixed by either policy or law? Much of the controversy centers on the interpretation of the Ellis Act, the California statute that has become a point of contention in the Lincoln Place controversy. Enacted in 1985, the Ellis Act responded to a state Supreme Court rulings on a rent control case — Nash v. City of Santa Monica , (1984) 37 Cal.3d 97 — that essentially upheld the right of a local government to stop a landlord from evicting his tenants and demolishing rental housing. In reaction to Nash , state lawmakers approved the Ellis Act, which allows apartment landlords to pull their units off the market and “go out of business” (that is, the business of being a landlord) without restraint from local ordinances. An early garden apartment complex During the early 1990s, a group of developers known as Lincoln Place Investors Ltd. began preparing an environmental impact report for a project to replace the 795-unit apartment complex. Built in post-war years as affordable housing for returning GIs, Lincoln Place was a garden apartment complex made up of 52 small, minimally Modernist buildings connected by a set of pedestrian lanes and landscaping. The new developer, meanwhile, intended to build luxury condominiums. The draft EIR in 1993 concluded Lincoln Place lacked cultural or historical significance, according to the city’s criteria. Although the final EIR came to the same conclusion, the document recommended mitigations, including architectural drawings and photographs, to document the project because of the potential historic interest in a post-war apartment complex. Another mitigation was a requirement to offer the buildings for sale and relocation prior to demolition. Although the developers won approval from the city’s planning commission in 1995, the Los Angeles City Council followed the recommendation of its Planning and Land Use Committee and denied the application. In rejecting the project, the land use committee had apparently complied with the wishes of then-councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who represented Venice. The investors sued the city, claiming the council’s committee decided against the project in a closed-door meeting, in violation of the Ralph M. Brown open meetings law. The judge ruled in favor of the developers and sent the project back to the council for reconsideration. The following year, the developers applied for a demolition permit, which was denied by the city. They sued the city again, arguing the city had violated the Ellis Act by preventing them from moving forward with new development. The city argued, in effect, that it could not approve the demolition without first having approved a development project. Again, the ruling went against the city when the judge found the city’s standard for issuing demo permits violated Ellis. The city appealed, only to see the decision upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles Lincoln Place Investors Ltd., v. City of Los Angeles , (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 53 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , May, 1997). The historic preservation aspect In 1997, historians determined that Ralph Vaughn, a notable African-American architect, had designed Lincoln Place, and that the Modernist buildings had both historic and architectural value. In the belief that landmark designation would help preserve the buildings from demolition, bolstering Lincoln Place’s claim to importance, the state Office of Historic Preservation nominated the project for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. (The federal agency deferred the nomination, asking the state for more information.) In May 1997, Lincoln Place tenants sued the city for failing to impose new mitigation requirements in view of the new findings. In 2001, Apartment Investment and Management Co. (AIMCO) of Denver, Co., which claims to be the largest apartment owner and manager in the nation, bought a half interest in Lincoln Place. In 2002, after years of further litigation, the project returned to the City Council, which approved a project consisting of 654 condominiums, 52 moderate-income townhouses and 144 low-income apartments. In the development agreement, the owners agreed to several conditions, including a ban on involuntary evictions. In the same year, the developer applied for permits to demolish five buildings on Lake Street, which they said were not part of the project, possibly to avoid sticky questions relating to eviction and the Ellis Act. The city granted the demo permits, and the developer razed several buildings. Predictably, the tenants association filed a lawsuit soon after the council’s approval, while an architectural group filed another. Both plaintiffs argued that the EIR was inaccurate for concluding that Lincoln Place lacked historical and architectural significance, and that the city had effectively violated the California Environmental Quality Act by issuing the demo permits. Once again, the supporters of Lincoln Place lost in court in both cases. Both plaintiffs filed appeals, which were later consolidated by the Second District Court of Appeal. But the appellate court rejected the developer’s claim that the Lake Street properties were not part of the project and thus did not fall under the EIR requirements as “disingenuous at best.” In Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles , (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, the justices also ordered the city not to grant any further demo permits to the developer, unless the latter complied with the existing EIR and any new mitigations that might show up in a supplemental EIR (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2005). Meet the new boss In 2003, AIMCO became the sole owner of Lincoln Place. In March 2005, AIMCO filed Ellis Act eviction notices on more than 300 tenants, saying they had 90 days to vacate. The nice folks at AIMCO gave disabled people a year to move out. At this point, AIMCO seemed emboldened by a legal theory that the Ellis Act and the CEQA requirements could be separated—in other words, that the developer could evict the tenants under the pretext of going out of the rental housing business, without triggering the tenant protections guaranteed under the 2002 development agreement. Strengthening AIMCO’s claim was the company’s decision not to record its tentative tract map—meaning the developer had no project, technically speaking. Following the same logic, the developer contended it was not bound by the ban on involuntary evictions in the development agreement, because those conditions only took effect when construction started. And without demolition, there was no project. And when the project’s anti-eviction protections kicked in, of course, they would be meaningless, because no tenants would remain. Cigars all around. AIMCO’s public statements supported the hard-to-believe position that the evictions were unrelated to the development project approved in 2002. “We have the total and unfettered right to take our property off the rental market which we've done under Ellis, and we're looking at our options on how to proceed,” AIMCO vice president Patti Schwayder told reporters in July 2005. To add further bamboozlement, AIMCO officials claimed that the approved project was no longer in effect and that the developer was not bound by its provisions. “We made no promises, that’s not our map,” Schwayder told reporters, referring to the city’s approved tract map for the project, adding, “It’s the previous owner’s map.” The claim that the map belongs to the “previous owner” is disingenuous, however, because that owner was a venture between AIMCO and a local developer. Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo seemed to act as if his hands were tied, with aides reportedly telling Lincoln Place lawyers that the “conditions” (that is, the fact that AIMCO had not applied for a new demo permit) did not allow him to act. In December 2005, AIMCO attempted to rid Lincoln Place of all remaining tenants, calling out Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies, who locked out 52 households from their apartments. An appeal from Venice Councilman Bill Rosendahl brought the parties back to the bargaining table. In April 2006, Lincoln Place tenants, city officials, preservationists and AIMCO entered into mediated settlement negotiations. The parties reached a tentative agreement to preserve 242 units, while allowing the developer to build new units of up to six stories in height. A month later, however, the state Historic Commission refused the compromise because the commission was denied the right to review the new structures. AIMCO broke off negotiations. In January 2007, a Superior Court judge agreed to hear the case of 13 of the remaining tenants, who are challenging the legality of their evictions. Oh, what a web Where to begin with the troubling aspects of Lincoln Place? Although current redevelopment law protects affordable rental units by requiring developers to replace all deed-restricted units destroyed in the course of building new projects, those protections are not available for Lincoln Place. Yet the Ellis Act should not shield AIMCO, which obviously means to develop luxury condominiums and rental housing on the site. AIMCO and its subsidiary that owns Lincoln Place are obviously not going out of the housing business and should not qualify for protection under Ellis. Only the studied pretence that AIMCO has not decided the future of the property allows the developer to maintain this offensive ruse. My prediction: AIMCO will sell the property to another partnership with a new name, which will be controlled by – who else? – AIMCO. In this way, current ownership can claim in the future that it had no project, and the future owners can claim no liability for past evictions. In the meantime – presto! – the pesky tenants disappear. Neither the Amazing Kreskin nor Donald Trump could do better. AIMCO’s attorneys deserve a bonus. For Lincoln Place residents, little else remains but a legal cat-and-mouse game that scarcely seems worth playing. Sooner or later, the residents will be forced to accept a financial settlement. Demolishing Lincoln Place and displacing its residents is a sin because the development is not a slum and serves a vital public interest. Given the law and runaway speculation in the luxury condo market, however, the best we can offer the last departing resident of Lincoln Place is a handshake, a housing voucher—and a copy of Hard Times by Charles Dickens.

The right combination of zoning changes and decreased parking requirements can make infill projects feasible in some of the state’s most urban settings. That is the conclusion of Solimar Research Group, which continues to investigate land use options for crowded urban areas. Recently, we explored how regulatory changes affect the financial feasibility of infill projects, and then applied our models to the land use surrounding a major rail extension in Los Angeles. The results should prove interesting to any agency that is approaching the issue of rapid growth with a strategy of high density, transit-oriented development. We sought to calculate the degree to which changes in parking and density policy, as well to zoning, will shrink the notoriously stubborn gap between planning ideal and development reality. Our comprehensive pro-forma analyses revealed that while parking policy affects feasibility more than density allowance, reliance on one or the other is politically unrealistic. A combined strategy is essential. On the other hand, key zone changes may prove a powerful, singular tool in getting infill development off the ground. We further explored how these proposed policy strategies would play out in the very real built environment of the planned Exposition Line extension of the Los Angeles Metro Rail system. Our parcel-by-parcel GIS analysis of infill opportunities surrounding proposed rail stations highlights the infill potential of underutilized industrial land along transit corridors. Grounded Analyses To ensure the “real-time” relevancy of our calculations, we consulted local developers to identify actual development models. Five infill prototypes were selected, and examples of each — from an 8-10 unit townhouse to a 100-200 unit mixed-use project — are currently under construction. We then applied an “as is” pro-forma feasibility model to each, one based on current zoning standards and the industry’s minimum expected 15% net margin. With our feasibility baselines established, we analyzed the fiscal impact of incremental increases or decreases in density and parking requirements. The selection of these two policies as regulatory variables was straightforward: one is a powerful determinant of gross revenue, the other a huge booster of project costs. We also calculated the impact on each prototype of building in either industrial or commercial zones. Combined Regulation Our pro-forma for development prototype 2A exemplifies the political near-impossibility of relying on a single regulation to promote infill in Los Angeles. Prototype 2A is a small, mixed-use project of 54 units, with a current feasibility gap of $1.2 million. A 50% density bonus reduces that gap to only $900,000; a 100% density bonus to only $700,000. While feasibility may arrive with 150% bonus, attendant density, height and FAR changes to the C-1 and C-M zones in which this project would be built are unlikely. Construction of prototype 2A also is unlikely without a change in parking requirements. We found that only a 50% decrease in the number of required parking spaces reduces the $1.2 million gap down to $400,000. That is still too much. But a synergy of more modest changes produces a viable alternative. Our study indicates that a 75% density bonus combined with a 25-50% parking reduction provide enough incentive for developers to pursue projects of this size. This outcome repeated itself in our calculations for prototype developments of various sizes. EXPO Application After calculating needed regulatory and zoning incentives, we took our prototypes to a built environment of high infill potential. The Exposition Line is scheduled for completion in 2010. It will serve an almost entirely developed area. We drew circular study zones around the planned La Brea, La Cienega, Crenshaw, Western and Vermont stations. Our GIS “screening” of parcels around the La Cienega stop reveals a repeated pattern of industrial under-use that, as our pro-formas indicate, should be targeted for infill. Nearly 25% of the half-mile area surrounding the station is zoned industrial/light manufacturing, much of that characterized by large parcels. In addition, many parcels are underutilized and ideal for infill redevelopment. Finally, we identified parcels along the La Cienega Boulevard commercial strip that could be assembled into spaces that would increase the feasibility of projects the scale of Prototype 2A. These projects become even more realistic with the regulatory changes identified above. Solimar’s complete fiscal and land-use analysis of infill potential along the Expo line is available at: http://www.solimar.org/pdfs/Expo_Final_3-30.pdf . Greg Goodfellow is a research associate and project manager for Solimar Research Group, parent company of CP&DR.

The water supply analysis for one of the largest housing developments ever approved in the Central Valley has been rejected by the state Supreme Court. The court faulted the water study in the environmental impact report for the 20,000-unit Sunrise-Douglas community plan outside Sacramento because the study did not adequately describe long-term water sources and the impacts of using those sources. “While the EIR identifies the intended water sources in general terms, it does not clearly and coherently explain, using material properly stated or incorporated in the EIR, how the long-term demand is likely to be met with those sources, the environmental impacts of exploiting those sources, and how those impacts are to be mitigated,” the state’s highest court ruled. The court also rejected the EIR’s analysis of the impacts of groundwater pumping on the Cosumnes River, which provides critical habitat for federally protected steelhead trout and fall-run Chinook salmon. Sacramento County approved the community plan for 6,000 acres of pastureland south of Highway 50 in 2002 (see CP&DR Local Watch , August 2002). The plan calls for approximately 20,000 housing units and nearly 500 acres of commercial and office development. At the same time, the county also approved the 10,000-unit Sunridge specific plan covering nearly half of the community plan site. The property lies within the City of Rancho Cordova, which incorporated a few months after the county approved the plans and zoning. The city has been implementing the plans. Angelo Tsakapoulos’s AKT Development is the primary developer. Residents of the area and environmentalists sued the county (the city has since become the defendant) over the EIR for the plans. The lawsuit centered on the water supply, as local residents feared the impacts of large-scale groundwater pumping. Essentially, the project called for using a well field about four miles south of the plan area for short-term supplies. Long-term, the project would be supplied by the wells and Sacramento County Water Agency’s new diversion of Sacramento River water. A Sacramento County superior court judge ruled against the project opponents. In an unusually terse opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded the opponents were guilty of “misstatements and omissions” and rejected the opponents’ contentions (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2005, March 2005). But in a 6-1 decision, the state Supreme Court found it was the county — not the opposition — that was less than forthcoming. “The principal disputed issue,” Supreme Court Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority, “is how firmly future water supplies for a proposed project must be identified or, to put the question in reverse, what level of uncertainty regarding the availability of water supplies can be tolerated in an EIR for a land use plan.” Justice Werdegar laid out the evolution of case law at the appellate court level. The first case was Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange , (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, in which the court rejected an EIR for a mining project because the EIR did not address the impacts of supplying the mine with up to 15,000 gallons of water per day. The next case in line was the landmark Diablo Grande decision, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus , (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182. In that case, the court threw out an EIR for the 5,000-unit Diablo Grande project that listed possible long-term water supplies but deferred analysis of the water acquisitions until later phases of project development (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 1996). The next case was Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors , (2001) Cal.App.4th 342, in which the court disapproved an EIR that did not disclose possible alternative water sources and the impacts of using them (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2001). Finally, in Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles , (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, the court rejected an EIR that relied on “paper water” from the over-subscribed State Water Project (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2003). While these decisions provide no definitive standard, according to state Supreme Court, they provide four principles: • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not satisfied unless decision-makers are presented with sufficient facts to evaluate how water will be supplied to a project. • An EIR for a project to be built over a number of years cannot be limited to water supply for the first few years. • Future water supplies must “bear a likelihood of actually proving available.” • When water sources are uncertain, there must be a discussion of possible replacement sources or alternatives, and the impacts of those contingencies. It is not enough to say that development will not proceed if anticipated water fails to materialize. The court also discussed legislation of recent vintage. In 1995, lawmakers approved SB 901 (Costa), requiring cities and counties considering a large development proposal to obtain a “water supply assessment” from the appropriate water supplier. Six years later, the Legislature approved two more bills: SB 221 (Kuehl) requires a city or county considering a residential subdivision of at least 500 units to obtain written verification that adequate water is available for the project and other planned uses for 20 years. Meanwhile, SB 610 (Costa) attempts to close loopholes in SB 901 and emphasizes the importance of 20-year urban water management plans (see CP&DR , October 2001, October 1995). After laying out this background, the court then considered the specifics of the Rancho Cordova project. The community and specific plans contemplate the use of 5,000 to 10,000 acre-feet of water from the well field during the near-term. (These wells are serving the 1,800 houses built since project approval.) Opponents contended the EIR did not adequately describe competing uses for this groundwater, but the court was satisfied with this portion of the environmental study. Long-term supply, however, was a different story. According to the court, the EIR discussed long-term needs — based on the county general plan — within the county water agency’s “Zone 40.” This zone encompasses much of southern Sacramento County, including the project area. The EIR also addressed water sources and the Sacramento Water Forum, a collection of agencies and stakeholders that adopted a plan for competing American River water uses. These estimates of demand and supply, though, were not consistent throughout the EIR, the court noted, and it appeared that a supply gap for Zone 40 remained. “The general answer given in the EIR, and echoed by real parties and Rancho Cordova, is that the new surface water supplies are to be used conjunctively with groundwater supplies. But this explanation is vague and unquantified,” Werdegar wrote. “How much groundwater, existing and new, will be used with how much new surface water? In what combinations will these sources be used during wet and dry years, respectively? No such description of planned future water use appears in the FEIR.” The EIR appeared to tier off of a future analysis of what was at the time a pending water agency plan for Zone 40. But an EIR may not tier of off a document that doesn’t exist. The Rancho Cordova project EIR, the court ruled, could have tiered off of an earlier analysis for the Water Forum proposal. However, the EIR’s relationship to the Water Forum proposal was unclear, even though the EIR included a discussion of impacts and mitigations in the Water Forum EIR. “The reader attempting to understand the county’s plan for providing water to the entire Sunrise Douglas development is left to rely on inference and speculation,” Werdegar wrote. Developers pointed to a condition of project approval that prohibits approval of entitlements if water is not available. But the court dismissed the argument and cited Stanislaus Natural Heritage: “‘It must be borne in mind that the EIR must address the project and assumes the project will be built.’” As for impacts of groundwater pumping on the Cosumnes River, the court found that the EIR’s brief dismissal of concerns expressed by environmentalists and wildlife agencies was not supported by substantial evidence. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter said the majority was imposing requirements beyond those contained in CEQA or the Water Code. “Under the majority’s new rule … once a city or county approves a general plan, it could not approve a project in furtherance of that plan unless or until it had secured water sources for build out of the entire general plan. Northing in CEQA requires such a result,” Baxter wrote. To this, Werdegar responded, “ong-term local water planning is not a burden that must be taken up anew, for CEQA purposes, each time a development is proposed; rather, cities and counties may rely on existing urban water management plan’s future demand accounting.” The Case: Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova , No. S132972, 07 C.D.O.S. 1131, 2007 DJDAR 1453. Filed February 1, 2007. The Lawyers: For Vineyard Area Citizens: Stephan Volker, (510) 496-0600. For the city: Julia Bond, Meyers, Riback, Silver & Wilson, (510) 808-2000. For Sunrise Douglas Property Owners Association: James Moose, Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, (916) 443-2745.

Parking is the demon of urban design. Like a gargoyle on a tower thumbing its nose at passers-by below, California’s inflexible parking requirements seem to mock developers, housing advocates and city officials alike. “Whatever it is you want to build — affordable housing, shopping centers, hospitals, hotels — you can’t build it, because you can’t park it, ha ha ha!” chants the demon. Is there no sorcerer strong enough to kill the monster of parking codes? The near-impossibility of meeting present-day parking requirements came to mind recently, when I was watching presentations by graduate students in planning at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. The students were required to propose theoretical projects for an actual site in Beverly Hills, following the zoning rules of that city. Not a single one of the teams could make the parking work; all of them invented pretexts that the city would somehow “waive” or forgive some of the parking, which is not a realistic expectation in Beverly Hills. All of this is preamble to the subject of automated parking structures. The good news about automated parking is already known in Europeans and some Asian cities. Californians are only now beginning to learn that mechanical parking systems — involving lifts that pick cars up from the ground and hide them underground or in the air — can make otherwise unfeasible building projects work financially. That’s a very big deal. But this technology begs the question: Will solving the parking problems of some buildings actually lead to a worsening of traffic congestion? Conventional parking structures, as nearly everyone knows, are space consuming because cars need wide turning radii and room for two-way traffic. A well-known urban designer told me that San Francisco was a better city for development than Portland, for example, because the classic “Vara” block of San Francisco – roughly 350 by 250 feet – is ideal for parking structures, while the much smaller block of downtown Portland – about 200 by 200 feet — was too tight for a standard parking structure. With automated parking, sites with comparatively small “footprints” can now accommodate parking in a much narrower compass. In some cases, the footprint of parking can be as small as 8 feet by 24 feet, or roughly the same size, in square feet, as my living room. While this may sound banal to some, the implications are almost revolutionary for areas like downtown Portland and perhaps our bedeviled site in Beverly Hills. It means, among other things, that some sites with comparatively small “footprints” can now become commercially feasible development locations because they can be “parked.” For a Washington, D.C., demonstration project built in 2002, SpaceSaver Parking Company of Chicago installed a four-level, 74-stall automated parking system in the Summit Grand Parc Apartments, a building with a dainty footprint of only 60 feet by 106 feet. The economics of automated parking varies on the type of unit. The most economical unit – and the system most common in San Francisco – is a simple, hydraulic ramp that lifts a car six feet above street level, allowing another car to park beneath. These low-end units cost about $12,000 to $15,000 per parking space. (These figures are supplied by Rob Bailey, president and owner of SpaceSaver Parking Systems.) That makes the units a good deal cheaper than the average parking stall, which can cost up to $40,000 to $45,000, a figure that reflects the recent run-up in the cost of construction materials. The most expensive model — a “fully automated,” key-card operated system that allows car owners to retrieve their vehicles immediately — costs about $30,000 to $35,000 per stall. In other words, it is not cheap, but it is comparable to the cost of building a garage. And any premium that a developer might pay for an automated system, of course, may be justifiable if an unfeasible project suddenly becomes workable. Bailey says he has “five or six” systems currently in place in San Francisco, and a 12-level system — possibly the largest of its kind yet built in California — is scheduled for installation this month at a new luxury building at 418 Jesse Street. In Bailey’s view, on-site parking is a sine qua non for high-end multi-family buildings. “For well-off people to move downtown, you’ve got to be able to give them parking, because they are not going to get rid of their cars,” Bailey said. He also contended that automated parking has some social benefits: With the systems, “you can eliminate a lot of on-street parking, and get a lot of congestion off the street.” The parking-systems executive also said – and I agree – that parking systems will have an impact on urban land economics and even architecture. Small urban parcels that currently have relatively little value because of their limited development potential will quickly jump in value as automated parking becomes accepted. And the impact also goes to architecture: The design of buildings may also change, if and when architects decide to build narrow parking elevators instead of garages or parking structures. Even UCLA urban planning Professor Donald Shoup, scourge of parking, sees a number of positives in the automated structures, including greater security from theft and damage. However, Professor Shoup — who opposes parking requirements because free parking is an invitation to car use (see CP&DR Q&A, May 2005) — said automated parking is no panacea. Great downtown areas, such as downtown San Francisco and Chicago, benefit from expensive parking that discourages people from using their cars, says Shoup, who argues that the high cost of parking is the right policy to induce people to find other ways of getting around, such as transit. In this light, automated parking is a symptomatic treatment of our chronic car disease. Hurrah for automated parking systems that can spare worthwhile projects from the demon of parking requirements. But increased parking capacity could lead to more congestion if no policy comes forward to discourage the use of cars altogether.

As the Legislature prepares to convene in January, another round of changes to the California Environmental Quality Act seems likely. The question is whether the 2026 changes will be incremental – clarifying, among other things, some of the “Swiss-cheese” holes punched in CEQA in 2025 – or whether someone in the Legislature will attempt a more comprehensive attempt at reform.

Huntington Beach has lost around round in its seemingly endless legal battle with the state over housing law.

Nearly five million Californians live in high fire hazard severity  zones , and the year’s disasters in Los Angeles County are only the most recent examples of just how severe California’s wildfires can be. For planners in the hundreds of cities and counties that touch on the wildlands-urban interface, fire hazard planning, via safety elements and other initiatives, is literally a life-or-death matter. Meanwhile, firefighting agencies face increasing urgency to fight and prevent wildfires in urban and semi-urban settings.

A few blocks south on Grand Avenue from Bunker Hill a titanium dagger protrudes over the sidewalk. The blade captures the sunlight and hints at something terribly interesting, beckoning you to walk closer and find out about the carcass into which it is plunged.

CP&DR Vol. 40 No. 11 November 2025 Report

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to  California Planning & Development Report . You can subscribe to  CP&DR  by clicking  here . You can sign up for  CP&DR ’s free weekly newsletter  here . San Diego Prevails in Five-Year Legal Battle over Tax Measure Five years after its approval by voters, litigation over San Diego's Measure C hotel tax has concluded with California's Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the measure. Plaintiff California Taxpayers Action Network electing not to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Measure C, which raises hotel tax rates to fund homeless services, road repairs, and a convention center expansion, passed with 65.24% support in 2020, but spent years tied up in a legal battle over whether the measure needed a supermajority to pass. San Diego began collecting the new tax in May, and has raised $35 million so far. The City anticipates $1.04 billion in additional revenue from the measure in the next ten years. Measure C raises San Diego's transient occupancy tax from 10.5% to 11.75 - 13.75%, with properties closer to downtown seeing the largest increases. The prospect of expanding the convention center is now in doubt, with construction cost increases pushing the price of such a project much higher than the $850 million that was projected when Measure C went on the ballot in 2020. The City also lacks control over a waterfront property seen as key for expansion, and a settlement with the leaseholder prevents progress on an expansion plan through the end of 2026. City officials are discussing modernization of the existing facility, and the convention center has already identified $400 million worth of investment needed over the next twenty years. Nonprofit Launches Tech Portal to Support Wildfire Rebuilding in L.A. County Builders Alliance, a not-for-profit organization formed in response to the January 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires, has launched a first-of-its-kind, tech-enabled portal to support fire survivors’ rebuilding efforts. The portal offers a robust library of homes, with pricing up front, filtered by specific lot, zoning, the owner’s preferences and price range. The portal is initially supported by 10 participating homebuilders dedicated to achieving significant time and cost savings and end-to-end project management, making rebuilding do-able for as many homeowners as possible. Participants are experienced, licensed homebuilders, ranging from small boutique firms to larger companies. The no-charge Builders Alliance Portal is a digital representation that maps every residential parcel in the Palisades and Eaton fire areas. Employing AI technology, the map is trained on local zoning regulations and pairs each lot with extensive menus of designs and costs. Establishment of this Builders Alliance is a key recommendation of Project Recovery, the plan offered by ULI Los Angeles, UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate and USC Lusk Center for Real Estate in response to the Los Angeles wildfires. Menlo Park Moves toward Ballot Measure to Determine Fate of Downtown Development Menlo Park is weighing a citizen initiative that would give voters the power over approval for redeveloping city parking into affordable housing. The measure stems from a fight over a city plan to turn three downtown parking lots totaling 556 spaces into at least 345 affordable housing units. The community group Save Downtown Menlo opposes the project, arguing that the loss of car access could significantly hurt local businesses, and gathered signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. Advocates for the project say it is essential to meeting housing needs in the community and staying on track with state housing mandates to avoid harsh penalties. The city commissioned urban planning firm M-Group to study the measure's impact on the city. The report will cost the city $164,000, and is required to be completed in 30 days. Major Infill Development Proposed for San Francisco A developer is proposing to replace a closed Safeway grocery store in San Francisco's Western Addition that would add more than 1,800 homes to the city, representing the largest housing push the area has seen in decades. Align Real Estate’s plan leverages recent state laws that permit significantly higher density in exchange for affordable units, with approximately 15% of the homes reserved at or below market rate. The project envisions a mix of mid- and high-rise buildings up to 300 feet tall, along with a large underground garage and phased construction. Because Safeway’s departure left the neighborhood without a full-service grocer, the developer also intends to include a smaller grocery store and is seeking a tenant while exploring whether the existing building can be temporarily reactivated. City officials see the proposal as aligning with San Francisco’s broader push to accelerate housing approvals, even as other large projects have stalled amid economic headwinds. Community leaders and the district supervisor have expressed cautious support, noting the project’s potential to restore services, reconnect parts of the Fillmore and contribute significantly to the city’s long-term housing goals. CP&DR Coverage: Housing Element EIRs Could Get More Complex Under New Law Under a new state law, rezonings related to the housing element aren’t subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. But UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf says there’s a tradeoff: environmental impact reports will almost certainly be required for all housing elements, putting more pressure on cities and counties to identify the environmental impact of every possible housing site at the housing element level. Elmendorf also pointed out that the new statutory exemption for infill housing is “cleaner” and more expansive than the so-called Class 32 exemption, a categorical exemption that has been widely used in recent years. SB 131 – one of the budget trailer bills – contained a provision exempting from CEQA upzonings to implement the housing element. This provision was paired with the infill housing exemption in AB 130, which essentially exempted projects that implement the housing element. Quick Hits & Updates  Fresno's Planning Commission approved the highly controversial 9,000-acre, 45,000-home Southeast Development area (SEDA) by a vote of 4-3, despite intense opposition from a broad coalition of residents. Citizen groups who oppose the project say they are prepared to gather signatures for a ballot measure that would subject development on agricultural lands to direct voter approval. During the public comment session, residents expressed strong opposition to taking on the $3 billion budget shortfall SEDA would create, plus concerns about pollution from the new development.  The Perris City Council has requested the city attorney to draft a moratorium on new warehouses, potentially becoming the latest of several Inland Empire cities to impose such a measure as the logistics industry explodes in the area. Perris currently has the third highest warehouse prevalence among Inland Empire cities, and its logistics space per resident could increase from 1,000 sqft to 2000 sqft if every project in the planning pipeline were approved and constructed. The governing board of Los Angeles International Airport approved new $1.5 billion construction project, which will replace 4.4 miles of roads entering and exiting LAX and create new elevated roadways to separate airport-related and local traffic and reduce congestion. Critics questioned the need for the new roadway in light of the impending opening of the airport's automated people mover and new transit connections.  San Diego’s Planning Commission unanimously endorsed a proposal to boost housing production by loosening rules governing historic preservation. The plan would give the City Council more authority over historic designations, allowing it to overturn decisions by the Historical Resources Board based on judgment rather than procedural mistakes. The California High-Speed Rail Authority will issue a request for qualifications for private investors to build, operate, and maintain sections of the state's high speed rail project. HSR CEO Ian Choudri said private investment, enabled by the state's new $20 billion funding guarantee, could speed up construction and lower the taxpayer burden, but would require changing a state law mandating the first section built be from Bakersfield to Merced. Choudri says the line to Merced will still be built, but the initial focus would shift to a Bakersfield to Gilroy line that promises to be more financially appealing to investment according to a report from this August. Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board approved a 20-story student housing project with 137 market-rate units and 32 affordable units, using California’s density bonus law to bypass local labor rules, including the HARD HATS ordinance and Southside prevailing wage requirements. Local construction unions have appealed the project, arguing the concessions misuse the state law and undermine worker protections, while developers say complying with the labor mandates would significantly increase costs and delay construction, which is slated to start in January 2028. An LA County Superior Court judge denied a request from the Rose Bowl Operating co. and the City of Pasadena for a temporary restraining order in the legal fight to keep UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl. Attorneys for the Rose Bowl and Pasadena accused UCLA of conducting back-room discussions to move home games to SoFi stadium, which would breach a lease signed in 2014 with no opt-out clause to keep UCLA home games at the Rose Bowl through 2044 in exchange for the stadium making $200 million worth of renovations funded with public bonds.

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to  California Planning & Development Report . You can subscribe to  CP&DR  by clicking  here . You can sign up for  CP&DR ’s free weekly newsletter  here . Los Angeles to Tighten Rent Increases for Rent-Stabilized Units With a city council vote last week, Los Angeles will reduce its cap on annual rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments from 3-8% to 1-4%, the first change to rent stabilization in LA in 40 years. Applying to units built before 1978, the change affects nearly half of the city's residents. According to the LA housing department, over 60% of LA residents are renters. The LA times says more than half LA renters qualify as rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, and 1 in 10 LA residents spend more than 90% of their income on rent. Proponents of the change say it will help provide desperately needed relief to vulnerable renters and improve affordability in the city. Council members John Lee and Bob Blumenfeld, who voted against the cap change, criticized the move as discouraging development and investment and making it more difficult for landlords to maintain buildings. The pro-housing group YIMBY Action highlighted the change's potential harm to the city's housing supply by causing developers to avoid building on rent-controlled lots. Councilmember Nithya Raman, who introduced the proposal, affirmed the importance of increased housing supply as the ultimate solution to the affordability crisis, and vowed to work to ensure the rent changes do not slow new production. Newsom Defies Trump's Reported Plans to Open California Coast to Oil Drilling The Trump administration has proposed a plan to open six lease sales for oil drilling off the coast of California between 2027 and 2030, as part of a wider proposal to also open new oil operations in the eastern Gulf Coast and the High Arctic north of Alaska. Governor Newsom condemned the plan, saying it would "never happen", saying “as it relates to offshore oil drilling, it’s overwhelmingly opposed by members of all political parties in the state of California,” during a press conference. Experts noted that California does not have the same existing infrastructure for offshore drilling as many states on the Gulf of Mexico, and there is uncertainty if companies would be interested in new projects in California. Critics contend that the proposal is driven as much by politics as by energy policy, especially as Trump has repeatedly targeted California’s environmental agenda and received significant industry support. Although oil companies have shown some interest, analysts note that the region’s limited reserves, strict state regulations and global low oil prices make large-scale investment unlikely, and any new activity would face California’s extensive legal and political barriers to onshore infrastructure. Malibu Declares Entire City to be in Fire Danger Zone The Malibu City Council voted unanimously to adopt an ordinance designating the entire city as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, based on the State Fire Marshal's severity map released in March. Malibu is now one of a very small number of cities in California to be entirely designated Very High Fire Hazard. The universal designation could help the city adopt more aggressive fire regulations. The move comes amidst growing debate over "Zone Zero" regulations stemming from Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-18-25, which would require no trees within 30 feet of houses in the highest-risk areas. Critics argue these rules could be environmentally detrimental and counterproductive for safety, as the right species of trees can actually help shield homes with the right placement. Tule Tribe to Regain Control of 17,000 Acres of Ancestral Land California will return over 17,000 acres of land to the Tule River Indian Tribe, according to a recent announcement by the governor's office. The nonprofit Conservation Fund purchased the two cattle ranches in Tulare County, and the state helped fund and facilitate the transfer to the tribe. Situated east of Porterville and west of Giant Sequoia National Monument, the land is mostly undeveloped and adjoining to the south end of the tribe's existing 55,000 acre reservation. Governor Newsom hailed the transfer as a step towards restoring the Tule Tribe's stewardship of their ancestral lands, and acknowledged the tribe's historical mistreatment by the state. At a land return and tule elk reintroduction ceremony marking the transfer, Tribal leaders emphasized how the return will help the tribe maintain access to food and medicinal resources, preserve cultural sites, and further stewardship and wildlife reintroduction efforts. The Tule River Indian Tribe is a federally recognized tribe whose members descend from many different Yokut-speaking communities originating from all across Tulare Lake basin and the southern Sierra foothills. Fresno Development Plan Faces Fierce Opposition A broad coalition of Fresno community members gathered last week to demand that Mayor Jerry Dyer kill the controversial Southeast Development Area (SEDA) megaproject and start a comprehensive process to create a new general plan for the city. If Mayor Dyer refuses, the coalition said they are prepared to gather signatures for a ballot measure establishing an urban growth boundary for Fresno, which would effectively strip the mayor and city council of approval power for fringe developments and hand it directly to voters. The ultimatum comes after a city report estimated that developer fees would cover at most just 20% of the project's infrastructure expenses, leaving taxpayers responsible for a $3 billion funding gap. The coalition against the 45,000-home plan area spans across Fresno's political spectrum, and the most recent press conference included representatives from the Central Labor Council, which represents 105,000 workers, former Mayor Ashley Swearengin's DRIVE initiative of the Central Valley Community Foundation, as well as neighborhood and community groups from across the city. For the time being, Mayor Dyer has continued to push SEDA forward, and presented phase 1 to the city council last week. (See related CP&DR coverage .) CP&DR Coverage: Lawsuit to Block La Jolla Cityhood Thrown Out The acrimonious battle between the City of San Diego and La Jolla citizens who want a separate city continues in court – with the citizens recently winning a battle to throw out a lawsuit from the city on anti-SLAPP grounds. The city sued the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission over the incorporation attempt, saying the LAFCO acted improperly in certifying that the incorporation proponents had gathered enough signatures to put the proposal on the ballot. In a ruling issued October 24, San Diego Superior Court Judge Judy S. Bae granted ACLJ its request for an anti-SLAPP motion. The judge in the case essentially concluded that the citizens’ attempt to move the La Jolla incorporation attempt forward constitutes free speech. Quick Hits & Updates National City’s council unanimously rejected a proposed biofuels rail transfer station, signaling a break from the heavy industrial uses that have long polluted the community and limited access to the bay. Leaders and residents framed the decision as the beginning of a broader push toward environmental cleanup and waterfront revitalization. The Menlo Park City Council is commissioning a study on a ballot initiative that would require voter approval before converting downtown parking lots into affordable housing, a plan that has split residents between concerns over lost parking and the need for more housing. Supporters want a special election to decide the measure, while councilmembers emphasized the importance of meeting state housing requirements to avoid penalties or loss of funding. The Link Union Station project, which will add run-through tracks to Los Angeles Union Station and allow direct Metrolink and Amtrak service across Southern California, has advanced with Metro’s approval of a supplemental environmental study. The updated $3 billion plan streamlines earlier designs to cut costs, including reducing the number of raised platforms, narrowing the passenger tunnel expansion and scrapping a full rail yard canopy, while facing funding gaps and possible legal challenges from the City of Vernon before construction begins in 2026. A long-awaited 25-acre park in San Diego County's Alpine community has been delayed indefinitely after a judge ruled that San Diego County’s environmental review failed to address impacts on local wildlife, wildfire risks and traffic. Conservation groups want the court to revoke the project’s approvals, leaving residents divided between those seeking long-promised recreation space and others who say the park would harm Alpine’s character. Santa Clara's Measure A, a tax increase proposed as a counter against Trump administration healthcare cuts, was passed by voters earlier this month. The measure will raise county sales taxes by 5/8ths of a cent, which is estimated to generate $330 million per year to offset federal funds lost by the county hospital system through cuts to Medicaid in the GOP-led Big Beautiful Bill. Critics pointed out that the money will go into the County's general fund, with no legal mechanism to ensure it is spent on hospitals. A tax increase with a specific allocation would have had to pass with a two thirds majority. The Strategic Growth Council awarded $128 million in Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation (SALC) grants in Round 10 of the program for the permanent protection of 40,000 acres (62.5 square miles) of croplands and rangelands, including returning 11,000 acres to California Native American Tribes. 48 of the 52 projects funded are acquisition grants for deed restrictions preventing the conversion of agricultural land to development. A new report on housing development in Palo Alto found that none of the multifamily development prototypes examined are economically viable in current conditions. The report attributes the lack of feasibility to rising construction costs and interest rates, some of the highest local fees in the region, and demand for higher returns from investors. The study found that removing affordable housing requirements and local fees, which help fund essential city services and affordable housing, improved feasibility substantially. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors approved the new Regional Housing Incentive Program. The program allows developers to earn "incentive points" by adding affordable units to developments or paying in-lieu fees, which they can then spend on a variety of zoning exceptions including incentives for parking, design standards, floor space and land uses, and density. Critics on the Board said the program may not accomplish much as it only targets to raise around a third of the funding needed for the county's minimum target for affordable housing, while proponents lauded the program as a step in the right direction which would not be the last incentive for affordable housing.