The California Coastal Commission does not have authority to consider environmental impacts to areas inside the coastal zone caused by development outside the coast zone, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. The decision is the most definitive to date on the Commission's authority when a project straddles the coastal zone boundary. "Consideration of environmental impacts originating outside the coastal zone is the responsibility of the local agency with authority over their point of origin — here, the city. It is not the responsibility of the Commission," the appellate court ruled. The decision came in an environmentalists' lawsuit over the commission's approval of a 114-house subdivision on 44 acres in the Playa del Rey area of the City of Los Angeles. Catellus Residential Group initially proposed a 119-home development. The city adopted an environmental impact report for the project and approved the subdivision. The Sierra Club appealed that decision to the Coastal Commission. In August 1999, the Commission overturned the city's decision, citing concerns about excessive grading, landform alteration and the impact on coastal views. Catellus revised the project, cutting the number of houses to 114 and changing its plans for grading and slope stability measures. Catellus also agreed to purchase 15 nearby undeveloped lots and retire the development rights. The city prepared a supplemental EIR and, in January 2000, issued new permits. The Sierra Club again appealed, but this time the Commission voted 9-2 in August 2000 to uphold the city's approval. The revised project called for all houses to be built outside the coastal zone; however, a road serving most of the houses would run through the coastal zone. There would also be other grading and buried retaining walls in the coastal zone. The Sierra Club, the Spirit of the Sage Council, and Ballona Ecosystem Education Project sued the Commission, the city and Catellus, alleging a number of misdeeds. (A separate lawsuit filed by the Spirit of the Sage Council against the city is pending in the Second District Court of Appeal after the city won at the trial court.) The environmental groups sought an injunction to prevent Catellus from grading. The San Francisco Superior Court rejected the request, but the First District, in an unpublished ruling, approved the injunction. The case then returned to the trial court for a decision on the merits. In July 2002, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Robertson ruled against the environmental groups on all grounds. The environmentalists appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District upheld the lower court. The environmentalists' most important argument from a legal standpoint concerned the Commission's ability to review impacts originating outside the coastal zone. The environmental groups argued that the Commission failed to consider the impact that development of the houses outside the coastal zone would have on the nearby Ballona wetlands, an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) within the coastal zone. The project opponents argued that because development within the coastal zone (the road and grading) would support development outside the zone (the houses) — and because the development outside the coastal zone would impact an ESHA inside the zone — the Commission was obliged to consider those impacts and reject the development within the zone. Previous court rulings had not resolved this issue, but the First District concluded that the environmental groups were attempting to extend the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission beyond that allowed in the Coastal Act. The court's decision hinged on its interpretation of two sections of the act — Public Resources Code §§ 30200 and 30604, subdivision (d). Section 30200 requires public agencies carrying out or supporting activities outside the coastal zone to consider the activities' direct impacts within the coastal zone. The environmental groups argued that this statute required the Commission to consider the inside-the-zone impacts from outside-the-zone development. But the court said the Sierra Club's interpretation did not jibe with § 30604, subdivision (d). In 1978, the Legislature amended that statute to address the Commission's authority when a project straddled the coastal zone boundary. "The legislative history … confirms that the Legislature intended to reject the notion that Commission jurisdiction over part of a project could be leveraged into jurisdiction over the entire project," Justice Linda Gemello wrote for the court. "If the Commission has no jurisdiction over the portion of a project outside the coastal zone, it follows that the Commission has no jurisdiction to evaluate that portion of the project to determine whether its effects are consistent with Coastal Act policies." The Sierra Club countered that the court's interpretation of § 30604, subdivision (d), amounted to an improper repeal of § 30200. But the court rejected that argument, ruling that § 30200 still controlled the responsibilities of other agencies, such as the city in this case. The court also shot down a slew of other arguments from the environmental groups. One of the more novel arguments concerned an ESHA that Catellus proposed to create. Under the Coastal Act, an ESHA is "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." Catellus proposed to revegetate the eroded and disturbed face of a bluff within the coastal zone, thereby creating an ESHA. Project opponents argued that ESHA protections would therefore apply, and the project would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. "We conclude that both the language and intent of the Coastal Act dictate the opposite conclusion," Justice Gemello wrote. "ESHA protections do not apply unless an area is currently an ESHA. … If we were to adopt the Sierra Club's interpretation, we would create disincentives for any future developer to engage in habitat restoration as part of a development." The court also rejected opponents' argument that the Commission's procedure for adopting findings was improper. The Commission adopted findings five months after voting for the project because the findings that staff had prepared at the time of the vote were inconsistent with how the Commission actually voted. Opponents argued this was a "post-hoc rationalization," which the California Environmental Quality Act prohibited. The court found that the Commission adequately explained its reasoning at the meeting where the vote was conducted. "An agency must reason first, and reach its decision second. Written findings may come before or after, so long as they reflect the reasoning actually engaged in before the decision has been reached," Gemello wrote. In unpublished portions of the opinion, the court held that substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision that the project was consistent with the Coastal Act's policies for protecting views. And the court held that the Commission's decision not to consider feasible project alternatives complied with CEQA because the proposed project did not have any unmitigated impacts. The Case: , No. A100194, 03 C.D.O.S. 3143, 2003 DJDAR 3975. Filed April 11, 2003. The Lawyers: For Sierra Club: Frank Angel, (310) 314-6433. For the Coastal Commission: Hayley Peterson, deputy attorney general, (619) 645-2540. For Catellus: Robert Crockett, Latham & Watkins, (213) 485-1234.

A specific plan for a slice of northern Monterey County that has long been seen as a potential growth area could be released this summer. However, the second version of a Rancho San Juan specific plan is unlikely to settle long-running disputes over how the area between the City of Salinas and the unincorporated community of Prunedale should develop. At issue are not only how much of the roughly 2,500 acres should be developed and in what manner, but whether development should occur under control of the county, the City of Salinas or even a new city. Adding to the tension are the different desires of the numerous landowners in the area, and a Monterey County Superior Court decision ordering the county to complete the planning process. The court order is part of the project's lengthy history. During adoption of a general plan in the early 1980s, the county designated Rancho San Juan as an area for future development. In 1986, as part of the Greater Salinas Area Plan, the county designated Rancho San Juan as an "area of development concentration" and drew the first boundaries. A mixture of planning, politics and litigation consumed the next 12 years leading up to the release in 1998 of a specific plan and accompanying environmental impact report. Those documents generated a huge response from the public and agencies. "It was pretty clear what the community expected," said Celia Perez Martinez the county's current Rancho San Juan project manager. "They expected a community, not just houses. They expected no sprawl. They expected preservation of historic and cultural resources." But the plan did not meet those expectations, she said. The overwhelming response and the arrival of Sally Reed (late of Los Angeles County and the Department of Motor Vehicles) as county administrative officer led the Board of Supervisors to halt the specific planning process and begin an overhaul of the general plan in 1999. That move angered HYH Corporation, which owns or controls 671 acres in Rancho San Juan and which had helped fund the specific plan process. The company sued the county and won. The Superior Court said the county could not stop in the middle of the planning process, and the court ordered the county to complete the task. Planning resumed about two years ago but has remained mostly behind the scenes - to the frustration of property owners, city officials and environmentalists. Martinez said the county has conducted meetings with property owners, and she has made two presentations to the Salinas City Council. Plus, the Board of Supervisors has received two updates. But planners are working mostly with the first round of documents and the extensive comments, she said. The plan also will be based on the 12 "guiding objectives" that county supervisors established for the ongoing general plan update, she said. Those objectives include concepts such as compact development, balancing residential and commercial growth, and preserving farmland and rural areas. Two options presented thus far call for 4,000 housing units, roughly 2.5 million square feet of "employment center" development, a town center, and additional commercial, office and live-work development. Development would be held to city standards, Martinez added. The HYH lawsuit and the county's desire to satisfy that developer appear to be driving the county's approach, said both attorney Brian Finegan, who represents the owner of about 220 acres at the southern end of Rancho San Juan, and Gary Patton, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County. HYH has submitted an application, which the county is processing concurrently with the specific plan, for about 1,000 houses, a 40,000-square-foot shopping center and a golf course. The HYH property, though, is in the middle of the site, so developing that portion of Rancho San Juan first has been questioned by Salinas officials and others. The City of Salinas opposed the development proposed in the 1998 specific plan, and the city has not changed its position. The city has raised issues such as the provision of public services - especially water - traffic, loss of farmland and erosion of Salinas's urban edge. In a letter to the county earlier this year, the city indicated that the county's approach conflicted with the Boronda memorandum of understanding, a city-county pact that calls for city-centered growth. "The development of Rancho San Juan, essentially a ‘new town' with a potential population rivaling that of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City, is in direct conflict with city center growth and many of the references to city center growth embodied in the Monterey County general plan," Salinas Planning Manager Robert Richelieu wrote. Rancho San Juan lies within 1,000 feet of the Salinas city limits, yet the city did not include Rancho San Juan in a general plan update completed during 2002. Salinas officials envision their city growing to the east and northeast, not directly north into Rancho San Juan, said Senior Planner Jenny Mahoney. "When you look at our land use map and you plug in Rancho San Juan, it looks like this weird appendage that doesn't fit with the rest of the city," Mahoney said. Still, some landowners want the city to annex their property. Finegan said his clients, the Ferrasci family, which owns a 220-acre strawberry farm that abuts the city limits, wants no part of the county process. "What I've consistently said to the county planners is, ‘Let my people go.' Let the Ferrasci family go make their deal with the city," Finegan said. "It's the logical place for the City of Salinas to expand. It's very developable property. It has minimal constraints." The county wants to keep Rancho San Juan for itself so that it can meet its state housing mandate, charged Finegan, who is skeptical of county talk of jobs-housing balance in the area. "There has never been any interest in the industrial part of that project," he said. Cathy West, executive director of the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), said there currently is no answer to the ultimate question of who will govern Rancho San Juan. The LAFCO has begun studying what entities will provide services if Rancho San Juan development does proceed. There are two fire protection districts in the area, a park district has shown interest in providing services, and the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District has proposed expanding its boundaries to consolidate water services to Rancho San Juan. "In any case, we're looking at some sort of temporary service arrangements out there," West said. The LAFCO studies could help answer the ultimate question, and they could affect both the city's and the county's approach to Rancho San Juan, West said. If an adequate commercial and industrial tax base were proposed at Rancho San Juan, LAFCO would look favorably on annexation, she said. If Rancho San Juan evolves as an urban yet unincorporated area, annexation would became more difficult because of the number of people involved, she said. And then there is the question of whether to develop Rancho San Juan at all. Patton, a former Monterey County supervisor and former general counsel for the Planning and Conservation League, said he has never supported growth in that area. Salinas has about 3,000 acres for growth, and the county has no business allowing large-scale development of unincorporated territory. The court order in the HYH lawsuit, Patton noted, only requires the county to complete the planning process; the court did not order the county to approve development. The area is home to the "Red Pony Barn" made famous by John Steinbeck. Historic preservation advocates want the barn protected. Farmland and open space advocates decry the potential loss of productive fields and scenic oak woodlands. And just about everyone is concerned about traffic on rural roads, narrow highways and the already busy streets of Salinas. If the county does approve large-scale development, many interest groups are likely to file a lawsuit or pursue a referendum. The City of Salinas has also hinted at legal action. An additional complication is the need to improve Highway 101, which splits Rancho San Juan. The highway currently is a four-lane road with cross traffic and driveways. Caltrans is constructing extensive safety improvements, but both Caltrans and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County view a proposed Prunedale bypass as the long-term answer to safety and capacity concerns. However, a bypass through the hills would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and require extensive property acquisition and, likely, environmental mitigation, said Colin Jones, a Caltrans spokesman. "The bypass is in the preliminary planning stages, but it's years if not decades away," Jones said. Because of this, Caltrans has asked Monterey County to plan Rancho San Juan both with and without the bypass. Contacts: Celia Perez Martinez, Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department, (831) 796-3087. Jenny Mahoney, City of Salinas Community Development Department, (831) 758-7206. Cathy West, Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission, (831) 754-5838. Brian Finegan, landowner's attorney, (831) 757-3641. Gary Patton, LandWatch Monterey County, (831) 375-3752. County Planning and Building Inspection Department website: www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/

The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency was correct to require a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) for a billboard proposed within a redevelopment project area, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. In 1999, Eller Media Company filed an application to build two billboards within the Hollywood redevelopment project area. Staff members at the CRA conducted an initial study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that a proposed sign on Sunset Boulevard might have significant adverse impacts on historic resources and community aesthetics. The staff also determined that the billboard was a change to the 1986 project area plan. Additionally, the staff found that a billboard proposed on North Cahuenga Boulevard might have adverse impacts that could be mitigated. Eller appealed these determinations to the CRA Board of Commissioners, which upheld the staff's conclusions. Eller then filed a lawsuit. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled for the city. On appeal, Eller presented four arguments: Substantial evidence did not support CRA's determination that the signs did not conform to the redevelopment plan; the CRA abused it discretion in requiring Eller to prepare a SEIR for the Sunset sign; the initial study did not conform to CEQA Guidelines and required Eller to comply with nonexistent standards; and CRA was not the lead agency under CEQA. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District rejected all four contentions. Eller argued that the CRA could not determine that the proposed signs failed to conform to the redevelopment plan because the CRA had never adopted sign and billboard standards that the plan called for. This failure allowed the agency to apply subjective criteria, Eller contended. The court, however, found that "CRA was duty bound to determine of Eller's proposed billboards conformed with the plan. The performance of this duty was not dependent on CRA's exercise of its permissive power to adopt specific standards relating to signs and billboards in the project area. In the absence of such standards, CRA nevertheless was required to consult with the existing provisions of the plan to determine if Eller's proposed billboards did or did not conform to the plan. Eller has made no showing that CRA's factual determinations in this case were the product of unbridled discretion and ad hoc standards. … CRA correctly evaluated Eller's proposal in light of the entire plan." (The CRA later adopted standards that prohibited all billboards and pole signs in the Hollywood project area.) As for the abuse of discretion contention, the court found that CRA followed CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. "An EIR for a redevelopment project is known as a program EIR," Presiding Justice Vaino Spencer explained. "A program EIR is designed to analyze environmental impacts of a series of related actions that can be characterized as one large project. That CEQA contains provisions for subsequent and supplemental EIRs reflects the Legislature's recognition that the need for environmental review may arise after the certification of a final EIR and the adoption of the redevelopment plan to which it relates." "Eller's proposal to construct a billboard at the Sunset site, which was submitted 13 years after the final EIR was certified and the plan was adopted, is an individual, site-specific development project within the project area whose specific impacts could not possibly have been identified at the time the final EIR was certified. Accordingly, CRA correctly determined that this proposed construction was ‘new information' that was not known and could not have been known at the time the final EIR was certified as complete," Spencer continued. The court found that Eller's argument regarding the nonexistent standards "has appeal." However, Eller suggested no remedy, and the plan did contain general provisions against which CRA could measure the proposed signs, the court ruled. Finally, the court held that CRA, which has ultimate authority over building permits in the project area, clearly was the lead agency — not the City of Los Angeles, as Eller contended. The Case: , No. B156300, 03 C.D.O.S. 3467, 2003 DJDAR 4343. Filed March 28, 2003. Ordered published April 23, 2003. The Lawyers: For Eller: Richard Hamlin, (310) 216-2165. For CRA: Kathryn Reimann, (831) 647-1430.

Whoever said that art imitates life has not visited one of Southern California's neighborhood cybercafes, where, according to some planners and police, the reverse is true. It is in these mainly blue collar, immigrant enclaves where video games and youth culture have combined into a lively and sometimes violent activity, thereby creating the state's latest LULU (locally undesirable land use). In predictable fashion, cities are responding with ordinances, and businesses are fighting back through the courtroom. And another chapter of land use regulation is being written. Central to the controversy is the tension between property rights and public safety – a legal quandary for land use regulators since the Supreme Court affirmed the zoning police powers during the 1920s. But this being California and the year 2003, there are fascinating new variables surrounding cybercafes: Cultural preferences of immigrant youth; the effect of violent, interactive digital imagery on group behavior; and the social ramifications of militarizing a post-9/11 America that is learning to live with fear. Cybercafes are establishments that primarily provide computers for access to the Internet. They are also known as PC cafes, Internet cafes, and cyber centers. They are hugely popular in Asia, so California is the natural American launching pad for the business trend. But, already, cybercafes have been stereotyped as hotbeds of gang violence. In December, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) responded to an incident at a cybercafe in which teens were using chairs and steel pipes as weapons. The LAPD reported that fight as one of more than 300 disturbances, including a homicide, to which the department responded at cybercafes during the past year. Much of the blame for cybercafe-related violence is attributed to violent, interactive on-line games, such as Counter-Strike, which allows participants to pretend to be terrorists or special security forces. Participants battle in urban settings with guns, grenades and bombs, and hold hostages while plotting assassinations. A host of cities — including a number of Orange County communities with sizeable Asian populations — have stepped in to regulate cybercafes. The epicenter of this particular land use battle is Garden Grove, an Orange County city of 180,000 abutting Anaheim that has about 22 cybercafes. The City's population is 31% Asian. In January 2002 the City Council approved an interim ordinance "prohibiting the establishment of new cybercafes and creating time, place, and manner restrictions for existing cybercafes." Business owners criticized the ordinance as unworkable, and the Orange County Superior Court agreed, saddling the City with an injunction in August 2002 cp&dr in brief, september 2002> cp&dr in brief, september 2002>. Many city attorneys are closely watching Garden Grove's appeal. Staff at city hall in Los Angeles is also paying close attention. The proposed Los Angeles regulations are spearheaded by Councilman Dennis Zine, who represents the southwest San Fernando Valley. Even though his district has only one cybercafe for which only a parking complaint has been lodged, ex-cop Zine is the go-to guy for the LAPD, which is eager to get a law on the books. "We are using a two-pronged approach, treating this as a police matter and a planning matter," said Tom Henry, Zine's chief planning deputy. This spring, the city's Zoning Administrator ruled that cybercafes require conditional use permits (CUPs) under an old rule requiring CUPs for penny arcades. Henry said it is reasonable to look at cybercafes as the 21st Century version of penny arcades, which apparently generated nuisance problems for Los Angeles decades ago. Problems go beyond violence and include the typical nuisances of parking violations, gambling and noise, according to Henry. Many of the cybercafes have gone "underground." He acknowledged the difficulties inherent in crafting a regulation, and he is well aware of the troubles Garden Grove encountered in making its regulations stick. "One of the problems we face is: How do we differentiate between a cybercafe and Kinko's? They rent out computers on which you can play games too," Henry said. Alas, Henry had hit it on the head. Zoning has always been a blunt instrument. That is why the neotraditionalists have attempted to throw the zoning ordinance books out the window. But a more interesting dilemma is how to control popular culture. When video games played between teams in Northridge and Hong Kong over cyberspace are so exciting that they incite violence, are cybercafe owners the proper target of regulation? How about video game producers? What about gun manufacturers? There is no shortage of constitutional issues here. Ariel S. Pagtakhan, the owner of Cyber HQ in the Los Angeles district of Eagle Rock, west of Pasadena, thinks it is wrong to adopt a blanket ordinance and believes that fear of youth is driving the official response. His clients are young people from the local community. He contended that tournaments, which invite people in from throughout the region, are the problem. He would agree to hire a security guard for tournaments, but said an ordinance that required full-time security is unnecessary and would put him out of business. "Some are dismayed by the violence of the games. But these are the same games kids played 50 years ago with plastic army men. The difference is better resolution," Pagtakhan said. The League of California Cities sees cybercafes as a classic nuisance. The right of business owners is tempered by the harm they may promulgate on neighboring land uses, said Bill Higgins, senior staff attorney with the League. Regulations have to be crafted that balance both parties' interests. The game may already be over, though. It's not a question of whether cybercafe ordinances are adopted, it's a matter of how they are framed. And the final outcome will say much about how scared California's elected officials, police and planners are of our increasingly youthful and immigrant society.

A city clerk did not have authority to throw out a zoning initiative petition based on evidence she received that the petition had been improperly circulated, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. The city clerk's role was ministerial, and she did not have the authority to consider extrinsic evidence about how the initiative's backers circulated the measure, the court held. Only the courts can weigh such evidence and make discretionary decisions, the court ruled. The case involved the Downtown Zoning Initiative in the City of Millbrae, about 10 miles south of San Francisco. The initiative sought to amend the city's zoning ordinance by restricting the density of restaurants, adult businesses and certain other establishments in a specific part of downtown Millbrae. In June 2001, initiative supporters submitted about 1,500 petition signatures to City Clerk Cheryl Wade. However, Wade refused to certify the petition and she returned it to the proponents. She said that the petition violated state law because it did not include the initiative title and summary on every page, and because she believed the "notice of intention to circulate" the petition and the full text had not been included with every petition signature sheet. The Alliance for a Better Downtown Millbrae sued. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles ruled that the group had substantially complied with state election law and ordered Wade to process the petition. Wade complied and the San Mateo County clerk later certified that the petitions contained enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. But Wade also appealed Judge Foiles's ruling. The downtown alliance argued that Wade's willingness to comply with the lower court mooted the case. But the First District rejected that contention, in part because the initiative has never been presented to the City Council or placed on the ballot. "This case presents a live, actual controversy," Justice Linda Gemello wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. The First District then went on to upheld the lower court. Two separate interpretations were at issue. The first concerned Elections Code § 9203, subdivision (b), which governs the placement of the title and impartial summary on an initiative petition. The statute requires the title and summary to appear "across the top of each page of the petition." The Millbrae group placed the title and summary on the front of each petition page, but not on the back. Wade said the title and summary needed to be on every page — front and back. The appellate court disagreed, noting that a summary can be up to 500 words long and even in fine print could fill nearly an entire letter-sized page by itself. Having the title and summary on only the front of a page still protects voters from being misled and prevents signatures from being collected in support of a measure different than the initiative for which they were procured, the court held. The second issue was the interpretation of Elections Code §§ 9201 and 9207. The former section requires that each section of a petition be circulated with the full text of the measure attached. The latter section requires that each petition include a copy of the notice of intention to circulate. Wade concluded that the initiative proponents violated those sections of the elections code based on four pieces of evidence: some signature pages showed greater wear than the full text page; unidentified third parties tipped her off; a folder containing signature pages without the notice of intention or full text attached was found in the council chambers; the clerk believed the proponents had violated the Election Code in the past regarding unrelated matters. The appellate court did not rule on whether the proponents violated §§ 9201 and 9207. Instead, the court held that Wade did not have authority to make her determination. Past cases interpreting the Election Code "only authorize local elections officials to review a petition as submitted for compliance with procedural requirements, absent an express grant of broader powers," Justice Gemello wrote. "They foreclose elections officials decisions that are discretionary or go beyond a straightforward comparison of the submitted petition with the statutory requirements for petitions. Here, the petition as to the city clerk complied with §§ 9201 and 9207. … The city clerk went beyond the face of the petition and concluded that the full text and notice of intention had been added only after , and that the sections had not been circulated in compliance with the requirements of §§ 9201 and 9207." "The city clerk's decision involves the sort of discretionary, adjudicatory decisionmaking reserved for judges and juries," Gemello continued. "Nothing in §§ 9201 or 9207 authorizes elections officials to engage in discretionary factfinding or to consider extrinsic evidence. … In the absence of explicit legislative authorization, we conclude that such powers are not granted to elections officials." The court rejected Wade's argument that she was authorized — even required — to engage in factfinding before certifying an initiative petition. Such inquiries and enforcement of the Election Code belong in the courts, the First District ruled. The Case: , No. A099453, 2003 DJDAR 4511. Filed April 25, 2003. The Lawyers: For the Alliance: Dennis Scott Zell, Fogarty & Watson, (650) 652-5912. For Wade: Michael Duncheon, Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy, (415) 777-3200.

With negotiations over the 2003-04 state budget ongoing, it appears that redevelopment agencies will avoid the major financial hit proposed in January by the Davis administration. Adjustments to the current 2002-03 budget did move $75 million from redevelopment agencies to school districts. However, a Davis administration proposal for the state to take all unencumbered housing funds from redevelopment agencies went nowhere in the Legislature. The Senate version of the 2003-04 budget approved in late May contained another one-time shift of $250 million from redevelopment agencies to school districts. The Assembly version of the budget contained no shift after Assembly Budget Subcommittee 4 Chairman Rudy Bermudez (D-Norwalk) ordered a proposed $100 million shift removed from consideration. The question of the tax shift away from redevelopment agencies was headed to a two-house conference committee, and could even make it to the table during anticipated Big 5 budget negotiations involving the governor and party leaders from each house. Neither house showed support for the administration's proposal to make redevelopment agencies subject to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) property tax shifts permanently. The administration had proposed phasing in the ERAF property tax shift so that about half of redevelopment revenues eventually would be sent to school districts (see , February 2003). Local government lobbyists in Sacramento, however, were quick to point out that a budget had not been adopted, so they were not about to slow their efforts to protect local revenues. "We remain on edge because it's never over until it's over," said California Redevelopment Association (CRA) Executive Director John Shirey. "What gives us pause is the bigger issue, and that is the $35 billion to $38 billion budget deficit." Until there is agreement on the budget, state officials could still come looking to local governments for money, Shirey said. Jean Korinke, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, agreed. "Until the bill is actually signed by the governor, anything can happen," she warned. When the budget will hit the governor's desk is anyone's guess. No one expects the Legislature to complete its work by the June 15 constitutional deadline. But lobbyists and Capitol insiders said they believe a budget stalemate would not extend past July, in part because of a recent state Supreme Court ruling that limits pay for nearly all state employees if the state does not have a budget when the fiscal year starts on July 1. Another factor is pressure from Wall Street financiers, who want as much certainty as possible. Their opinions matter a great deal these days because the budget will likely rely on some form of debt. As the budget debate continued, the state was attempting to peddle $11 billion in short-term notes to cover cash-flow needs, the largest such debt issuance in American history. The concept of shifting property tax increment from redevelopment agencies to schools is not one that Republicans support, said Sen. Dick Ackerman (R-Tustin), vice chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "When people set up redevelopment agencies, they set up the agencies for a particular purpose, and it's not fair for the state to change the rules on them," Ackerman said. Additionally, new redevelopment agencies are obliged to negotiate with other taxing entities — including school districts — about the allocation of tax increment, so the state need not get involved, Ackerman said. Redevelopment funding is especially important to cities and counties because establishment of a redevelopment project area allows the local government to keep increases in property tax revenues. This is one of the few ways that cities and counties can boost property tax receipts. Lobbyists said they have found a fairly receptive audience in the Capitol this year. The CRA has emphasized the economic development aspects of redevelopment. "We have a number of legislators who look beyond the critics of redevelopment who see that it creates a lot of jobs, and that it provides housing," Shirey said. Of course, the proposed tax shift away from redevelopment agencies is not the only budget proposal that could impact local governments, although the idea might have the most immediate impact on land use planning and development. The administration's proposed "realignment" from the state to county of many social service responsibilities — worth about $8 billion annually — has been watered down a great deal. Vehicle license fees (VLF), which go entirely to cities and counties, appear likely to return to their pre-1998 level. The state cut the fees twice starting in 1998 but has "backfilled" the reduced amount to cities and counties. A Davis administration proposal to eliminate the backfill met stiff resistance; however, state lawmakers might attempt to add conditions to the VLF revenues that impact local land use planning. Requiring cities and counties to meet certain housing goals is one possible condition. While the VLF debate involves about $3 billion annually, a proposal to eliminate the state's Williamson Act subventions would have saved the state only $39 million in 2003-04. The governor's May revision reversed course and contained the subvention. Elimination of the subvention — in which the state replaces property tax dollars lost by counties because of tax breaks given to owners of farmland and timber land — would have most affected poor, rural counties. Shirey and other representatives of local government said they might be willing to accept a one-time financial hit in exchange for future constitutional protection of revenues. Local governments would most like to see that protection come in the form of a constitutional amendment — possibly like Proposition 98, which ensures schools get a certain percentage of state spending. During the League of California Cities' first-ever extraordinary session of the general assembly in May, delegates approved a resolution in which the organization promised to support increased local "contributions" to the state budget only if the Legislature placed on the ballot a constitutional amendment protecting local sales and property taxes and VLF revenues. Last year, the League and the California State Association of Counties considered an initiative that would provide this protection. However, it appears that lawmakers on either side of the aisle might be willing to carrying a constitutional amendment. Both Senate Minority Leader Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga) and Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) have talked to local government representatives about the idea. How the budget division between Republicans and Democrats will impact local government revenues is unknown. A Republican-prepared budget proposal cut only $500 million from local government revenues, and that was done by eliminating some state mandates, Sen. Ackerman said. Democrats, especially Davis, have been cool to the GOP proposal. Contacts: State Sen. Dick Ackerman, (916) 445-4264. John Shirey, California Redevelopment Association, (916) 448-8760. Jean Korinke, League of California Cities, (916) 658-8245. Assembly Budget Committee website: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=4

An environmental impact report for a dairy in Madera County has survived a challenge from an organization that fights dairy expansion in the Central Valley. The Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the EIR's handling of endangered species issues, project alternatives and cumulative groundwater impacts was inadequate. Thomas Terpstra, the attorney for Diamond H Dairy and the county, said the ruling is important because the Fifth District undertook an independent analysis of some agency comments on the draft EIR. In some past California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases, the Fifth District has given "undue deference to third party comments," Terpstra said. In this case, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) had found that the dairy would cause the loss of habitat for the endangered kit fox, so the agency made recommendations for mitigations. The final EIR, however, relied on a biologists' report that found no evidence of kit fox habitat; the EIR did not mandate the USFWS mitigations. Instead, the document said the developer would be required to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Terpstra said there was nothing that triggered the ESA, so proposed mitigations were unnecessary. Project opponents have asked the state Supreme Court to review decision. That appeal focuses on the Fifth District's ruling that an analysis of a smaller alternative project did not have to appear in the EIR. The court ruled that the alternatives analysis could be presented as evidence during a public hearing. In 1999, Greg Hooker and Diamond H Dairy applied for a conditional use permit to construct a dairy on 158 acres of an existing 1,925-acre cotton and grain farm southeast of Chowchilla. The applicant sought permission to develop a dairy with 4,480 milk cows, 700 dry cows and 4,000 replacement heifers, along with the associated barns. Processing was proposed to take place off-site. The county initially approved a mitigated negative declaration for the project. When the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) appealed, the Board of Supervisors ordered preparation of an EIR. The county issued the draft EIR in February 2001 and it concluded the dairy would cause significant, unavoidable impacts on groundwater quality, air quality and odors. Four months later, the Board of Supervisors adopted the EIR, including findings of overriding consideration, and approved the project. An organization called Association of Irritated Residents and CRPE sued. Madera County Superior Court Judge Charles Wieland ruled for the county, so the project opponents appealed. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth District upheld Judge Wieland. During the litigation, the dairy was built and began operating. The kit fox, an endangered species, was a key part of the appeal. Project opponents argued that the field study of kit fox habitat in the EIR did not constitute "substantial evidence" because it was not completed within survey guidelines issued by the state Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The survey concluded that the dairy site did not provide habitat for any listed species. Opponents also contended the project developer must obtain an "incidental take" permit because of impacts to kit fox habitat. The court rejected both arguments. Neither DFG nor the USFWS commented on the methodology of the field survey in the EIR, the court noted. "CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every recommended test and perform all recommended research to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project. The fact that additional studies might be helpful does not mean that they are required," Justice Timothy Buckley wrote for the court. "The response to CRPE's comment adequately explains why a protocol level study in conformity with the survey guidelines was not conducted; no quality natural habitat was present on the site, no sensitive species or their sign was detected during the field survey and the NDDB query showed only one kit fox sighting a decade ago and it was over eight miles south of the dairy site," Buckley continued. As for the take permit, the court found that the EIR "did not limit the federal government's jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act or impair its ability to enforce the provisions of this statute." Regarding the alternatives analysis, the project opponents challenged the Board of Supervisors' finding that a smaller dairy was infeasible. The opponents said evidence supporting the board's decision — such as an analysis by a dairy consulting firm — should have appeared in the EIR so the public could comment. This argument is also the basis for the appeal to the state Supreme Court. "We disagree," Buckley wrote. "First, CEQA Guidelines § 15131 provides that economic data is not required to be included in an EIR. Second § 21081.5 states that a finding of infeasibility shall be based ‘on substantial evidence in the record.'" The analysis and a letter from a lender saying it would not finance the smaller dairy "constitute substantial evidence," the court ruled. The court also rejected opponents' arguments regarding cumulative effects on groundwater quality. Opponents said the EIR's discussion of cumulative impacts amounted to conclusory statements unsupported by evidence. But the EIR satisfied the court. "The conclusions concerning salinity and nitrogen loading are supported by adequate analysis and factual detail," Buckley wrote. "The DEIR explained why nitrogen loading is not likely to be a cumulative problem. The agency was not required to provide evidence supporting every fact contained in this section. … Appellants' argument to the contrary is premised on the mistaken position that the cumulative impacts section of an EIR must be as detailed as the consideration of the proposed project itself. This is incorrect." Brent Newell, an attorney for CRPE, said the court ignored two studies the organization submitted regarding groundwater in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. "The court seemed to be pretty generous to the agency's interpretation of the applicability of evidence," he said. But Terpstra said the EIR's handling of cumulative impacts was solid. A comprehensive geology/hydrology report and an analysis of the regional dairy industry were included, he said. The court simply applied the "rule of reason" to the cumulative impacts section, he said. The Case: , No. F041012, 03 C.D.O.S. 3392, 2003 DJDAR 4305. Filed April 1, 2003. Ordered published April 17, 2003. The Lawyers: For AIR: Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, (415) 346-4179. For the county and Diamond H Dairy: Thomas Terpstra, Herum, Crabtree & Brown, (209) 472-7700.

What began as an effort to prevent desecration of Native American sacred sites morphed this spring into a profound change in California's mining regulations, a change potentially so costly to mine operators that industry representatives predicted it would bring an end to one of the state's signature commercial activities: Gold mining. But a closer examination of industry projections suggests that gold mining is already on its way out as a large-scale commercial activity in California, a development with great symbolic importance but few practical implications for the state's economy. The regulatory changes put into place in April may hasten that trend, but they did not set it in motion. California has long had a conflicted relationship with the precious metal responsible for its abrupt vault into statehood more than 150 years ago. Gold's lure and luster transformed this sleepy provincial outpost almost overnight into an urban power, fueling a tide of immigration and creating vast wealth. Almost as quickly, the quest for California gold began to visit ruin upon the state's other great assets: water, forests and farmland. In the early days of the gold rush, the destructive environmental effects of mining were localized and on a small scale. But when miners had taken all of the easily found gold, they turned to large-scale industrial operations to get at gold buried in vast deposits of sand and gravel laid down by ancient rivers. In particular, they began using high-pressure blasts of water from giant brass nozzles to wash away entire hillsides. Nearly unimaginable quantities of debris washed downstream from the Sierra Nevada hydraulic mines, choking rivers and burying farmland. The Sacramento River rose seven feet in elevation as its bed was inundated with sand and silt. More than a billion cubic yards of tailings washed into San Francisco Bay, impeding navigation and turning the ocean brown at the Golden Gate. Altogether, Gold Rush-era miners picked up and moved about 5.6 billion cubic yards of California, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Gold miners are still picking up and moving vast amounts of California, but the technology has changed considerably. Since the 1950s, the state's gold production has been derived primarily from giant open-pit operations in the Mojave Desert, where vast amounts of rock containing minuscule amounts of the precious metal are excavated, pulverized and bathed in cyanide. As the cyanide leaches through heaps of gold-bearing ore, the cyanide collects the precious metal, which is later extracted from the liquid solution. Because it takes 20 tons or more of this low-grade ore to produce an ounce of gold, the holes produced by open-pit mining are substantial. A project proposed by Glamis Gold Ltd. in southeastern Imperial County would, for example, be 800 feet deep and a mile wide, and spread over more than 1,500 acres. The Glamis project is the main reason for the new regulations. The mine on the federally owned Fort Yuma reservation would occupy a site sacred to the Quechan Indian Nation. Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt denied the company's permit application in January 2001 because of effects on the tribe's cultural resources, but the decision was reversed by his successor, Gale Norton, nine months later. Outraged tribal representatives persuaded lawmakers earlier this year to approve SB22 by Sen. Byron Sher, (D-Palo Alto). Signed April 7 by Gov. Gray Davis, the law requires that open-pit mines on Native American sacred lands be filled back in after they close and the landscape restored to its natural contours. The added expense rendered the proposed Glamis project unprofitable, according to the company. On April 10, Davis' appointees to the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) adopted regulations extending the SB22 reclamation requirements to all new open-pit metallic mines in California. Although state law long has required mine operators to submit post-closure reclamation plans with their permit applications, that reclamation generally consisted of revegetation and steps to prevent the mine from harming air and water quality. Filling up the holes, although an option, was not usually required, said John Parrish, the SMGB's executive officer. Mining companies externalized that cost, he said, leaving such restoration up to the public, if it was performed at all. In the May issue of its newsletter, the California Mining Association (CMA) quoted industry representatives who were furious with the new regulations. "We will not dig another hole," said Richard De Voto, president of Canyon Resources, which operates a mining operation in the Panamint Valley. With millions of dollars and 14 years already invested in that project, he said, the company is considering a lawsuit on the grounds that its property has been devalued. "In the end the losers are not just the miners but the people of California," said CMA Manager Adam Harper. "Mining in California is practiced under the strictest of environmental rules and procedures in the world. Effectively banning the activity will only mean that the resources will get produced outside the state and possibly the country, continuing the process of exporting the high-paying jobs that are needed in America." Mining opponents had a different take. "The passage of the regulations indicates that California is serious about protecting the people of California from the environmental harm that can be caused by inadequately reclaimed open pit mines, protecting the irreplaceable sacred places of California Indians," Mike Jackson, president of the Quechan Indian Nation, said in a tribal press release. Parrish said the new regulations may, indeed, make new open pit mines unprofitable "at today's prices and today's technology." But if the price of gold rises from its current level of around $350 an ounce, or if the cost of production falls, the equation will change and mining companies again will be willing to dig, Parrish said. Even before the new regulations, however, California gold mining was a dying industry. According to the California Geological Survey's most recent report on nonfuel mineral production in the state, gold production declined 19% from 2000 to 2001, and is expected to drop by about 70% over the next two to three years. Gold accounts for only $122 million of the state's $3.3 billion in annual nonfuel mineral production, dwarfed by unglamorous products such as construction sand and gravel (($953 million) and Portland cement ($768 million). California may never be known as the Concrete State, but its future appears less golden than its past. Contacts: John Parrish, State Mining and Geology Board, (916) 322-1982. Adam Harper, California Mining Association, (916) 447-1977. Mike Jackson, Quechan Nation, (760) 572-0213. California Geological Survey: www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/index.htm

As California's population continues to grow, portions of the state are undergoing the process of urbanization. Although it might appear simple to determine what land is urban and what is not, different interpretations of "urban" can complicate discussions of farmland preservation, development patterns, placement of infrastructure and other issues. It is difficult to imagine how someone could define downtown San Francisco as anything but urban. But what about a Wal-Mart parking lot, or ranchette development, which to urban planners might as well be a forest but to a conservationist represents a loss of habitat? For land to be urbanized, does it merely need to be fenced off, or does it need to have a skyscraper? Although the definition of "urban" depends on the question you are interested in answering, the definition of most utility often will depend on the data available. Analysts have created several datasets that characterize urbanization (and other land uses) over broad geographical extent, including, • Census Urbanized Area (1990, 2000) • National Resources Inventory (NRI) Land Cover/Use (1982, 1987, 1992, 1997) • California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (1984–2000) • US Geological Survey, National Land Cover Dataset (USGS) (1992). Each of these datasets takes aim at a specific definition of urbanization. The Census Bureau is interested in where people live, NRI in land removed from the rural land base, FMMP in land removed from agricultural production, and USGS in areas of constructed material. Beyond varying definitions, each dataset uses different source data and applies different methodology. The chart, which represents the Bay Area (sans San Francisco) plus Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, illustrates a large spread in values for any given year in trends over time. For example, • The Census data shows a decrease in urbanized land between 1990 and 2000, indicating that a Census Bureau change in methodology overwhelmed changes on the ground • NRI data indicates that the region is more urban and is urbanizing at nearly twice the rate as determined by FMMP • 1992 USGS shows 40% less urbanized land than the 1990 Census. To examine differences between these datasets in spatial detail, we have mapped urbanization patterns for the City of Vacaville in Solano County. Located on the western edge of the Sacramento Valley, Vacaville is a city with steady growth in housing, retail and offices, surrounded by grazing and agricultural land. The map shows obvious disparities. For example, the Census Bureau considered the offshoot of incorporated land on the northeast end of town as urban in 1990, but not in 2000. The other datasets identified only spotty development in that area. Beyond the city limits are many pockets of development considered urban by USGS, but not by the other datasets. Conversely, the USGS data shows pockets of non-urban land within the developed area, while FMMP and Census data do not. It is also evident that transportation corridors, which are considered urban by the USGS, are not according to the Census and FMMP. Many of these discrepancies can be explained by the scales of analysis. The Census works at the census block level, which is often 2 to 3 acres in urban settings, several times greater in the suburbs, and hundreds of acres in rural areas. The FMMP is interested in plots greater than 10 acres, and USGS operates on a pixel size of only 30 meters. Other differences are due to definitions. In some places where development has occurred, there are simply not enough people for the Census to consider it urban. And while USGS considers the structures in these areas urban, the remaining spaces between the structures are often too small for FMMP to consider as valuable farmland, or too enclosed for NRI to classify as natural habitat. To those entities, that land is already urban. To highlight the ambiguity, FMMP has created classification called "other," which perhaps is overly broad to be useful, yet which often contains land in transition, or that is difficult to define. USGS has a class called "urban/recreational grasses" meant to identify green space within the built environment. Both classes have land with urban characteristics. All of this goes to show that land you might call urban, and which may be indisputably developed to some degree, may not be considered urban by someone else. Proper selection and usage of this data requires an understanding of its finer points.

The SANDAG Board of Directors voted unanimously last week to adopt the final version of its Regional Transportation Plan, called San Diego Forward : The Regional Plan. The plan will invest $204 billion into transportation infrastructure projects over the next 35 years, including provisions for 1 million more county residents and 300,000 more jobs. The RTP calls for investment in in transit projects, bikeways, pedestrian improvements, and a Managed Lanes network between now and 2050. It designates half the region as open space, and exceeds greenhouse gas reduction targets set for the region by the California Air Resources Board. New infrastructure includes five new trolley lines, 32 new Rapid lines, and significant increases in transit frequencies; 160 miles of Managed Lanes to existing freeways for the specific purpose of allowing transit, carpools, and vanpools to be more efficient and bypass traffic; and 275 miles of bikeways. "What that means is that in the two or three decades before, where the region was stretching out, it kind of stretched to the limit now," SANDAG Executive Director Gary Gallegos told the Los Angeles Times . "Now what it is doing is growing up. The reason I think that's important is that as our transportation plans evolve, we need to take that into account." Some critics have said that the plan focuses too much on freeways, while others say that some areas of the county will not benefit from the plan soon enough. The plan is linked to the 2011 regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (see prior CP&DR coverage ); it has been mired in lawsuits over its measurement of greenhouse gas emissions (see prior CP&DR coverage ). Coastal Commission Willing to Entertain Banning Ranch Proposal  The Coastal Commission has decided to give a developer 90 days to alter its plan for a mixed-use development at Banning Ranch, a 401-acre site that is one of the largest privately owned pieces of undeveloped land in Orange County. The plan would build 1,375 homes, a 75-room boutique hotel, 75,000 square feet of retail and several parks on about 95 acres of the property (see prior CP&DR coverage ). It is currently used for oil operations. Coastal Commission staff had previously recommended denial of the project because it would affect the sensitive habitat, including wetlands, of coastal species including the threatened California gnatchacher. "There has to be a project that is less invasive," commission vice chairwoman Dayna Bochco said to the developer. "You chose a place that is very, very sensitive." Coastal Commissioners were hesitant to outright deny the project, as it would condense the oil operations to about 16.5 acres near the center of the project, include extensive mitigation of the oilfields, and would retain about 261 acres of open space. Report: Scorecard of California's Transit Stations A new report from the nonprofit Next 10 and prepared by the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at the UC Berkeley School of Law grades the state's various transit stations, judging which stations perform the best overall when it comes to connecting riders to key amenities, cutting the environmental impact of transportation and contributing to a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly community. Among other highlights, San Francisco MUNI's Market and Church Street station scored a chart-topping A+ for near-perfect walkability score while San Diego's Gillespie Field Station, located in a car-dependent area, received an F. The Santa Clara VTA's Japantown/Ayer Station performed the best system wide, receiving a B+ from the researchers, while the Middlefield Station, located in a low-density area toward the edge of the system's service area scored low across all indicators.  Of the six transit systems evaluated, MUNI scored a B, followed by BART, which earned a B-, Los Angeles Metro Rail and Sacramento Regional Transit, both of which scored Cs, and San Diego Metropolitan Transit and Santa Clara VTA, both of which scored C-. "Stations serving walkable neighborhoods with plenty of conveniently located homes and businesses scored highest," Ethan Elkind, lead author and associate director of the Climate Change and Business Program at CLEE, said in a press release. "Neighborhoods that provide these local amenities encourage ridership. And the more demand, the better the economic performance of the transit system." U.S. Supreme Court Threatens San Jose Stadium Plans The U.S. Supreme Court shut down San Jose's request to review baseball's exemption from antitrust laws in an attempt to lure the Oakland A's to San Jose (see prior CP&DR commentary ). In refusing to hear San Jose's appeals, the court allowed to stand an appeals court ruling that upheld baseball's unique exemption from federal antitrust laws. The court's refusal effectively kills plans to build the stadium. Now, the City of San Jose is moving on from the legal battle, seeking other ways to develop the site right in the heart of Silicon Valley near the region's largest transit hub, the Diridon transit station. The A's, however, will still retain control of the proposed stadium site until November 2018. The court decision is viewed as a boost to backers in Oakland who are seeking to build a new stadium at the Coliseum site, which will now likely only include a baseball team, instead of the previous plan that would house both the Raiders and the A's. Concord to Reconsider Proposals for $6 Billion Naval Base Redevelopment In the wake of accusations that a developer improperly lobbied city officials for a favorable vote on a development in Concord, the Concord City Council will choose between two companies for the rights to redevelop the former 5,000-acre Concord Naval Base. The council previously cancelled the final vote on the $6 billion project after Catellus Development Company --one of the two companies fighting for the rights to develop the project -- accused the other company, Lennar Urban, of improperly lobbying Mayor Tim Grayson, who will vote on the developer selection. Catellus cited Lennar's relationship with former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who is working with Lennar at Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco and met in August with Grayson. The final vote on the project, which could support up to 12,000 units of housing and over six million square feet of commercial space, will be held Oct. 15. National APA Honors Two ‘Great Places' in California San Diego's Balboa Park and Los Angeles' Olvera Street were honored this year American Planning Association's annual Great Places in America program, which highlights places that offer better choices for where and how people work and live and that have a true sense of cultural interest. Olvera Street was highlighted as a "Great Street" for its position as a hub of historic significance in the oldest section of Los Angeles, with crafts, artisan shops, and eateries all highlighting the city's Mexican culture. "There is a striking contrast between Olvera's tight quarters in the sprawling context of what has now become of the second largest city in the U.S. Olvera Street continues to be a living monument to the city's history, with a festive atmosphere of celebration that adds to an unmatched and authentic liveliness reflecting the city's birthplace," the APA states on its website. Balboa Park was highlighted as a "Great Public Space," with its 1,200 acres of land containing the San Diego Zoo, 15 major museums, indoor and outdoor performance spaces, lush gardens, and restaurants. "Balboa Park exemplifies the considerable traffic and allure that a large, urban park can achieve when a variety of uses are planned and maintained within the space as a whole," the APA website states. Survey Registers Support for Bay-Delta Tunnel A private survey of 1,500 registered voters finds strong support for the Bay-Delta tunnel project to transport water to Southern California cities, in spite of vocal opposition from groups in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Specifically, the survey from advocacy group Californians for Water Security found that 55 percent of voters across a broad political and ideological spectrum supported the project, and that after voters were read "an explanatory statement" that frames the issue, support jumped to 79 percent. The survey also found that 36 percent of voters said the drought is the state's most important issue, double the percentage in early 2015. High Speed Rail Seeks Private Investors Following criticism over a lack of private investors lining up to finance the $68 billion high speed rail project, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced it has received 35 responses from companies interested in financing, building, and operating the first 300-mile segment of the project. The firms include, among others, London-based Barclays Bank, the Chinese High Speed Rail Delivery Team, Siemens industry Inc., Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation, and AECOM. "Until now we have been saying, 'There will be private sector interest.' Now the private sector is saying 'There will be private sector interest,'" California High-Speed Rail Authority Chief Executive Jeff Morales .  Voters have already approved nearly $10 billion in bonds for the project. The federal government has also committed $3.5 billion in matching funds, and the state legislature agreed to provide the first ongoing source of financial support to the project, including a quarter of all revenues from the state's greenhouse gas emissions program. Report: Bay Area En Route to Full Employment UCLA economists predict that the Bay Area's unemployment rate could fall below 5 percent in 2016, reaching "full employment" and further exacerbating the area's housing crisis. The study from the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy finds that home and rental prices will likely rise as the area reaches full employment, with more jobs meaning more people moving to the Bay Area, which leads to more traffic and higher rents. "It's good news on the job and wage front for everybody," Stephen Levy of the UCLA center told CBS. "The problem is that unless you make ... a lot of money your rent or home prices are far outpacing the gains that you're getting in income."

The San Diego Association of Governments is expected to adopt a plan to guide the city's transportation infrastructure for the next 35 years, emphasizing densely populated neighborhoods and putting skyways and light-rail stations in the county's beach communities. Some transportation activist groups are saying that the plan doesn't adequately match up with the city's Climate Action Plan. The SANDAG plan, called New Climate for Transportation, has the goal of 15 percent of San Diegans commuting without a car by 2035, while the Climate Action Plan's goal is to have 50 percent of the population commuting without a car by the same year. With two major supporters of the Climate Action Plan -- Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Councilman Todd Gloria -- also sitting on the SANDAG board, activist groups Climate Action Campaign and Circulate San Diego say that the city has already given up on its Climate Action Plan before it even gave it a shot. "SANDAG's own projections show that it is mathematically impossible for the city of San Diego to achieve its transit and active transportation goals with the transportation network SANDAG is currently planning," the joint report from the two transit advocacy groups concludes . The plan envisions $204 billion in transportation spending, half of which would go to public transit like new light-rail lines, skyways and buses. Some $42 billion would go toward highway construction, and in particular, managed lanes, along with $5 billion to encourage biking and walking. Sacramento Railyard Redevelopment Clears Hurdle  A Sacramento development firm has finalized the purchase of the city's 240-acre downtown railyard, the development of which would effectively double the size of Sacramento's downtown. The land will likely be developed into a Major League Soccer stadium, a hospital, a new institute for the University of California Davis, and thousands of homes. The purchaser, Downtown Railyard Venture LLC, is owned by veteran developer Larry Kelley, and the purchase was held up for over a year over negotiations of financial responsibility for cleanup of toxic materials. The city's official plan for the site, adopted eight years ago, calls for construction of as many as 12,000 homes. Additionally, Kaiser Permanente announced plans to build a hospital at the northwest corner of the railyard in the next seven to 10 years; the city's minor-league soccer club could build a 22,000 seat, $100 million soccer stadium in the northwest corner; and UC Davis is considering building an extension campus there focused on research into global food supply issues. Group Advocates Endangered Status for Joshua Trees In the wake of scientific modeling that suggests Joshua Trees could lose 90 percent of their range by the end of the century, a conservation group known as WildEarth Guardians is petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the desert succulents as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The trees, which grow up to 40 feet high, live more than 200 years and are the namesake of the 800,000-acre Joshua Tree National Park, were subject to large-scale brush fires in the 1990s along with replacement by development in desert boom towns in the 1980s. Some conservationists have proposed translocation efforts and habitat restoration programs to save the trees from widespread extirpation. Google Collaborates on Air Pollution Monitoring Aclima, a company that builds air pollution sensors announced a deal to put its equipment on Google's Street View cars to measure smog levels in California and post the detailed information on Google Maps. The sensors will record and report everything from levels of soot to nitrogen oxides to greenhouse gases in greater detail than the stationary air pollution monitoring equipment that government agencies already operate on top of buildings. "We have a pretty large network of air monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area. But we don't have a lot of measurements in between them," Eric Stevenson, director of meteorology, measurement and rules for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in San Francisco, told San Jose Mercury News. "So this technology gives us the ability to get a better understanding neighborhood by neighborhood what the differences are." Data from the Bay Area will be posted starting in 2016. Beginning next year, cars with the sensors will be on the roads in Los Angeles and the Central Valley. Eventually, if the system is successful, the readings could affect real estate values, highlight health risks around schools, hospitals and parks and even advise cities where to plant trees or synchronize traffic lights to reduce smog. State to Chip in for Key L.A. River Parcel The state of California has agreed to pay the $25 million majority purchase price for a parcel that Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti called the "crown jewel" of the Los Angeles River restoration project in Cypress Park. The parcel, spanning 40 acres in Taylor Yard, is the largest remaining piece of undeveloped riverfront land and is currently owned by Union Pacific Co. City and federal officials are in the final stages of working out a cost-sharing agreement for what is expected to be a $1.4-billion restoration of 11 miles of the river in northeast and downtown L.A. -- an area including the Taylor Yard parcel. "For decades we've been talking about revitalizing and restoring the L.A. River, to no avail," state Senate leader Kevin de León announced a recent event. "But now we have real money, and real vision." SF Mayor Proposes Density Bonus San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has proposed a density bonus that would ease the city's building height limit in exchange for including more affordable units. Under the proposal, developers would be allowed two extra stories of height on projects with 30 percent of affordable housing, and an extra three stories on 100 percent affordable developments. Within the 30 percent sector, it calls for 18 percent of the units to be affordable to families making between 120 and 140 percent of area median income, which is $122,000 to $142,000 for a family of four. The remaining 12 percent would cater to low- to moderate-income residents. High Speed Rail Authority to Test in Angeles National Forest The California High Speed Rail Authority has asked for permission to test-drill deep into the federally-protected Angeles National Forest to determine the feasibility of an alternate-route rail tunnel through the San Gabriel Mountains. The request comes as residents in the cities of Acton, Santa Clarita, and San Fernando protested the original route along the 14 Freeway Corridor, prompting the rail authority to add three other possible tunneled routes for the bullet train to be constructed under the Angeles forest, connecting Burbank and Palmdale. If allowed to perform its tests, the rail authority will drill down 900 feet to 2,500 feet below the surface in up to eight locations of the northwestern portion of the Angeles, only along existing forest roads. By examining the test borings, the rail authority can determine the soil, water content and locate earthquake faults, all necessary to complete an Environmental Impact Report on the high-speed train's alignment from Palmdale to Burbank. Now, the U.S. Forest Service is asking the public for their thoughts on whether to allow the rail authority to proceed with its tunnel study. HUD Awards $30 Million Grant to Sacramento Sacramento's Housing and Redevelopment Agency will receive a $30 million federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to implement the Neighborhood Transformation Plan (NTP) for the River District, which will allow a complete replacement and redevelopment of the 218 distressed public housing units within the Twin Rivers Neighborhood. Twin Rivers, one of Sacramento's oldest public housing development, has long been isolated and disconnected from its surrounding community, providing limited access to vital services. The grant comes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Choice Neighborhoods program, which supports locally driven strategies to address distressed public housing through a comprehensive approach to neighborhood transformation. "The housing and infrastructure at Twin Rivers is old and must be replaced," Congresswoman Doris Matsui announced. "This grant will help us replace the housing, improve the transportation connections to the neighborhood, and implement a number of social services that will benefit the area's residents. I am confident that this grant will truly transform our community." FTA Awards $19 Million in Grants to Four Calif. Agencies Four California transportation organizations became recipients of a share of $19.5 million in grants to support planning projects that improve access to public transit through the Federal Transit Administration's Transit-Oriented Development Planning Pilot Program. Among the recipients , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments received $1,118,720 to develop a toolkit of policy and regulatory changes to implement its Downtown Riverfront Streetcar; the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board received $600,000 for its Caltrain Electrification Project; the San Diego Association of Governments received $429,635 to implement its Mid-Coast Corridor Light Rail Project connecting to colleges and medical facilities north of downtown; and Oakland's Bay Area Rapid Transit district received $1,100,000 to reinforce the BART system through the Transbay Core Capacity Project. $9 Billion School Bond Gains Support Supporters of a $9 billion statewide school-construction bond have gathered enough signatures to put it on the November 2016 ballot, the first potential bond measure since $10.4 billion was approved in 2006. The current pot of bond money is almost tapped out, and the state faces an estimated $20 billion backlog of applications. The building industry association and the Coalition for Adequate School Housing bankrolled efforts to collect the necessary 365,880 signatures. Lawmakers tried to put a school bond on last year's ballot during the final days of the 2014 legislative session. The effort fizzled as the Brown administration made clear that it opposed the legislation, saying that local agencies could do the job more efficiently. Organizers can withdraw the initiative up until June 30, 2016 – allowing time for possible negotiations with the Legislature and Brown on a substitute. UCLA Report: Housing Costs Trending Upwards A UCLA economic forecast predicts that housing in California will become even less affordable over the next two years, and that existing affordable housing policy will be unable to keep up with demand as the economy grows. "The economics are clear," UCLA Anderson Forecast Senior Economist Jerry Nickelsburg wrote in the forecast. "When affordable housing is provided, say by requiring developers to have a fixed percentage of their new units ‘affordable,' then the demand for that housing will be in excess of the supply." He added that just building more housing is unrealistic because such a move would require major changes in zoning codes, environmental requirements and building regulations. "This being the case, affordable housing policy needs to be explicit about who the housing is for," he wrote. "For example, one might advocate affordable housing so that teachers in public schools can purchase housing that would otherwise be difficult for them to acquire." He predicted a total employment of 2.7 percent this year and 2.2 percent next year. Chinese Company Backs L.A.-Las Vegas Rail Project A potential high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and Las Vegas gained a boost as a Chinese rail company committed $100 million in initial funding to the project. The rail link, which would make the 230-mile trip last about 80 minutes on electric trains that travel around 150 mph, could have important environmental and traffic impacts on a crowded highway corridor that generates an estimated 3 million car trips per year. The partnership between XpressWest and China Railway International USA is vital as China has considerable expertise with about 10,000 miles of high-speed rail track. Construction of the line could begin as early as September 2016.

The University of California-Davis has laid out its "University of the 21st Century" plan to build $2 billion in graduate programs and a veterinary hospital in downtown Sacramento. The satellite campus would include two new schools, one focusing on population and global health and another a public policy institute, offering master's degree programs that could be expanded to undergraduate programs depending on demand, Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi said during the school's fall convocation. "We want to be visible," Katehi said in an interview with the Sacramento Bee. "We are the only UC so close to the state Capitol. … We need to create a name and a brand in the policy area. Whether it is food, water, energy sustainability or health, I think we can play an amazing role." UC Davis, which currently holds a UC-system-high $1.3 billion in deferred maintenance, is just one of three schools proposing satellite campuses in downtown Sacramento, also including The University of the Pacific and Sacramento State. Katehi said that the university will break ground immediately after the UC Board of Regents approves the plans, expecting to complete the first building within three years. ABAG, MTC Spar Over Regional Planning Proposal  In the wake of the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission's proposal to transfer all regional land use planning and research staff from the Association of Bay Area Governments to MTC, ABAG has issued a statement  (pdf) opposing the transfer, saying that it could result in insolvency for ABAG. Requesting that the proposal not be fast-tracked, ABAG said that if the proposal comes for efficiency's sake, then the two organizations should collaborate and seek new ways to utilize fewer taxpayer dollars. However, if MTC is proposing the transfer because it is planning on taking on a new land use role, ABAG said that the two agencies should begin discussions about a merger. Coastline in Danger of El Nino-Fueled Erosion An international group of 17 experts says in a new that California's coast is vulnerable to rapid erosion in coming years due to a battering from strong weather patterns like El Niño, which brings warmer eastern Pacific water to California and produces intense storms. The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that severe weather events in the entire Pacific basin have been increasing for more than 30 years and are expected to double. The scientists surveyed 48 beaches bordering the Pacific and analyzed detailed climate events around the Pacific stretching from 1979 to 2012, and they compared it with a study by coastal scientist Wenju Cai which found that increased global warming and rising sea levels due to climate change would double the frequency of those severe weather events across the Pacific basin. Oakland to Abandon Coliseum Development Oakland officials will likely abandon the ambitious public-private Coliseum City development that would have turned the Coliseum site into a retail, tech, and housing center with 32,000 jobs while building new stadiums for the Raiders and A's. Officials had brought in Floyd Kephart, a San Diego businessman, to try to find a financing source for the stadium, but nothing materialized as the city spent $3.5 million on studies and as the Raiders sought relocation to Carson. Now, Mayor Libby Schaaf told the SF Gate that she has to convince Raiders owner Mark Davis that the city can't pay for a $1 billion, football-only stadium, and that he might have to take on new partners to finance a deal. ‘Heat Island' Effect Especially Pronounced in Los Angeles Greater Los Angeles has more of a "heat island effect," wherein the normal temperature of a city is raised as heat is trapped in concrete and pavement, than any other area in California, according to a from the California Environmental Protection Agency. According to the data, which used temperature records and atmospheric models to assess the temperature of various cities across California and then compared those temperatures with nearby rural areas that see similar heat, temperatures in some parts of LA could jump by 19 degrees due to the heat island effect. "We call it not an urban heat island but an urban heat archipelago because it's like a whole chain of urban heat islands that run into each other," Gina Solomon, Deputy Secretary for Science and Health with CalEPA, told KPCC. Solutions to the heat island effect in cities include planting more trees and bushes, painting roofs white so they don't absorb as much heat and using lighter colored concrete on streets and sidewalks. O.C. Cities Take Aim at Short-Term Rentals The cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana both passed 45-day emergency on short-term rentals through websites like Airbnb following hundreds of complaints of loud parties, parking issues, and crime in the cities. In Anaheim, where the number of short-term rentals has doubled from 200 to 400 since the city established regulations last year, the moratorium will only prevent officials from accepting new applications to start rentals, while currently-permitted businesses won't be affected. Anaheim has recently seen a flood of homes converted into short-term rentals, especially in the area around Disneyland, and officials report that half of the permitted rental operators have pulled construction permits, likely to add multiple bedrooms to increase the number of lodgers. In Santa Ana, the moratorium will ban operations of any short-term rental. It comes in response to a vacation home rental in the affluent Floral Park that triggered outcry from residents. San Diego Pursues Tech Solution to Project Review The City of San Diego is seeking to bypass a traditional bidding process and immediately implement an $11 million contract with the nation's top "project tracking" software firm to development projects more quickly and efficiently. The firm, Accela, today handle project tracking for 26 of the nation's 50 largest cities, and would replace the city's current in-house, makeshift tracking program that yearly handles 46,000 permits, processes 4,000 code enforcement cases, conducts 97,000 project reviews and handles 137,000 construction inspections. The five-year contract would cost the city $7 million during the first year. After that, the city would only pay $967,000 for a hosting fee and maintenance costs, is $217,000 more than what it spends currently. L.A. County to Promote Urban Farming The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has begun work on plans to offer five-year tax breaks to property owners who allow community members to convert of vacant lots to . An assessor's report in June found that around 57,000 lots across the county could be eligible for the program, though individual cities would be able to choose whether or not to take part. The program follows last year's state-wide Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act, which allowed for the tax breaks should counties decide to implement it.  Water District May Purchase Islands in Delta The Metropolitan Water District - Southern California's biggest water supplier - is discussing the of four islands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that could serve as a catalyst for the project to build two tunnels to transport water to Southern California cities. Plans for the tunnels are aligned geographically with two of the islands under discussion, and the islands are currently owned by Illinois-based Delta Wetlands Project, a public-private partnership that intended to turn Webb Tract and Bacon Island into reservoir islands during wet seasons to store 215,000 acre-feet of water. Critics of the potential sale are comparing it to the Owens Valley water wars, when Los Angeles built an acqueduct and acquired water rights through shady means in the early 1900s. "I find this really alarming," Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta executive director, told Inside Bay Area. "Farmers, communities, and fishing groups that live in the Bay-Delta Estuary region feel like the potential takeover of land and water rights by the Metropolitan Water District of California is akin to what happened to landowners in the Owens Valley who found their communities and water taken secretly by Los Angeles interests." Carlsbad Revamps General Plan The City of Carlsbad has adopted its first General Plan since 1994, including the city's first-ever Climate Action Plan and an accompanying Environmental Impact Report. The plan came as a result of eight years of work in public outreach that ultimately involved 8,000 residents and 100 community groups and organizations. Among other things, the plan will reduce the maximum number of homes that can be built in two proposed residential areas, and it summarized nine core values of Carlsbad, partially including: a small town feel, access to recreation, sustainability, and neighborhood revitalization. Oakland Sues Wells Fargo over Predatory Lending The Oakland city attorney's office has Wells Fargo in federal court alleging predatory lending practices against the city's black and hispanic residents, exacerbated during the housing crisis. The lawsuit, which alleges that Wells Fargo gave higher-risk loans to minority borrowers even if they qualified for favorable loans routinely given to white borrowers, asked the court to order Wells Fargo to end discriminatory practices and compensate the city for financial harm. From 2006 to 2011, banks issued more than 22,000 notices of default to Oakland homeowners, according to the Urban Strategies Council. Port of Long Beach Considers Options for Major Waterfront Parcel The Port of Long Beach has begun asking industry leaders, environmental groups, and the community for suggestions on how to best redevelop a largely vacant 150-acre pier on . Currently, about 30 acres is being used as a storage facility for loaded cargo containers and chassis called Pier S, which port officials have praised as an effective small-scale project to move cargo efficiently. "The success of the Pier S demonstration project has encouraged us to consider a more expansive use of the property to build on what learned about the efficiency of near-dock operations," said Port CEO Jon Slangerup in a statement. "The closing of the temporary depot on Pier S gives the Port an opportunity to study a more permanent use for the site, one that will mesh with our ongoing supply chain optimization effort."