In the latest step towards an alternative to redevelopment in Los Angeles, city officials are considering the creation of an "infrastructure district" to fund a $1 billion revitalization plan for the Los Angeles River. The district has been made possible by a new tax-sharing law designed to replace tax-increment financing that had been used by the hundreds of redevelopment agencies shut down by Sacramento in 2012.  The Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District will funnel a portion of future property taxes in the district into the revitalization project. Funds will go towards creating wetlands and wildlife habitats, landscaping near the interstate and constructing a new tributary. However, the districts will likely only be able to collect about 60 percent of what the now-defunct redevelopment agencies collected, partially because, unlike with redevelopment, funds cannot be diverted from schools and other special districts without the districts' approval. Acknowledging the limitations of this type of financing, attorney Jon E. Goetz told the Los Angeles Times, "Redevelopment was a power tool, and this is more like a hand tool." Court Validates Sale of Ontario Airport to L.A.; Dispute Rages On In the ongoing battle between the City of Ontario and Los Angeles World Airports, a San Bernardino county judge tentatively ruled that the regional airport should not have been sold to Los Angeles in the 1980s. However, the statute of limitations governing the sale ended in 1989, thus validating Los Angeles' ownership. The decision is a setback for Ontario, which is trying to regain control of the airport. The city has offered LAWA $250 million while LAWA is asking for nearly double that amount, contending that it has outstanding liabilities from a 1998 renovation of the airport. Litigation will continue as Ontario claims that LAWA breached its contract by allowing traffic to drop precipitously, from 7.2 million annual passengers in 2007 to 3.9 million in 2013. San Franciscans Win Fight Against Shadows Residents in San Francisco concerned about access to daylight scored a victory this month. For residents near Victoria Manalo Draves Park in San Francisco, sunshine is a precious resource. So when a developer proposed a six-story residential project that would cast a shadow on the park, residents pleaded with the Recreation and Park Commission to reject the project. Officials voted 5-0 to reject the project, recommending that the Planning Commission do the same. It is the one multi-use park in the neighborhood, which has much less acreage of green space than other San Francisco districts. Residents who spoke out against the development also cited gentrification as a reason for their opposition to the development. "Some may laugh about the importance of sunlight and the relevance of a shadow on land processes," San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim told the S.F. Examiner. "But let's face it, San Francisco is a cold city and affected by sunlight." Results Unclear in L.A.'s Longstanding Cash for Transit Program  A 23-year-old law designed to get Los Angeles workers to stop driving alone to work may not be as effective as lawmakers hoped. The law, passed in 1993, requires companies with at least 50 employees and with leased parking spaces to offer cash to workers agree to give up their parking spaces in favor of commuting methods such as walking, biking, or taking mass transit. Twenty-one years later, the California Air Resources Board, which is in charge of overseeing the program's implementation, has not kept track of many employers and workers are participating in the program.  Critics say that the eligibility rules have only applied to about 3 percent of free parking spaces provided by employers in California. In areas where the program has been implemented, though, researchers have shown that the program has been effective, dropping the percentage of employees who drove to work from 76 percent to 63 percent. According to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 90 percent of commuters in Los Angeles and Orange counties receive free parking at work. San Diego Faces $3.9 Billion Infrastructure Backlog The City of San Diego has released a comprehensive report estimating that the city needs $3.9 billion in infrastructure upgrades including roads, sewers, and storm drains. The report contends that, over the past several decades, the city's infrastructure has crumbled as politicians have dragged their feet in creating any long term plans for repairs. Officials now face the task of finding sources of funding for the repairs, with only $2.2 billion available, leaving a $1.7 billion gap. A significant portion of the needed funding comes because of new state rules requiring upgrades to storm drains to decrease pollutant discharge. Lemon Grove Planning Commission May Dissolve The mayor of the San Diego County city of Lemon Grove is seeking to dissolve the city's Planning Commission, saying that the City Council can do the job of the planning commissioners and save the city time and money. However, the city council has been hesitant to carry out this request. This week it called on city staff to determine the costs and effectiveness of the planning commission. Mayor Mary Sessom claims that having the City Council perform the duties of the planning commission could save the city thousands of dollars in wages. However, Former Planning Commissioner Racquel Vazquez said that it was important to have an additional "layer between special interests and those who are in elected office" in the city through the planning commission.

The 2035 Fresno  General Plan adopted by the City Council on December 18 puts the city's foot down on sprawl. Supporters see the approval as a major victory for Smart Growth principles, though it had critics on left and right. A strong center/left coalition joined Mayor Ashley Swearengin in backing the plan, However, environmental justice and equity activists asked how strongly the plan would limit suburban expansion and who would benefit from infill development. They sought policies for affordable housing and against displacement, and attention to industrial polluters such as the notorious Darling International rendering plant southwest of downtown.  Meanwhile, local developers and small-government advocates questioned whether the plan would curtail property rights or lifestyle choices, and asked if people accustomed to suburban densities and private auto use would remain in Fresno if it meant accepting denser housing, especially in the stigmatized downtown area. Tea Party-oriented opponents recoiled at federal funding for projects such as bus rapid transit (BRT). Something new As passed, the General Plan represents something new in Fresno, and uncommon in the Central Valley. It does not seek to expand the city's existing 157-square-mile sphere of influence. It projects about half of future growth within city limits; delays expansion in a southeast growth area; requires mitigations for lost farmland; and requires developers to study and share costs of peripheral projects. Keith Bergthold, who led the General Plan process as the city's Assistant Director of Planning until his move to the Fresno Metro Ministry in February 2014, said the plan is clearer about goals that also appeared in past plans, and that clarity will be "further supported" by the imminent update of the Development Code, last fully rewritten in the 1960s.  He said, "I'm not sure there was always a clear way to say no in the previous General Plan" to development that didn't fit the city's goals. Whereas now: "There are some ways to say no if appropriate and be more clear about it."  "We're trying to marry our land use policies with our transportation policies," said Arnoldo Rodriguez, Planning Manager with the city's Long Range Planning Division, who has led the General Plan process since Bergthold's departure. The plan raises densities in Fresno's demolition-ravaged downtown and on two corridors where BRT lines are projected to operate by 2016. The north-south Blackstone Avenue corridor and east-west Ventura/Kings Canyon are to form an "L" with its hinge downtown, near the hoped-for high-speed rail station. (At Swearingen's urging, the Fresno City Council finally accepted a state grant to do high-speed rail planning in October after rejecting the grant twice.) Rodriguez said the city was working on lowering parking requirements to encourage density -- for example, allowing denser re-uses of older buildings without requiring added parking. Rodriguez said the General Plan redesignates some land uses to separate future residential and industrial expansions while streamlining permitting for commercial, light industrial and business park uses, in hopes of attracting employers "that do more than warehousing". For heavy industrial uses the new code will provide "additional teeth" to avoid exacerbating existing conditions. Further goals include five acres of parkland per thousand residents and improved access to healthy food.  Bergthold said he looks forward to seeing some permits granted quicker, notably for mixed-use projects. He said: "The zoning code was almost incapable of implementing the infill policies of the General Plan adopted in 2002." Or rather, it worked well for suburban subdivisions at five units to the acre. "It was just fine for the kind of development that became predominant and became unbalanced." The existing code authorized mixed-used development in some commercial zones but didn't describe it specifically so the category was rarely used. Drama in December In the General Plan public process, begun in 2009 the City Council's most visible turning point toward "smart growth" was its 2012 approval of the "modified Alternative A" framework, to maintain existing sphere of influence boundaries and emphasize infill.  But the runup to the December 2014 final approval was dramatic . Some players, including the Fresno Bee editorial board , viewed the pace that the city set for the final approval round as unnecessarily brisk. Rodriguez responded that the final draft released November 21, 2014 "was simply a refinement of the draft plan that was originally released on July 2, 2014, and we made every effort to accurately reflect changes... we felt that the General Plan, in draft and final form reflected the values of the community while also addressing items discussed during the plethora of meetings and public hearings."  In making the case for an infill-focused plan, Rodriguez said arguments for fiscal responsibility "really resonated with a lot of folks". Apart from the service and infrastructure costs of expansion, an existing agreement entitles the county to share tax revenues from any further areas the city annexes. Bergthold wrote that the new plan shifts cost advantages toward infill: it "calls for fair and proportional payments to support public services and infrastructure, and fiscal impact analyses from development at the city's peripheries requiring annexation or asking for a General Plan amendment." (A lingering question, however, is if enough costs are factored in for police, fire and maintenance services.) In a published op-ed December 14, Fresno City Council president Steve Brandau (elected since 2012) criticized "social engineers," wrote that density increases would create "regional sprawl" by driving population to neighboring towns, and complained, "some pansy in Sacramento thinks we need to live closer together and ride the bus". A Fresno Bee news photo of the December 18 approval meeting showed Brandau glowering behind a tray of flowers. A Fresno Pansy Association appeared on Facebook. Christine Barker, who is Project Manager, Resilient Communities with the Fresno Metro Ministry, commented (speaking as an individual), "People are angry because he seems to think that only outsiders from Sacramento (i.e. state government and federal agencies) want to have a nice downtown, investment in existing communities and walkable neighborhoods." She wrote that some responded by claiming the term "pansy" -- "Then, fine, call me a pansy. But I'm a local pansy." The Granville Homes development company was among property owners seeking land use designation changes in the General Plan. Rodriguez provided tabulations showing that of 61 Granville requests, the City Council granted 32, rejected four, and deferred the rest for staff consideration, including a cluster of requests within Granville's Copper River Ranch development at the far north end of the city. Rodriguez said 11 outstanding designation change requests from various landowners remained to resolve after the approval, counting the Copper River matters as a single request. (The Granville requests' proponent was legendary Fresno developers' advocate Jeff Roberts, now a vice president with Granville. He declined to comment for this article.) The city's December 5 "land use change requests" document, reflects several requests to lower residential densities on peripheral land. Rodriguez said city staff opposed many, and often the City Council backed the staff. Public health, urban planning and activism Adoption of such a plan in an auto-oriented city reflects a shift in local thinking, though what kind of shift is debated. As discussed in the recent dissertation of Miriam Zuk, now Project Director at the UC-Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, the past decade saw a partial reunion of the public health and urban planning fields along New Urbanist and Smart Growth lines -- and, in Fresno, a revival of neighborhood community activism. Fresno-area organizing for public health has been better funded in recent years, notably by the California Endowment, which began funding a Building Healthy Communities (BHC) Initiative in Fresno in 2009.  The dissertation sees some remaining distance among goals pursued, whether by BHC grantees or other organizations: air quality; Smart Growth infill and healthy land use principles such as reducing auto use; campaigns for affordable housing, other economic equity, and environmental justice efforts to redress geography-based wrongs such as pollution in disadvantaged neighborhoods. A key question has been how much the General Plan's framers feel it can or should do to redress Fresno's long history of de jure and de facto racial segregation, which the dissertation recounts. People of color were historically restricted to the south and southwest sides of downtown by "whites-only" deed restrictions and redlining. Racial and economic disparities persist between the north and south of the city. Rodriguez said the south and west of the city are downwind and downslope, hence have historically received industrial uses. CalEnviroScreen 2.0 identifies California's most environmentally and socioeconomically burdened census tract as covering the downward-opening triangle between Highways 99 and 41 south of downtown. The dissertation finds that health goals were promoted largely where they were complementary to economic development goals.  Ashley Werner, an attorney with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, was working on General Plan advocacy with a coalition of social justice groups associated with the BHC Initiative. She said the coalition sought more economic equity guarantees, including affordable housing, and more enforceability for "visionary language," including assurances that the city would genuinely hold the line on expansion. A further cascade of processes The General Plan's approval clears the way for a further cascade of planning processes. To start with, a public draft of the Development Code rewrite is expected around April. Bergthold looked forward to mixed-use zoning specifics in the new code and to provisions "to connect authorized development density/intensity to specific designated areas and realistic infrastructure capacities." He said more density would depend on a water system upgrade bringing in treated surface water and looping transmission grid mains to strengthen the existing well-based system. The city also can now resume work on the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan. That process started out ahead of the General Plan but was suspended around 2011 to let the General Plan complete environmental review first. Drafts call for a form-based code, greater densities, flexibility for business growth, and coordination with plans for the high-speed rail station. A Fulton Corridor Specific Plan process will likewise resume. Additional specific and community plans will follow, notably for Southwest Fresno. A plan by consultant Peter Calthorpe, not yet adopted, is on hold for the Southeast Growth Area, where the General Plan defers development.  Housing element on deck Later in 2015, revision of Fresno's housing element will help decide who gets to live in the new infill housing. Rodriguez said the General Plan uses infill to meet Fresno's assigned regional housing growth goal, about 20,000 housing units -- where the old approach would have expanded the sphere of influence: "Oh, yeah, we just add five square miles and we're done." It's debated whether gentrification and displacement are dangers in Fresno. Werner wrote that a few low-income people live downtown, and "we are concerned about potential displacement downtown as well as in surrounding neighborhoods targeted for revitalization and around the BRT corridors." Homelessness is substantial enough to imply not everyone can afford rent; Mayor Swearengin has presided over demolition and dispersal of large encampments south of downtown.   Bergthold and Rodriguez viewed downtown as too starved for investment to have gentrification or displacement problems. Bergthold supported an affordable housing policy "that distributes affordable units throughout the entire metro area." He wanted to see "a little bit of a trend" of increasing rents and property values "to attract private market development into areas that have been disinvested and neglected." Werner said density is not in itself enough to guarantee affordable housing though it often is necessary to allow it. She wrote that people in disadvantaged neighborhoods "have asked for grocery stores, retail outlets and more housing, including mixed-income and mixed use housing," so infill could help "long-abandoned and distressed neighborhoods." But she said displacement concerns were real in the absence of affordable housing commitments. She also argued there were not enough high-density designations in growth areas.  Suggestions for inclusionary zoning did not gain traction during the General Plan process. Barker said a former Council member called the idea "a bomb". Bergthold wrote: "I have personally stayed away from thinking about inclusionary zoning because of the urban decay we want to mitigate through market mechanisms and the hope that the new GP land use map with significant multiple-family shown as part of mixed income, mixed housing type, and mixed density neighborhoods designated throughout the growth areas and in infill target areas would provide a better platform for achieving the ultimate goals of inclusionary zoning without the fight." Making it stick The next several planning processes will establish whether the General Plan is more than "visionary language." "If there's anybody who thinks we're through, then we are really through," said Bergthold. He said the city now needs "constant encouragement" from an involved public to monitor the plan and ensure it takes effect. And Rodriguez said, "The hard part begins now with the implementation."

The Strategic Growth Council on Tuesday unanimously approved the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program – the program that will distribute tens of millions of dollars in cap-and-trade funds – with only one minor amendment. The program now kicks into high gear, with six workshops in a row next week and prospective applicants required to submit "concept proposals" by February 19th. The only amendment passed yesterday was a strengthening of the program guidelines dealing with agricultural and natural resources land. As presented to the SGC, the program guidelines called for a "no net loss" ag and natural resources policy. The SGC adopted a flat prohibition on using AHSC money to build on ag or natural resources land. The workshops will be held as follows: Feb. 4: San Diego Feb. 5: San Bernardino Feb. 6: Los Angeles Feb. 9: Bakersfield Feb. 10: Stockton Feb. 11: Oakland To register, go here . Most stakeholders who spoke yesterday acknowledged that it was time to move forward with the program even though many of them still had some concerns about it. The one amendment approved by the SGC yesterday strengthened the language about protecting agricultural and natural resource lands. The staff had proposed a "no net loss" policy but the SGC changed that to a flat prohibition on using cap-and-trade funds to build on agricultural or natural resource lands. SGC's meeting material can be found here . Martha Bridegam's comprehensive article covering the program can be found here . Martha's update based on last-minute tweaks can be found here .

Among all of California's non-native tree species, one in particular may experience a growth spurt in the coming years. It's not the fan palm or the eucalyptus but rather the cell-phone pine and its incongruous cousin, the cell-phone palm. A new rule, established in 2012 by the Federal Communications Commission and recently updated, might mean taller palms, bigger pines, and more prominent towers for cities that are caught flat-footed – even if they don't the like the way the cell towers are disguised. The FCC's new guidelines, adopted in December and published January 8 in the Federal Register , clarify what was a significant grey area in Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which effectively updated many of the rules in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.  The new guidelines establish a strict timeline for evaluating projects that fall under Section 6409 protection. Section 6409 gives localities the right to challenge the modification of cell phone transmission towers if the locality finds that the modifications—such as the addition of a new antenna—would "substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station."  If a requested modification is not "substantial," the locality "may not deny, and shall approve" the request, according to Section 6409. The law thus dictates that approval is the default action, and the locality has the burden of proving that a modification is ineligible.  "We're only allowed to deny something if it's a substantial change to the existing structure," said Christy Marie Lopez, an attorney with Aleshire & Wynder and immediate past president of the States of California and Nevada Chapter of Telecom Officers and Associates. After two years of debate, in and out of court, over the meaning of "substantially," the new guidelines define it as a modification that is 10% larger than the facility's existing envelope or 20 feet taller than the existing facility's height. While the federal government may dismiss the impact of smaller modifications, many cities with strict codes for aesthetics and visual blight might disagree.  "I think that the new FCC order strips away more local authority over, most importantly, aesthetics," said Lopez. "That (guideline) doesn't give a city a lot of wiggle room to require carriers to bring their outdated, un-stealth towers into conformance with the city's rules on aesthetics….And now the community is affected by what could be called visual blight."  Lopez explained that a city might lose the power to, for instance, compel a carrier to camouflage a tower modification as a pine tree or palm tree, as many towers are.  Modifications that do not meet these significance thresholds may still be challenged by localities. But, the new guidelines place a strict timeline on these challenges. It is this new "shot clock" that has many planners and city attorneys worried.  T he new guidelines give localities 30 days to determine whether a project proposal is "incomplete" and, therefore, subject to a challenge. Previous iterations of Section 6409 gave localities 60 days, with more opportunities to stop the clock. The new 30-day period essentially requires that cities line up all of their analysis at once, not only regarding zoning, but also regarding safety and engineering. City officials, such as planners and building and safety inspectors, may need to review applications simultaneously rather than in sequence.  "The procedures…require a level of coordination that is unusual for these types of projects," said attorney Robert "Tripp" May, vice president of Telecom Law Firm, P.C. B ecause Section 6409 defaults to approval, a city's failure to adhere to the 30-day timeline means that an application will be automatically approved. In some cases, applications that would have heavy impacts on cities are the ones most likely to overwhelm their ability to process them.  "One thing that the shot clock doesn't equip cities well for is when a carrier comes in with a batch of applications," said Javan Rad, assistant city attorney for the City of Pasadena. The rule may also prey on cities that do not have sufficient staff or are bogged down with other planning matters.  "What it just depends on is the size of the city, the sophistication of the city staff itself, the need for wireless services in that city, the topography of the city," said Rad. Rad suggested that, while he does not expect many applications in a built-out city like Pasadena, certain desert cities are likely to see substantial numbers of applications.  "That's one of the reasons why it's caused some anxiety among engineers and planners who are going to be the ones in charge of being able to process these and the amount of time that they need," said Lopez. "If everybody is playing fair, the applicants have done a good job of explaining how their application fits into 6409 and they will allow the city to make a decision," said Rad.   According to May, the new rules are largely a matter of expediency, which neither respects nor disrespects localities' aesthetic concerns. "They're a federal agency that is tasked with rolling out wireless broadband at the highest rate possible," said May.  That is precisely what has not happened in the past, according to the guidelines' proponents. Others say that that is exactly what the guidelines are supposed to do – and that cities should embrace them.  "We've often been stymied at the local level with local planning authorities," said Michael Shonafelt, partner Newmeyer & Dillon LLP, which represents carriers and telecom industry groups. "That allows carriers to deploy those technologies in a way that the Telecom Act originally envisioned."       The rule may also be designed to thwart what some in the telecommunications industry consider to be frivolous objections to cell phone towers. Shonafelt dismissed many aesthetic concerns as a "tempest in a teapot." He said, in fact, that many objections raised on aesthetic grounds are often proxies for stakeholders' concerns about health. Some believe that microwaves from cell towers can have ill effects on health, but federal law forbids governments from taking these claims into account.  A single antenna may not ruin a neighborhood, even if it does slip through bureaucratic cracks. But many critics of the new guidelines and Section 6409 are concerned about larger issues.  Many are decrying the guidelines as the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the role the federal government may play in land-use matters that are typically considered the sole domain of localities. Some consider it an attempt by the wireless industry to pre-empt local zoning codes that the industry considers inconvenient or hostile to its business.  "The FCC stepping into what was traditionally local control is certainly a concern," said Rad. May went so far as to say that some attorneys think that the FCC's approach to local land use may be "unconstitutional, because it basically mandates that local officials...implement federal program."  Shonafelt said that local officials need to look at the bigger picture. He contends that the FCC has identified a national interest that compels localities to accept the constraints of the Telecom Act and Section 6409 because wireless communications transcend local boundaries.  "We're falling behind as a nation," said Shonafelt, in reference to the nation's telecom infrastructure and, in particular, its deployment of 4G wireless broadband. "Because there's a national interest that overrides the local interest sometimes, some of those powers will be curtailed a little bit." H e also encouraged cities to put the new guidelines in perspective.   "These facilities are pretty small-scale," said Shonafelt. "It's not like the entitlement of a multiunit apartment complex where you need lots of time to study the environmental impacts and other things." Contacts:  Christy Marie Lopez, Aleshire & Wynder LLP, www.awattorneys.com, 310.527.6660 Robert "Tripp" May, Telecom Law Firm, LLP, telecomlawfirm.com, 310.405.7333 Javan Rad, City of Pasadena City Attorney's Office, cityofpasadena.net/CityAttorney, 626.744.4141 Michael Shonafelt, partner, Newmeyer & Dillon LLP, www.newmeyeranddillion.com, 949.854.7000

The Coastal Commission approved two possible future industrial land use designations for San Diego after the Commission and city staff reassured industrial waterfront business representatives that the designations were unlikely to affect the shipyard areas around Barrio Logan. The business anxieties mostly concerned a new overlay zoning designation, IP-3-1, which would allow "co-location of residential and industrial uses," where the industrial uses would consist of light manufacturing or research and development, housing would be allowed on up to 49% of the land, and the same area would be further regulated by a Business Park Residential Permitted Community Plan Implementation Overlay Zone. The IBT-1-1 zone would be specific to development on the international border with Mexico. As a preview analysis by NBC San Diego suggested , the proposal appeared against the background of tensions over interaction between residential and industrial uses in the Barrio Logan neighborhood near the shipyards. Shipyard businesses that last summer challenged and defeated the Barrio Logan Community Plan in a referendum because of its residential protections similarly opposed the IP-3-1 zone as possibly limiting heavy industry. Objections were led by the Working Waterfront Group, which described itself in a letter on file as "a coalition of water-dependent industrial business located proximate to San Diego Bay including a large constituency in the Barrio Logan Community Plan Area." The organization's letterhead lists entities from the ILWU longshore union to General Dynamics NASSCO. The Navy and Port of San Diego objected separately. Sharon Cloward of the San Diego Port Tenants' Association was among speakers complaining of short notice but expressing gratitude for the city's reassurances. Senior Planner Dan Normandin with the City of San Diego said both new zones came up in discussion of the Otay Mesa Community Plan update. He said IP-3-1 was a "research and development zone," not "appropriate" for application to a heavy industry area such as Barrio Logan. He said the proposal before the Commission in January was only to create new zoning categories, whereas a choice to apply them to an area within the Coastal Zone would require extensive further public notice and review. Also in San Diego, the Commission easily approved amendments to the Centre City and Marina Planned District Ordinances on relatively minor changes to standards including those to permit outdoor entertainment uses such as sidewalk cafés. cp&dr , was recently director of planning for the city of san diego.> cp&dr , was recently director of planning for the city of san diego.> Two Laguna Beach Dramas Decided in a Day Laguna Beach activists have been fighting a couple of projects all year -- and on January 8, the Coastal Commission approved both. The Commission unanimously approved a 30-unit "work/live" project for artists in Laguna Canyon. Commissioner Jana Zimmer said she felt "a strong obligation to support" the housing because it would help provide affordable housing for artists in the area. John Erskine and Bonnie Neely of the Nossaman LLP firm worked on the matter for the project proponents. Erskine introduced the project team at the hearing, including sculptor Louis Longi. ( Neely formerly served on the Coastal Commission during her tenure as a Humboldt County Supervisor.) The proponents had accepted some conditions including native plant restoration work and removal of initially proposed cantilevered extensions to maintain a 25-foot minimum setback from the creek. A neighbor favoring the project said it had been through an "unbelievably protracted process" of seven years. Julie Hamilton, a former local planning staff member, represented three of four appellants including leading appellant Devora Hertz. On Hamilton's request for a show of hands, a large proportion of the crowd in the Santa Monica meeting hall raised hands to oppose the project. (Many were present for a later hearing on the Laguna "Ranch" project.) A letter in the hearing file from Hertz objected that the project as initially proposed contained eight units but "Somewhere in the twilight this project grew to be a 30-unit apartment complex." Objectors said the project was too close to the creek for both habitat and flood danger reasons, and was out of scale for the rural area. Hamilton said the adjacent animal hospital was undermined in a prior flood and "they had to dash madly to save its life, holding the building up with a bulldozer." Further objections said the project was one in a larger series under consideration whose cumulative impact should be considered, and that traffic impacts had not been fully considered. Appellant Jackie Gallagher said that, from experience in "the art industry" locally, "the artists came to paint the canyon, they didn't come to live in the canyon." Compared with small beginnings in the 1920s, she said, "there are thousands of artists in Laguna Beach and they're all living well." Deputy Director Sherilyn Sarb said the project's flood protections were adequate for a hundred-year storm and was in a developed area of the canyon. She said the restoration plan would require Fish and Wildlife as well as Commission review. On the same day, the perennially disputed Ranch at Laguna Beach project got its permit to finish renovations of the existing mid-century family vacation spot and upgrade the property for high-end resort use, splitting existing suites into smaller rooms and adding a penthouse for a total increase from 64 to 97 rooms. The Laguna Beach Independent reported the Commission held a five-hour hearing before approving the permit. Under the final deal, project proponent Mark Christy agreed to grant an easement for a trail plus $250,000 for its design and construction, and agreed to keep noise down and restore habitat. He also agreed to host overnight camping events for youth at the former scout camp on the property. However, the paper reported the Commission did not adopt earlier staff recommendations that would have required the Ranch to run a shuttle across the property until the trail could be built and possibly also to pay in-lieu fees to compensate for the increase in room rates. Appellant Mark Fudge and area activists had alleged that new uses of the property were disturbing neighbors, disrupting habitat, and reducing public access to formerly affordable amenities. In Other Commission News -- The Commission found no substantial issue on a major Dana Point Harbor "commercial core" reconstruction but the parties looked forward to considering the matter further in future. Two appellants had objected to the proposed relocation or removal of businesses renting jet skis, boats and kayaks -- a form of recreation available to people who don't own boats themselves -- and also to boat storage and parking provisions. Commission staff said the city had not as yet approved a dry boat storage building that would cause the displacement opposed by the appellants. The Orange County Register reported negotiations began for purchase by the Orange County Water District of desalinated water from the the Poseidon Water plant. The Register reported it would likely cost twice as much by volume as "water imported form Northern California" but the Huntington Beach Independent reported the prices quoted have varied. The Commission approved an expansion of the Cowgirl Creamery in Point Reyes Station, also described as "the Barn Project", over objections from the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. The January 1 effective date of of SB 968 brought a new challenge to tech billionaire Vinod Khosla in the Martins Beach coastal access dispute. Despite heavy lobbying on Khosla's behalf, the bill by State Sen. Jerry Hill requires the State Lands Commission to negotiate with Khosla for public purchase of the access road that he has closed to the popular San Mateo County surfing beach. If purchase negotiations fail after a year the Commission is authorized to acquire beach access for the public by eminent domain. Aaron Kinney of the Mercury News and Santa Cruz Sentinel has details . Kinney notes the legislation is "one of four fronts" in Khosla's battle to block access to the beach. Two court cases are pending on the matter, and the judge in one of them has ordered Khosla to open the gate. So has the Coastal Commission. Writer and cartoonist Susie Cagle has a column on the dispute's context in the Pacific Standard . Meanwhile, literal access to the site has become inconsistently possible again. The San Mateo Daily Journal reported that Jim Deeney, the property's former owner and current manager, was sometimes allowing people to drive to the beach -- but not walk there -- for a $10 fee, and only when someone was available to collect it. The paper reported one local surfer who tried to walk to the beach was turned away, and another man who walked to the beach was met by a sheriff's deputy who threatened to cite him for trespassing -- though the sheriff's department "said it is not turning people away from the beach" and was looking into the deputy's action. A legislative report to the Commission mentioned a quietly enacted new climate change law alongside more prominent items. The new AB 2516 requires the Commission to report twice a year to the Natural Resources Agency on each Local Coastal Program's progress in planning for sea level rise. The Director's Report for January included an update on progress toward certifying LCPs for remaining segments of the Los Angeles County coast now that the difficult Santa Monica Mountains process is concluded. Yet to complete are LCPs for the six segments of the City of Los Angeles coastal area (the Port of Los Angeles has its own certified LCP) and for the cities of Santa Monica, Hermosa Beach and Torrance.

A late-added change in proposed final guidelines for California's new cap-and-trade grant program might broaden transit-oriented development sites. The Strategic Growth Council (SGC), which heads the interagency project to design and run the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program, posted the proposed texts January 9 in the form of attachments to its January 20 agenda. On January 20 the council will be invited to adopt guidelines for both the main AHSC program and its $5 million offshoot, the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program (SALC). New as of January in the draft guidelines was a definition of "Qualifying High Quality Transit" that would allow transit-oriented development projects to be located one mile away from a transit stop – as opposed to the half-mile previous proposed. An "affordable housing development" (possibly funded by other means) would still need to be within half a mile of the transit stop. The half-mile definition is common in state law. The new definition looks to a looks requirement for peak-hour headways of 15 minutes or less and seven-day-per-week service, but otherwise requires relatively flexible "dedicated right-of-way" or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) characteristics. The prior September 2014 draft had emphasized specific transit modes: rail, BRT or "express bus". These criteria will help determine eligible projects in the transit-oriented development (TOD) grant category, which is to receive at least 40%, and as much as 70%, of total AHSC grant funds. The change might be a concession to housing and equity advocates, who argued that the program as originally conceived would favor transit-oriented development (TOD) in areas that were already well served by major transit systems, to the disadvantage not only of less dense areas but also of less transit-favored (likely poorer) parts of large cities. Also new are promises of technical assistance, both immediately for 2014-15 applicants and in a less defined longer-term effort. Technical assistance had been an issue in workshops and comment letters; advocates had argued that without it, success would beget success for well-budgeted big-city nonprofits, edging others out. The new draft reweights the competitive criteria to give greenhouse gas (GHG) "emissions reductions per... dollar requested" the greatest significance, contributing 55% of the total score. Otherwise "project readiness and feasibility" would contribute 15% of the total and all other criteria, grouped under "policy considerations," would contribute 30%. The prior full version of proposed guidelines, as circulated in September , would have weighted scores 35-40% for "feasibility and readiness", 40-45% for "connectivity and improved access" and 15-20% for "community orientation". The SALC program grant applications would be scored primarily based on need (40%), "integration of entities and existing resources" (25%) and "community involvement and participation (20%). Lesser scores would go to organizational capacity (10%) and "disadvantaged community impacts" (5%). The AHSC program was allocated $130 million for the 2014-15 fiscal year (for the main program and SALC together). It has been promised 20% of the cap-and-trade proceeds placed into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in each future year. Governor Jerry Brown's new budget proposal , also released January 9, assumes the AHSC program will have $200 million for the following 2015-16 fiscal year. The posted materials include 82 pages of public comment letters on the SALC guidelines and a five-page table of contents for the much larger volume of AHSC comments, which were not posted as of this writing. Comments from organizations in the agricultural easement field included recommendations to connect the AHSC and SALC programs more closely together and objections that the proposed 50% matching requirement on easement acquisition grants would be too high for some organizations. The proposed final guidelines provide for consideration of "compelling applications which include a lesser match". A number of changes that SGC first circulated for informal review in December appear in the January 9 proposed final version. Notably, the new draft removes minimum criteria for project size and reduces minimum unit densities to a range of 15 to 30 units per acre, as proposed in December. It drops a requirement for a public agency to be a co-applicant unless the agency has a direct "interest or stake" in the project; allows award size limits by place or developer to be lifted "if needed to meet statutory affordable housing or disadvantaged community set-asides," and allows up to 30% or $500,000 of an award to be spent on "program uses". On the other hand, planning costs are limited to 15% of the requested amount or $250,000. As proposed in December, "Anti-Displacement Strategies" would be part of all scoring criteria. However, scoring in that area would affect only one point out of 100. That one point would be part of the 30% of scoring given to "policy considerations." Others would include 6.5% for service to lower and moderate-income households and 3% for promotion of bicycling. The new draft makes a rule more prominent that also appeared in the September proposal: making projects with "Qualifying High Quality Transit" eligible only for TOD grants and ineligible for ICP grants. The distribution of grants between the two categories retains the originally proposed leeway: 40% must go to TOD projects and 30% to ICP projects; the rest can go to either. An "affordable housing development" is still defined as one with 20% of the units "affordable". As initially proposed in December, the guidelines call for quantification of GHG reductions using the California Emissions Estimator Module (CalEEMod) for most projects and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) guidelines projects serving a large area or otherwise falling outside the expectations of the CalEEMod approach. As also proposed in December, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) would have rights to review proposals and make recommendations, but in a role firmly defined as advisory. Having more time to public review than was originally calendared, the AHSC and SALC programs are now jammed against the part of their timetable that calls for the SGC to review and select grant applications by the end of the 2014-15 fiscal year in June. The SALC timetable would circulate the solicitation for grant applications on the very next day after the scheduled January 20 approval meeting, and the AHSC program the following week. The January 20 meeting will be available by webcast with free registration .

I went to brunch a few Sunday mornings ago at Louie's, a place that I will unironically describe as a gastropub. My Sunday rituals usually consist of visits to the farmers market and worrying about deadlines. So I was surprised to find, bellied up to the bar at the ripe hour of 11 a.m., a line of folks dressed in jerseys of the New Orleans Saints.  Who dat? indeed. Louie's is one of many L.A. bars that on Sundays look like they've been airlifted from other cities. I'll be damned if I know anyone in L.A. from New Orleans. And yet, if you look hard enough, you'll find a bar for every team. Actually, you don't have to look hard at all. Here's a list  (it's a partial list at that -- some teams have more than one local "headquarters"). Such is life in a city that is a) full of transplants; and b) bereft of its own team. I grew up in the Los Angeles of the Raiders and Rams. My father and I even made a few intrepid journeys to the Coliseum each season to see the Raiders beat up on someone and to watch Raider fans beat up on each other. But then 1995 came and the teams went and, to be honest, I wasn't exactly crushed. Neither were many other people in Los Angeles. Among L.A.'s many oddities is its relative indifference to pro sports rivalries. I'd no sooner wear a Ravens jersey in Pittsburgh than I would a meat vest in a wolverine lair. But I'd wager that L.A. is the only city in the country where you stroll down the street unmolested and unnoticed wearing a hat or t-shirt of any major league team in the country (excepting, perhaps, the San Francisco Giants). It's just one (superficial) example of our famed diversity. Of course, as everyone in Los Angeles knows, many rich and powerful people have been trying to correct our football deficiency for quite some time. At last count, at least five stadium projects -- the Coliseum, the Rose Bowl, something in Irwindale, something at Dodger Stadium, and the fictional Farmer's Field at the L.A. Convention Center (snarky commentary by Morris Newman here and myself here ) -- have been proposed by different developers. No one has yet proposed a floating stadium off Santa Monica, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the works.  This week we got the most promising news  of all: Stan Kroenke, owner of the St. Louis (nee Los Angeles) Rams, bought part of the former Hollywood Park racetrack in Inglewood last year. On Monday, he announced a partnership with Stockbridge Capital, the owner of the rest of the former race track site, to develop an NFL stadium. Stockbridge is already developing a roughly 200-acre mixed use master-planned fantasia (it was the subject of one of my first articles for CP&DR , when the project was owned by  Wilson Meany Sullivan ). The stadium would be, to Kroenke's and Stockbridge's credit, privately funded.  The entire project must be approved via a city ballot measure, for which Kroenke and Stockbridge are gathering signatures. Folks in Inglewood, a blue-collar city whose star is already on the rise , are giddy about it. Adding a football stadium would be a natural fit. It would be roughly the size of the racetrack and, though the uses would be more intense, it would likely have fewer events than the racetrack did. This plan seems realistic one yet because, unlike the others, it has the advantage of being attached to an actual football team.  I'm just not sure if I, or L.A., wants that. Our city's culture has evolved endearingly in the NFL's absence, embracing all those other teams and becoming very good at yoga. To our collective credit, we have refused to pay the extortionate amounts of money that other cities have paid in order to appease their teams. I love civic pride and I respect the excitement of football. That's all good. But the people of Inglewood, and football fans around the L.A. metro, need to remember that huge institutions that promise local economic development -- think Walmart, which Inglewood voters  thwarted in 2007 -- do not conjure revenues out of thin air. Proponents cite $1 billion in economic development if the Rams move to Inglewood. But these things can easily be zero-sum games, especially when profits ultimately get shipped out of town.  Many of the dollars that would go to the L.A. Rams will be dollars that don't go to Louie's, Bru Haus (Steelers), Mom's (Packers), Sonny's (Patriots) and O'Brien's (Giants), to mention just a few places that are a lot cozier than anything that will be built in Inglewood. Even St. Louis fans have a watering hole: Malecon. We can do better than to wear the same jerseys and cheer in lockstep so that some magnate or company, be it Stan Kroenke or AEG, can reap tens of millions of dollars each year. We can have our fun, eat our brunches, and drink our bloody Marys in places that seat fewer than 60,000 people. In other words, I'd rather give my money to a local barkeep than to a global brand that pretends to be a nonprofit. Unfortunately, if the Rams don't come to L.A., Missouri may still lose, fiscally at least. Four days after Kroenke cryptically announced his Inglewood deal, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon conveniently presented a plan for a new 64,000-seat stadium on the banks of the Mississippi. Of the estimated $900-ish million cost, 40 percent would be borne by the state. But that's Missouri's problem. Ultimately, I'd rather let St. Louis have its team and its stadium. "Build it and they will come" -- one of the most overused cliches in land use -- referred to apparitional baseball players, not to football fans or to anyone else. We in L.A. have plenty other places to go and other things to do. Rams fans, I'll see you at Malecon some Sunday morning.

There is, perhaps, no place on Earth so supremely well suited for high-speed rail as the leeward side of the island of Formosa. Sheltered from the Pacific winds, all of Taiwan's major cities hug the island's western coastal plain, unbroken by the mountains that characterize the interior. Running in nearly a straight line, the train covers the 214 miles from the Taipei to Zouying in two hours. It now carries 44 million passengers per year. Intercity air travel has been halved since the line's opening in 2007. California is not Taiwan. For all the years that California has debated high-speed rail (HSR), I have wavered between excitement and dread, optimism and resignation. My visit to Taiwan two years ago, when I learned that getting from one end of the island to the other is almost as easy as stepping into an elevator, made me fall in love with the technology and, simultaneously, convinced me that it would never arrive in California. Taiwan's system , at a little less than half the length of California's proposed system, cost $18 billion. We are bigger than Taiwan, and our cities, though they are nominally coastal, do not line up obediently, like schoolchildren on a playground. They hide behind mountains and in bays. They have built battlements in the form of freeways, aqueducts and conventional rail lines, bringing people (and water) in but crowding out anything new. They are surrounded by proud agriculturalists and rabid lawyers. The alignment is a shapeless mess , with a less-populated midsection that makes the line an all-or-nothing proposition. The state's estimate is now $68 billion, and counting. It doesn't sound good, does it? And yet...Anyone who has taken a Shinkansen, TGV, AVE, or any of China's 12,000 miles of HSR knows the wonders that await California if we get it done. This vision is the most optimistic justification I can think of for the groundbreaking that took place Tuesday in Fresno. There are reasons to support HSR other than mere transportation, of course. Construction unions want the jobs created by the $68 billion investment. Gov. Jerry Brown wants his legacy. Fresno wants to be noticed. The feds want their money spent. Only a fraction of the system has been funded, but it's plain to see that the groundbreaking is meant to lend an air of inevitability to the project. The only thing more embarrassing than giving back $10 billion in bond money and $3.2 billion in federal money (if either was legally possible) would be to spend the money and end up with $13.2 billion of useless track. So, supporters hope that, by hook or crook, the digging that began today will not cease until the shovels reach San Francisco and Los Angeles. It's the Golden Spike in reverse: start in the middle and work your way out. The cities in question now face their own inside-out propositions. It's up to the California High-Speed Rail  Authority to bring trains to the cities, but it's up to cities to decide what to do with the trains once they arrive. The one major shortcoming of Taiwan HSR is that its stations are located like airports, on the outskirts of their respective cities. California HSR has been sold to cities as a driver of urban revitalization, with stations -- many of which already exist -- in the centers of cities. Stations include Los Angeles' Union Station and San Francisco's Transbay Terminal (currently being rebuilt), as well as downtown stations envisioned for San Jose, Fresno, and Bakersfield. Between now and the line's scheduled opening in 2029, these cities now face a planning challenge of generational proportions. Imagine tens of millions of people annually spilling into and out of trains fresh from the far ends of the state? They'll need hotels and restaurants. Businesses will want offices nearby so their executives can speed up to meetings with Google up north or with Disney down south at a moment's notice. They'll want to beef up their public transit systems to distribute HSR passengers throughout the metro area -- and help HSR stations realize their selling point as anti-airports. This is transit-oriented development on the largest imaginable scale. Of course, you can't not plan for high-speed rail. And yet... what if it doesn't happen? What if those tracks end in an almond grove and the $13 billion runs out? What if future cap-and-trade funds, earmarked by SB 862 , aren't supplemented? Can cities reasonably invest untold amounts of time and money devising plans based on some seed money and Gov. Brown's convictions? Will developers spend a dime until build-out is 100 percent certain? In short: can HSR-related plans survive if the train never arrives? In some instances, probably. San Francisco doesn't have much planning to do in the first place, since downtown is already dense and transit-rich. Los Angeles Metro is already pursuing a redevelopment of Union Station anyway (where HSR might turn out to be an inconvenience, depending how you read the plans). But then there's Anaheim, Fresno, Bakersfield and the others. Merced, where passengers would transfer between Bay Area and Sacramento branches, promises to become the Constantinople of the Central Valley. How long can these cities waver between "if" and "when"?I suppose the good news/bad news is that, even if it goes according to schedule, HSR may not arrive in our lifetimes. Planners not yet born will have plenty of opportunities to gauge its progress and plan accordingly. If we were on Taiwan's coastal plain, I'd say it's a done deal. As I think about the Tehachapis, San Gabriels, and the Coast Ranges -- not to mention the $55 billion yet to be raised for the project -- I say, not so fast.

Look up the El Camino Real BRT project online, and the first impression is one of cheerful support. But that's from transportation advocates such as the TransForm organization, which has given it extensive promotion, and materials posted by the lead sponsoring agency, the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA), which would build the route from Palo Alto to South San Jose along an old arterial south of I-280. Those talk at length about making the South Bay's famously abrasive six-lane commercial artery safer for pedestrians and bikes, better for public health, and more efficient as a travel conduit for a denser, less car-dependent population. It could seem startling from a distance that in December VTA saw a need to post a rebuttal answering "Ten Myths" about El Camino bus rapid transit (BRT). Closer in, it's evident that the project has become a symbolic focus of worries about the South Bay's uneasy transition from quasi-suburban to fully urban. From just north of San José up to Palo Alto, the old Spanish "royal road" takes the modern form of Highway 82, a broad commuter artery and commercial strip. To create BRT transit at the maximum level of efficacy, the project would have to punch a clear path each way through the six very popular existing lanes, reserving two BRT-only "dedicated lanes" on the main street of an area with high growth in housing and office uses. In keeping with the larger-scale Grand Boulevard Initiative , related streetscaping would seek to protect bicyclists and pedestrians. BRT vehicles in dedicated lanes would function almost like trains, moving at their own pace among widely spaced stops without usually having to wait for other traffic. A VTA promotional video describes the future BRT vehicle as a 60-foot, WiFi-equipped "giant Prius". The plan would speed BRT vehicles along the narrower San José part of the route by means of bulbouts at stops and signal priority at traffic lights. ( CityLab posted a further analysis in November with the help of TransForm's Chris Lepe.) Seven alternatives are under review, ranging from a "no build" choice, to varying combinations of "mixed flow" with dedicated lanes of various lengths along the route. The maximum dedicated lane alternative, known as 4c, would run dedicated lanes for 13.9 of the 17.6 miles. Per the DEIR/EIS executive summary , the 4c choice would have the highest price in capital costs, some $232 million, but would have lower operating costs than other alternatives. (See Page ES-3 of the summary for comparative maps of the alternatives.) According to VTA projections the 4c maximum dedicated-lane alternative, compared with the no-project alternative, would reduce BRT travel time along the route from 87 to 48 minutes while lengthening car travel time along the same route from 41 to 44 minutes, and local bus travel time from 102 to 109 minutes. That may sound attractive if enough people use transit. And transit use has almost nowhere to go but up in Santa Clara County: VTA staff said only 3% to 4% of the county's population uses transit. But critics worry that even if denser transit is needed, dedicated BRT lanes may not serve the area's present needs, given that many people do still travel in private cars. Cars that, if they can't find space on El Camino, will filter into the adjoining residential streets; that need to be parked; that carry people farther off the central commercial strip into suburban-style neighborhoods not easily served by transit. Organizing Web sites are less visible for opponents of dedicated lanes. But online comments sections and letters to the editor fill up with arguments over the project's merits; news reports and supporters of the project say the opposition is solid and successful. Opponents have organized more privately, largely at the level of local city governments, six of which have jurisdiction along the route. (VTA in early January became the first public transit agency to join the Nextdoor neighborhood social network, which in some parts of the U.S. has provided hubs for neighborhood organizing.) Comments are due January 14, 2015 on the draft Environmental Impact Review/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/EIS) for the proposal , which was released in November 2014 after a four-year process including 2012 conceptual review by city councils. And then around March the VTA board will select a preference among the seven project alternatives currently under review. It wasn't clear if the six cities would state formal choices among the seven proposed project alternatives, and in any case the choice of project alternative will be up to the VTA board. Among the jurisdictions, San José hasn't debated the plan much because its part of the route is too narrow for dedicated lanes anyway. The city of Santa Clara, which would receive dedicated lanes under several project alternatives, appears to favor the plan. More opposition has been expressed in the more suburban cities of Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos and Palo Alto. Both Mountain View and Palo Alto were expected to send letters of concern about the project to VTA. The local Mountain View Voice reported public commenters at the December 16 Mountain View City Council meeting supported the dedicated-lane approach but the Council voted 4-0 to send a letter expressing concern on issues including diversion of traffic to side streets and the possible cutting of trees in the median. A fierce, sophisticated, impolite readers' debate raged through the rest of December in that article's comments section. A draft of the Palo Alto letter has been posted ahead of a scheduled January 12 Council meeting on the matter. VTA's proposal is in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), with plans to seek federal MAP-21 funds after the VTA board selects a preferred alternative this spring. Caltrans approval is required as well. TransForm's Chris Lepe wrote that "some local businesses" including auto dealerships "have coalesced with residential NIMBYs" and are "trying to effectively kill the project." That wouldn't necessarily mean opposing all the alternatives -- just the more substantial ones. He wrote: "The problem is that if all the cities go with mixed flow, the project will not generate much ridership and time savings benefits, which in turn will likely attract little or no federal funding. As a result of the limited benefits and significant costs, VTA may decide not to move forward with a mixed flow project. ... If nobody jumps on board, if nobody supports dedicated lanes within the cities, then that means the project is most likely not going to go forward." "Mixed flow" results aren't much to write home about. VTA's "Ten Myths" document said the existing 522 bus along the El Camino Real route would run at 12.2 mph under the "no build" alternative" and a BRT vehicle would run at 13 mph under a "Mixed Flow" alternative," but under a "Dedicated Lane" alternative it would run at 22 mph. Asked if it would be worth the trouble to increase bus speeds from 12.2 to 13 miles per hour, BRT Project Manager Steve Fisher labeled his comments as made from a staff perspective but said, "I think you're picking up on key data points... I agree with your statement." And Bernice Alaniz, VTA's marketing and public affairs director, noted as Lepe did that the project would have to compete with other projects for federal funding so it would need to show strong ridership and economic impact figures. A portion of the CEQA analysis (p. 25) shows projected weekday transit ridership on the corridor increasing from the present weekday ridership of 12,512, to 14,588 under the "no build" alternative, increasing across the other alternatives to 18,616 riders daily under the maximum Alternative 4c. Opponents, like supporters, tend to focus on discussion of the maximum dedicated-lane alternatives. Mark Balestra, owner of the Pearson Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealership in Sunnyvale, commented at a November 11 Sunnyvale public study session (at 54:28) on behalf of the El Camino Coalition, which he described as "a group of concerned Sunnyvale citizens and small business owners." He said, "We're not opposed to BRT. Our concern is that despite the multiple options supposedly under consideration here... it's clear that the only option that VTA senior management is interested in is the dedicated lane plan and the cost of this plan is far too great." Balestra argued the project would cause more congestion and expense than it was worth to provide "only a few minutes" of faster passenger travel across Sunnyvale. He said it didn't include north-south transit options (i.e. crossing El Camino at right angles) and suggested it wouldn't serve "the overwhelming majority of sidehill residents that don't live within walking distance of the four stations." (Balestra responded to a query by writing, "the coalition of residents and business owners opposed only to the BRT 'Dedicated Lane' plan is far broader than the auto dealers and the concerns are far beyond the turn lanes." He offered to elaborate but had not done so as of press time. VTA has not yet posted texts of public comments.) About the auto dealers, Fisher said they hadn't participated much directly in meetings with VTA but "they are working their own city councils very hard." William Cranston, an individual Mountain View neighbor who spoke at a recent meeting of his City Council, wrote afterward, "I have seen no passionate support for any option," but that people in Mountain View only expressed "enthusiastic opposition" toward the two options that would place dedicated lanes in their town: Option 4b, with dedicated lanes from Santa Clara through Mountain View, and 4c, with dedicated lanes from Santa Clara all the way into Palo Alto. Cranston focused on the difference for his area between 4b and the less drastic Option 4a, which would include dedicated lanes only across Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. He noted that the 4b addition of dedicated lanes across Mountain View would add 852 more daily riders (see p. 25 of the CEQA analysis.) He focused on a 2018 projection in the CEQA analysis (p. 29) showing daily traffic volumes east of Bush Street in Mountain View would be 53,865 under Alternative 4a but 48,561 under 4b. He wrote: "Where do the drivers go? They are not saying that the 5300 trips stop, they go somewhere else ... like the smaller small neighborhood streets with kids and cyclists. The neighborhood I live in already has a problem with cut through drivers. (They through stop signs, whip around corners and go well over the 15 mph speed limit.) It doesn't take many cars on small side streets to make it a problem..." "Does it make sense to negatively impact more than 53K driving trips to get 850 riding trips? Do we want to push traffic onto small neighborhood streets where kids are walking/riding to school and playing? Do we want more cars on side routes that we are advocating for cyclists? The city council was asking the same kind of questions." To concerns of this generic type, Fisher responded that projections showed cars displaced off of El Camino by BRT dedicated lanes would spread out evenly among parallel residential streets without overloading them. And he said "if the cities are with us" on the dedicated lane alternative, then VTA would be happy to work with them on traffic calming projects for neighboring streets. There is also, of course, the prospect that some drivers would forsake their cars to ride the BRT system. The Traffic Operations Analysis Report in the DEIR/EIS, at p. 75ff, predicts that delays from the dedicated-lane BRT alternatives as of 2040 would mainly not be extreme. The maximum Alternative 4c is shown sometimes raising the LOS rating by one letter grade, but producing modest increases in delays except at intersections that are already rated "F". Other concerns include whether different transit priorities would suffer, especially north-south transit routes where El Camino runs east-west across Sunnyvale. (Transit advocates have said the best economic benefits would follow from building both). To the suggestion that VTA should just spend the BRT money on more ordinary buses, VTA media spokesperson Brandi Childress said, "Adding more buses doesn't make them go faster." Another recurring concern is how drivers may respond to losing midblock gaps in medians that currently allow left turns. Fisher said a dedicated lane would require every spot allowing a left turn to be a signalized intersection, but VTA was willing to work with the cities on adding new signals at left-turn areas now without them -- and Caltrans might want to "control" such areas anyway as traffic increases on El Camino.   And then, hovering, there's the usual trickily double question about who rides transit: is the bus a disadvantage-driven last resort or a voluntary choice? And does promoting a transit system depend on identifying it with prosperous commuters -- or does a system still deserve public resources if it does seem likely to serve and attract a less prosperous public? Childress presented the future BRT riders as those who "choose not to drive," such as "students who are looking to not own cars". Fisher said amid the growth on El Camino, "Who you see moving into those new developments" would be typically "younger people" working in tech. "Those folks are looking for a good transit alternative. Their natural inclination is to look to transit." He mentioned the famous long-distance "Google buses" as an example. "We know that market is there for us if we can provide them with a good transit alternative." Childress wrote: "The future generation of riders (Millenials) don't want the hassles and expense of owning a car. They want good quality, efficient transit service they can depend on to take them where they need to go." She wrote, "We are looking to capture future riders of this mindset," rather than try to change those who "prefer their car no matter the circumstance." But at the November 11 Sunnyvale event, businessman Brad Clausen, whose enterprises include a motorcycle dealership, said his 25 employees had told him none of them would use a BRT system to get to work. He asked if VTA had surveyed who rides the bus and why, suggesting: "My guess is the majority of those people don't have driver's licenses or have no other means of transportation." He said he doubted BRT would "impact" the people using El Camino and suggested it would hurt businesses, congest side streets, and worsen offstreet parking in front of people's houses. "It's gonna be a mess." Meanwhile Lepe said participants in public meetings on the BRT proposal had included disproportionately fewer people who were young, low-income, recent immigrants or people of color compared with the actual demographics of the cities involved. (He found it significant that Sunnyvale is the second-largest city in Santa Clara County.) He wrote that TransForm had begun a survey and other outreach projects to "engage a larger slice of the population."

The Strategic Growth Council (SGC) released a semiformal response on Friday to critiques received in October on its proposed design of the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. Phrased as an informal memorandum, the six-page document listed proposed changes to the September draft AHSC guidelines . It created a limited, informal second chance for the public to comment on the program creators' changing approaches -- something that had not definitely been promised as of the formal public comment period's ending on October 31 . The December 19 text said no formal public comment period would follow the memo's issuance, but it asked any informal commenters to "focus on the proposed revisions and updates" and said comments could be sent to ahsc@sgc.ca.gov . It said a proposed final version of the guidelines would be posted January 9, 2015 in preparation for the January 20, 2015 Council approval hearing. The changes included some concessions to advocates, notably with the California Coalition for Rural Housing, which had argued that the September draft of program rules would disfavor projects in suburban or rural settings. Several more proposed changes addressed housing, but it seemed unlikely they would satisfy housing advocates who had suggested the AHSC program might live up to the second part of its name more than the first. Among the housing revisions, the most prominent were decreases in required densities and total numbers of housing units. The September proposed requirements had imposed minimum base densities in program-funded "housing developments" of 60 units per acre in a "large city downtown," 40 in another "urban center" or 20 elsewhere. The revisions proposed reducing the minimums to the default density standards for affordable housing under existing housing element law: 30 units per acre in urban areas, 20 in suburban ones and 15 in rural ones -- in other words, a 50% reduction in urban and suburban density standards. The revisions also called for lifting requirements that housing developments to be funded by the program each create or preserve 100 residential units in metropolitan areas or 50 units elsewhere. Groups including the Rural Smart Growth Task Force coalition had asked for an increase in the minimum percentage of affordable units in AHSC-funded projects, but the term "Affordable Housing Development" still appeared to mean a project where at least 20% of total units are "affordable". The revisions did strengthen the rules on both replacement of affordable units and anti-displacement strategies, extending them to all AHSC-funded projects rather than specific housing and disadvantaged-communities categories. At least one commenter at the October 6 SGC meeting had asked for this change. A further proposed revision reads: "The $15 million maximum for a single developer may be waived, if necessary, to meet statutory affordable housing and Disadvantaged Community set asides." Several commenters had asked for more discussion because the September draft left some specifics to be filled in later, and also because some viewed its program requirements as insufficiently explained. As of late November , SGC expanded the time for discussion by moving back its approval meeting from December 11 to January 20 but did not immediately say how it would use the extra time. (Prior presentations and partial videos of discussion workshops are on the SGC's page for AHSC program design , though written public comments have not yet been posted.) The new program, created by a June 2014 budget bill , will have $130 million to allocate in the 2014-15 fiscal year and after that has been promised 20% each year of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Fund of proceeds from the state's cap-and-trade carbon auctions -- presumably a much larger amount. Since then a multiagency team of state officials, led by the SGC, has been hurrying to build a three-dimensional program out of a legislative mandate that was stronger on aspirations than specifics -- with the goal of making initial grants by June 2015. The September draft had acknowledged it was leaving several kinds of business unfinished. For example, it left specifics for later on how to measure projects' successes in reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although it proposed a point-based scoring system, it left specific point values to be filled in. The draft had few specifics about the roles of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). And during all but the last few hours of the comment period on October 31, the draft was lacking an important piece of context: the Air Resources Board (ARB) decision on which census tracts would count as "disadvantaged" for purposes of set-asides under the AHSC and other cap-and-trade programs. The December 19 memo didn't clarify the scoring numbers but it did help to fill the other gaps: The final page of the new memo contained an "Update on California Air Resources Board Interim Guidance on Greenhouse Gas Reduction Quantification." It suggested the guidance would continue to rely heavily on estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and promised more detail in the January 9 final AHSC proposal. In the meantime it said the interim guidance "will use components of the California Emissions Estimator Model," linking to the model at http://www.caleemod.com/ . For projects that are larger or have other special features, it said the guidance would borrow from VMT reduction metrics "originally developed for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) projects." For those it referred to the document, " Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects ." On October 31, the last day of the AHSC guidelines comment period, the ARB issued its decision on the definition of disadvantage for purposes of cap-and-trade set-asides. It was a politically cautious choice , designating the most disadvantaged 25% of census tracts as rated by CalEPA's CalEnviroScreen 2.0 metric. That decision helps commenters to understand which census tracts will be eligible for set-asides as "disadvantaged" -- but it doesn't resolve whether a project in a geographically defined "disadvantaged community" necessarily serves local residents who experience disadvantages. For the MPOs, the revisions stated more definitely that they would allow the MPOs notice and an opportunity to make recommendations on both "concept applications" and full applications for grants, but the memo repeated that the MPOs' role is only advisory. It added that councils of governments "were erroneously included" in a definition that suggested they could be eligible applicants for AHSC funds, whereas in fact councils of governments were not eligible. The revisions also would include "Intercity Rail" among forms of transit used to qualify projects, would allow grants to cover up to three years of operational costs as well as start-up costs for programs, would cap "Program Uses" at 30% instead of 10% of a total funding request, and would remove a requirement that no more than half of a Capital Use Project grant could be for transit, transportation or "green infrastructure". A provision treating the public agency with jurisdiction over a project as a required applicant would be removed unless the agency itself had "an interest or stake" in the project, including as a landowner.

Although the question of Executive Order S-3-05 was the main event in the Cleveland National Forest v. SANDAG appellate ruling, Presiding Justice Judith McConnell's split-decision majority ruling covered a number of other important areas interpreting how the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be used in the context of a regional transportation plan. Some of these other issues are related to the question of EO S-3-05, but many of McConnell's conclusions stand on their own as being worthy of note by CEQA practitioners. Much of McConnell's ruling criticized SANDAG for its selection of alternatives, concluding that the agency had deliberately selected only those alternatives that were either not achievable or not meaningful. However, she also concluded that SANDAG erred in not analyzing an alternative that would have significantly reduced total vehicle miles traveled compared to the plan that was adopted. McConnell did not mince words. She noted that SANDAG's "transit emphasis" alternatives focused primarily on ramping up rapid bus projects without increasing the amount of rail service. This has been a major point of contention between SANDAG and environmentalists. SANDAG has emphasized high-occupancy vehicle lanes and bus rapid transit, which means building more freeway lanes rather than more rail lines. "In fact," McConnell wrote, "the ‘transit emphasis' alternatives include fewer transit projects than some of the other non-‘transit-emphasis' alternatives." She added: "The omission of an alternative which could significantly reduce total vehicle miles traveled is inexplicable given SANDAG's acknowledgement in its Climate Action Strategy that the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road transportation will not succeed if the amount of driving, or vehicle miles traveled, is not significantly reduced." Quoting the Climate Action Strategy that formed part of the plan, McConnell concluded that the SANDAG alternatives were focused primarily on congestion relief, including via freeway widening, even though the strategy notes that congestion relief may not be an effective greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. Justice McConnell's majority opinion also found fault with the way SANDAG dealt with air quality impacts in the environmental impact report. In particular, she criticized the way SANDAG approached the question of particulates and toxic air contaminants. She agreed with the environmentalists' argument that SANDAG needed to provide more detailed information on the impact of air pollution on sensitive receptors in close proximity to transportation projects. For example, she wrote, "the EIR failed to correlate the additional tons of annual transportation plan-related emissions to anticipated adverse health impacts from the emissions. Although the public and decision makers might infer from the EIR the transportation plan will make air quality and human health worse, at least in some respects for some people, this is not sufficient information to understand the adverse impact." She concluded that, while there are limitations to a program-level analysis, SANDAG did not provide any evidence that it is not possible to provide more detailed information. "SANDAG is nonetheless obliged to disclose what it reasonably can about the correlation , it has not done so, and there is not substantial evidence showing it could not do so." McConnell ruled against the environmentalists on their contention that SANDAG did not adequately address the impact of the plan on agriculture and especially on small farms, in large part because she concluded that the environmentalists' comment letter did not raise these issues in the context of growth-inducing impacts.

The Santa Ynez Valley in Southern California brands itself as bucolic wine country, a mix between grape-covered hills and Old West charm. The Chamber of Commerce touts the hospitality and diversity of the valley's several thousand residents. But one thing that isn't mentioned in the Chamber's materials is the Chumash Casino Resort, a business run by the government of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians that generated a reported $366 million in revenue in 2008. Aided by the casino's success, the Tribe has been able to buy additional land near its 146-acre reservation. What it plans to do with that land has been a subject of angry debate. Many in local government and other local organizations fear that added Tribal land development may upset the power balance in the valley, especially since Indian land is not subject to local or state regulations. The government of the Tribe (and its approximately 150 members) now appears close to acquiring federal trust status for a 1,400-acre property that it purchased through an ordinary real estate transaction in 2010. The property is a classic expanse of California farmland on Highway 154 near Solvang, known as "Camp 4," and formerly owned by vintner and Hollywood star Fess Parker. It is currently zoned for agriculture and partly managed as a vineyard . In October the plan won a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), determining that the trust status would not affect the quality of the human environment significantly enough to require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The FONSI presumes the Tribe will follow its announced plan for the land, saying "The proposed trust land would enable the Tribe to provide housing for its existing tribal members and continue to provide housing for descendants as they come of age." It states the existing reservation has only about 50 acres of "usable" land within its reservation, "much of which has already been developed." Many non-Native residents and state and county officials, however, are anxious that the land could be used for economic development projects outside the reach of taxation or regulation at the state and county level. Local opponents' sites include http://polosyv.org , http://savethevalley.info/ and www.syvconcernedcitizens.com . The county's documents page on Camp 4 is at www.countyofsb.org/ceo/camp4.sbc . A long-disputed claim Tribal real estate developments can avoid state and local land-use regulations because tribes are outside states' jurisdiction. Native American tribes are recognized by the federal government as separate sovereigns, often with treaty rights recognized and signed by various U.S. presidents over the years. The extent to which the Camp 4 land was held by or for the Tribe during the last few centuries is disputed. (The federal government can still choose to take property into trust that a tribe has purchased even if it is not considered part of that tribe's past or present reservation land.) Santa Barbara County and the Tribe itself both point to the Reservation's beginning as part of the Catholic Mission Santa Ines. The Tribe's Web site states the reservation was founded in 1901 . Opponents have argued that the Tribe did not exist until relatively recent years and that when land was held previously, by owners including the Church, it was not on the Tribe's behalf . The FONSI describes the Catholic Church as having held land for the Tribe that included the Camp 4 area. Concurrently with the Camp 4 proposal, the Tribe pursued approvals this fall for a further expansion of the casino within the reservation boundaries. The work reportedly was contracted to Tutor-Perini this fall at a price tag of $112 million. In September the Tribe granted its own certification to the project's environmental evaluation . Opponents have been watchful for expansive tribal sovereignty claims in the context of the casino expansion that could also strengthen the Tribe's position with respect to Camp 4. Routes to trust status The Tribe, which requires Federal approval for the "fee to trust" transfer, has sought to obtain it through either an administrative BIA process or Congressional action. Under trust status, the federal government would hold legal title, under terms similar to private fiduciary duty, explicitly for the benefit of the entire Tribe and outside the state regulatory framework. Trust land has been held to be more purely "Indian Country" than land held by a tribe through ordinary "fee simple" real estate titles. So state officials are concerned that if the land becomes trust land they will no longer be able to keep the Tribe from using it however it wishes – possibly building high-rise or high-density apartments against local zoning ordinances, or even constructing casino expansions. Camp 4 was part of a 11,500-acre parcel that the Tribe applied in 2013 to have designated as a Tribal Consolidation Area (TCA). TCA status would have allowed it to be more easily moved into Trust status. The BIA approved the consolidation plan application, but after objections from the County Supervisors and others, the Tribe withdrew it in October 2013 -- an act that Tribal spokesman and attorney Sam Cohen called that of a "good neighbor". In October 2013, not long after the Tribe withdrew its TCA application, Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, introduced a bill in Congress, HR 3313 , to transfer Camp 4 into federal trust for the Tribe. LaMalfa has been criticized for bringing the bill because the Santa Ynez Valley is a long way from his own district, which is in the northeast corner of the state. HR 3313 has not moved in the House since its introduction. But the Santa Barbara Independent has reported the bill could be reintroduced in the new Congressional session, especially if the Camp 4 fee-to-trust application is approved by the BIA and appealed. Although HR 3313 explicitly would exclude gaming from Camp 4, and the Tribe has reiterated that the casino expansion and Camp 4 development are separate projects, the proposal's opponents are worried that this restriction could be overridden once the land is removed from state and county jurisdiction. Andi Culbertson, a Santa Ynez Valley resident and land use lawyer, expressed concern that once the land is solely in Tribal hands, "they can build anything." Culbertson said there is "hardly a necessity for housing" for those Tribal members who live in the Valley, and that only 17% of the Chumash Tribe (about 25 people) live on the reservation. How many are full-time residents is disputed, but the Tribe says that more Tribal members will return to the valley if there is Tribal-run housing for them.      Objections to the transfer Opposition to the Chumash plans comes from a variety of sources, but focuses on a few key issues summed up by the California Coastal Protection Network (CCPN). The Network notes that although 100% of the 111 California fee-to-trust applications to the Pacific Region of the BIA from 2001-2011 were approved, those each averaged under 100 acres, far smaller than the Chumash Tribe's application for 1,400 acres. Santa Barbara County, through its County Executive Office, has opposed federal trust status for Camp 4. In the comment process on the Tribe's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the fee-to-trust plan under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the County submitted strong criticisms of the Assessment and sought more thorough review through a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). One important issue is loss of tax revenue. Tribes do not pay taxes to state or local governments because they are sovereigns of equal standing. In 2011 the Tribe proposed a "cooperative agreement" that among other things called for payments in lieu of taxes. Tribal Chair Vincent Armenta told the local Noozhawk Web site in 2013 that the Tribe had hoped "to negotiate a payment in lieu of property taxes for our Camp 4 land," but was rebuffed by Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr, who has opposed the fee-to-trust application. A 2011 copy of the proposed cooperative agreement left the in-lieu payment amount blank but an October 2013 comment letter by the Santa Ynez Valley Concerned Citizens said the proposed cooperative agreement (CA) was offering $1 million per year for ten years in exchange for county support of the fee-to-trust transfer. In that group's opinion the offered amount wasn't enough to make up for the property's permanent removal from the tax rolls, especially if the property were to be developed, increasing in value while creating a need for more services. One recent county action suggested an approach to the cost of police protection: the Tribe received the Supervisors' approval in November 2014 to contract with the county Sheriff's Office for policing on the reservation, at a cost to the Tribe of $849,000 per year. The Independent reported that, in joining the unanimous approval, Farr compared the policing agreement to what the paper described as "a longstanding contract between the tribe and County Fire." The CCPN has decried the Cooperative Agreement as vague, saying it "did not contain an explicit project description for uses on the 1,400 acres, but indicated that it would include housing and unspecified ‘economic development'." Likewise the county has objected that the Tribe's NEPA documents don't say how many people would live on each of 143 proposed residential lots or how many would use planned structures such as a conference center. The County Supervisors also voted 3-2 to initiate litigation against the BIA if it grants the transfer, which was considered likely to happen in December. Local discussions have stalled even over the terms of negotiations on plans for the Camp 4 property: whether they should be conducted government-to-government as the Tribe prefers or county-to-landowner as the County would like. By a 3-2 vote on August 20, 2013 , the Supervisors invited the Tribe to "begin discussions with the County Planning and Development Department" regarding development plans for Camp 4. But the Santa Barbara News-Press and Santa Barbara Independent reported the Supervisors rejected "government to government" negotiation on Camp 4. They reported Farr acknowledged the Tribe's sovereignty on its reservation but that she said with respect to Camp 4 the Tribe should deal with the County as an ordinary landowner. The Independent said Supervisors Salud Carbajal and Steve Lavagnino supported "a government-to-government dialogue" on Camp 4 but were outvoted. Soon after, the Independent reported the parties had scheduled a meeting, but with Cohen not "overly optimistic about the opportunity." Since then each side has accused the other of snubbing invitations to negotiate. In an open letter to Capps in May 2014, Armenta wrote, "the County has refused to even acknowledge our standing as a government by voting to reject any efforts to formally negotiate with the tribe." Non-CEQA environmental regulation Tribal land is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In practice, tribal authorities are under various pressures to follow the spirit (if not the letter) of local environmental quality acts. Tribes are subject to federal environmental standards, including NEPA, and also often have a political interest in working with local regulatory authorities and contractors. Culbertson, however, complained of inconsistencies between the Tribe's process and what CEQA would require. For example, she saw deficiencies in the public notice process for the Environmental Evaluation prepared by the Tribe for the casino project. She wrote that the Evaluation was "made the subject of a ‘public meeting' was so poorly advertised that it only attracted 15 people. The manner of notice was woefully deficient under CEQA." Culbertson noted that "It's a developer's fondest dream to be able to escape all state regulations," and the Camp 4 development would do precisely that. The Tribe's 2011 cooperative agreement draft includes a "Consent to Jurisdiction" section that would grant a "limited waiver of sovereign immunity from suit" to the County to enforce the agreement. But that doesn't impress opponents of the notion that tribal sovereignty applies to Camp 4 at all. "In a perfect world, tribes and their counties would work out some agreed-upon system similar to currently existing county LAFCO processes," said Cohen. Elsewhere, approaches to state-federal and tribal-state jurisdictional issues have included federal consistency review for agencies like the Coastal Commission and memoranda of understanding for joint CEQA and NEPA reviews. The California State Association of Counties has posted a tribal and intergovernmental relations platform calling for future tribal-state compacts to include a CEQA consistency process for environmental reviews. But it's unclear what may work in the Santa Ynez Valley. At the state level, the offices of Governor Jerry Brown and the California Attorney General have taken a skeptical interest in fee-to-trust processes. The AG's office issued several objecting comment letters between 2011 and 2013 on California tribes' fee-to-trust applications. ( One such objection concerned 878.55 acres where the Tule River Tribe hoped to build a wastewater plant.) However, the Capitol Weekly reported last summer that the AG and Governor "have declined to involve themselves in the Camp 4 issue" following a strongly worded objection to the comment letters from the California Fee-to-Trust Consortium, a group formed by tribes with the Pacific Region BIA office. Fear of water rights claims Tribal water rights are a concern in the valley as throughout the state. Comments opposing the Camp 4 trust status reflect concern over water supply for development and anxiety that the Tribe might assert new water claims via sovereign status. The county's November 2014 response to the FONSI said the groundwater basin serving Camp 4 was already "in overdraft", and that "Recent data also suggests that the supplemental supplies obtained from the State Water Project and the Cachuma Project, that helped create a surplus in the past, will not constitute a long-term, stable additional water source." Cohen has offered reassurances that a transfer to trust would not give the Tribe new water right priorities over surrounding county and private landowners. Likewise the proposed text of HR 3313 would disclaim any effect on prior water rights. But while Cohen has generally downplayed water rights on land outside the reservation proper (including the Camp 4 area), he wrote that California's new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act invites tribes to "voluntarily agree to participate" (Cal. Water Code Sec. 10720.3(c) per SB 1168 ) and argued that it notes federal law supersedes California law on tribal groundwater issues. Water anxieties also surround a 2013 student note on the Santa Ynez Tribe's case in the West Northwest Journal of Environmental Law & Policy by Joanna "Joey" Meldrum. Her note led from a review of recent federal precedents to a hypothetical argument that "the Tribe should have the right to withdraw as much groundwater as is necessary for the Reservation and its people to survive and prosper." Some opponents of the fee-to-trust transfer were alarmed enough to cite it as a reason to oppose "government-to-government" negotiations in 2013 . The current standoff over Camp 4 is local and unique in many senses. But the outcome could also affect the ability of tribes throughout California to plan new development. Asher Kohn is a writer and editor based in the Bay Area. He writes about land use and disuse. See http://www.asherjkohn.com .