California's business community is accustomed to having its plans second-guessed by regulators seeking to determine whether a project or activity will harm birds, bugs, fish and plants. But a recent decision by the Coastal Commission appears to signal a dramatic shift in the state's regulatory environment, adding a global dimension to the list of potential impacts to be assessed. By law, the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission is restricted to the state's coastal zone, which extends three miles out to sea and generally about 1,000 yards inland. Within that zone, any activity with the potential to affect the coastal environment falls under the commission's authority, as countless would-be developers of seaside property have discovered to their frustration over the past three decades. But federal law also grants the commission authority to review projects outside state waters, prohibiting federal agencies from permitting projects that affect California's coastal environment unless the commission finds them "consistent" with the Coastal Act's protections. It is this provision that let the Coastal Commission weigh in on Australian mining giant BHP Billiton's controversial proposal to install a liquefied natural gas import terminal in federal waters 14 miles off the Ventura County shore. In reaching their decision in April to reject the project, commissioners and their staff embraced a significant expansion of the panel's sphere of concern. "We feel we have the responsibility to make this recommendation to you, not only for consistency with the Coastal Act, but for the planet," is how Executive Director Peter Douglas put it during his presentation of the staff report recommending rejection of the BHP project. Most of the planet is, of course, outside the commission's geographic purview. But Douglas' comments — and the commission's unanimous vote — were based in part on a novel addition to the process of environmental review in California: evaluation of a project's potential effect on global climate. "The proposed project, including its associated supply chain and end users, would result in emissions of several million tons annually of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide," the staff report says. "The contribution of these emissions to global warming would result in numerous adverse effects to coastal resources due to sea level rise, ocean warming, and ocean acidification, which lead to secondary effects such as loss of habitat and species, increased coastal erosion, adverse economic effects to California's ports and fisheries, and other serious impacts to the California coast," the staff report says. The decision marked the first time that global warming and greenhouse gas emissions played a lead role in the environmental review process in California, and it may signal a seismic shift in the rules of the game for project applicants up and down the state. It also does not bode well for future proposals to import natural gas into California, nor for generating plants and other energy projects that involve hydrocarbon fuels. The Coastal Commission's rejection was one of several knockout blows dealt over the past two months to BHP's Cabrillo Port project, a floating platform where gas supercooled into liquid form would have been pumped from tankers, stored in tanks and then warmed to covert it back to gaseous form for delivery. Three days earlier, the State Lands Commission had voted 2-1 to deny BHP a lease needed to lay pipeline on the sea floor to connect the floating terminal to the onshore gas transmission and distribution system operated by Southern California Gas Company. Although the State Lands Commission did not perform as thorough an examination of the project's carbon footprint as the Coastal Commission did, the subject was clearly on at least one commissioner's mind. "In the future, I believe every environmental impact statement with LNG or any energy source has to and must deal with total greenhouse gas emissions, and I believe that current state law requires it," Commissioner (and Lt. Gov.) John Garamendi told a local reporter. The law Garamendi referred to was authored by former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley. It requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020. Signed into law last year, the bill is one of several initiatives undertaken in California to address climate change since BHP submitted its Cabrillo Port application in 2003, The Coastal Commission staff report estimates that port operations would emit 346,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. Greenhouse gas emissions from the LNG carrier fleet serving the facility could total nearly 2.4 million metric tons a year, the report says. Neither of the April commission votes was necessarily fatal to the BHP project, one of several proposed in waters off Southern California. The company could have appealed the Coastal Commission's decision to the secretary of commerce, and it could have challenged the State Lands Commission denial in court. But under federal law, an LNG project in federal waters cannot be approved without the consent of the governor of the adjacent state. And on May 18, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger informed the Maritime Administration — which has permitting authority over deepwater ports — that he was denying BHP's project. "Liquefied natural gas can and must be an important addition to California's energy portfolio," Schwarzenegger wrote. "However, any LNG import facility must meet the strict environmental standards California demands to continue to improve our air quality, protect our coast, and preserve our marine environment. The Cabrillo Port LNG project, as designed, fails to meet that test." Schwarzenegger's letter to the Maritime Administration carefully sidesteps the entire issue of greenhouse gas emissions, which is curious given the role he has adopted as a leader in the campaign to battle global warming. Among other actions, he has appointed a global warming task force, negotiated an agreement among six western states to establish a carbon registry, signed an executive order directing the state to develop a low-carbon fuel standard, and criticized the Bush Administration for inaction on climate change. But the carbon-free future is a long way off. And as Schwarzenegger notes in his letter to the Maritime Administration, California remains dependent on natural gas to generate more than 40% of its electricity. And because it imports 87% of the gas it uses, the state is vulnerable to price spikes and energy shortages. California, Schwarzenegger writes, "needs LNG" to diversify its energy supply. If so, then the state appears headed for a showdown between its energy policy and its greenhouse gas policy. Resources: Coastal Commission staff report on BHP project: http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2007/4/Th7a-4-2007.pdf California Climate Change Portal: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/index.html BHP Billiton's Cabrillo Port project: http://lngsolutions.bhpbilliton.com/default.asp Cabrillo Port environmental review: http://www.cabrilloport.ene.com/

The California Research Bureau (CRB) has suggested increasing public oversight of redevelopment activities by broadening the use, membership and roles of project area committees. Currently, the law requires a project area committee (PAC) only for a redevelopment project that could displace a significant number of low- or moderate-income households. Homeowners, tenants and business owners elect committee members, and the PAC serves as an advisory body to the redevelopment agency. Although some PACs are tremendously influential, many redevelopment agencies either do not have a PAC or have an inactive committee. The CRB's report is sketchy, but the bureau suggests restructuring the committees to give them more influence and oversight. The CRB report also examines the possibility of using arbitration as a means of public input in redevelopment plans, and to settle disputes over the legal validity of plans. The use of arbitration is an idea backed by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine). The CRB also suggests giving county local agency formation commissions oversight of redevelopment activities, but the report makes clear that legislative staff members thoroughly rejected this concept. The report, "Rethinking Redevelopment Oversight: Exploring Possibilities for Increasing Local Input," and numerous other Research Bureau reports are available at http://www.library.ca.gov/html/statseg2a.cfm . - Paul Shigley

The California Research Bureau has published a report outlining possible ways to increase public oversight of redevelopment. Read about the report and check out other blog entries by Paul Shigley and William Fulton at The Daily Shig .

The CEQA questions, both procedural and substantive, were thick and juicy during a hearing Tuesday, May 15, on the Yuba Highlands project east of Marysville. Located on about 2,900 acres of unincorporated Yuba County between Beale Air Force Base and Spenceville State Wildlife Area, Yuba Highlands is proposed to have about 5,100 housing units and 85 acres of commercial development. Among the questions that arose were these: • May a Planning Commission, which does not have ultimate authority over the project, certify the environmental impact report? The county and developer say yes, opponents no. The County cast Tuesday's hearing before the Board of Supervisors as an appeal based on the record in front of the Planning Commission. • How firmly must an EIR identify water for a development? The county and developer say adequate groundwater is available both physically and legally. Opponents disagree, as does the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Yuba County supervisors appeared perplexed, and several times they fell back on the if-there's-no-water-they-can't-build line of reasoning. The state Supreme Court recently set a very high bar for water studies in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova . • What happens when local practice requires a four-fifths vote to adopt a statement of overriding considerations — and there are only three votes for approval? When an impact from a project remains significant and unavoidable, the project may go forward under CEQA only if the local agency adopts a statement of overriding considerations that says the benefits outweigh the impact. In the past, Yuba County has required a four-fifths vote in such cases, although the requirement's basis was unclear Tuesday night. This could be pivotal because only three of five supervisors voted for a "motion of intent" to deny the project opponent's appeal of the EIR. • How objective must an elected official be when considering an EIR? Board of Supervisors Chairman Hal Stocker has been an outspoken project opponent, and the developer's attorney, Douglas Kirkman, argued that Stocker must recuse himself. Stocker didn't budge and toward the end of the hearing said the EIR "has more holes than Swiss cheese." The Yuba Highlands EIR will return in coming weeks to the Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider the project's area plan and development agreement in June. "Why," asked Supervisor Don Schrader, "do I have the feeling this is going to end up before a person with a black robe?" - Paul Shigley

If you look at the Automobile Club of Southern California's 1937 freeway plan for Los Angeles, you'll see that the relationship between the freeways and the city evolved a bit differently from the way the people who wrote that plan envisioned. The original idea was that wide greenbelts would separate the freeways from the city around them. When the freeways came in the decades that followed, of course, they were bulldozed right through the neighborhoods, often with houses adjacent. And now that land is expensive and housing is scarce, infill developers – and planners – are looking to areas adjacent to freeways to build infill housing. Could we go back to the greenbelt idea? That seems to be the viewpoint of a growing number of public health experts. A couple of months ago, I wrote a column in CP&DR about the public health risks of building infill housing near freeways . Last Friday, May 11, I was on a panel with several of the public health experts at the UCLA Extension "Urban Renaissance" conference at the Biltmore in downtown Los Angeles. One of the most provocative speakers was Andrea Hricko, a professor at USC's Institute for Preventive Medicine in Alhambra. She was one of the authors of the recent academic article that I wrote about, which concluded that children living close to freeways are at risk of having diminished lung capacity. Using a series of slides showing housing projects and schools adjacent to freeways and truck routes, Professor Hricko argued forcefully in favor of large buffer areas around freeways and other transportation corridors where toxic air pollutants might be concentrated. From a purely public health perspective, this makes sense. But is it practical? The land adjacent to freeways in Los Angeles is among the most expensive real estate in the world. Can we really move all the housing – and probably everything else as well – 500 yards away? Of course not. And in the Q&A, Professor Hricko talked a little bit more about possible "mitigation" strategies rather than "avoidance" – for example, building filters or traps on the freeways so that they capture some of the toxic pollutants. But maybe one thing we can do is discourage the construction of housing, especially family affordable housing, alongside the freeways. An affordable housing developer in the audience pointed out that one of Professor Hricko's bad examples – an affordable project with a child-care center right up against the 710 Freeway – actually got a perfect score in the rating system from the state Low Income Housing Tax Credit Allocation Committee. In that system you get points for proximity to schools and transit – and apparently no penalty for being next to a truck-intensive freeway. - Bill Fulton

When fiscal experts start talking about land use, planners often get nervous. Economists and planners don't necessarily have the same definition of "good" land use. So I found it interesting during the Great Valley Center's annual conference on May 9 and 10 in Sacramento that a UC Davis economics professor and a banker made two compelling arguments regarding the "best" use of farmland. UC Professor Richard Howitt argued for retiring large chunks of farmland in the Bay Delta region, while Ken McCorkle, a Wells Fargo senior vice president, told the gathering that one of the biggest threats to California's $34 billion agricultural industry is urban sprawl. Howitt spoke during a breakout session on the Delta and, specifically, on a recently released Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) study that he helped write. One of the assumptions of past studies, he explained, is that agricultural islands within the Delta must remain viable. But Howitt dug further and found that most agricultural acreage in the Delta is devoted to field corn, alfalfa and pasture — very low value crops. Plus, most of this low-value ag is concentrated on islands that are the most vulnerable to flooding. Many Delta islands lie 20 feet or more below sea level and are protected by levees. One of the PPIC study's conclusions is that letting some of those levees fail, thereby flooding islands, could aid the Delta's ecological health. Local farmers, of course, vigorously oppose such a plan. But Howitt argued that a "crash" in the Delta — either a complete ecological collapse, which appears near , or a natural disaster such as earthquake-caused levee failures — could cost other portions of the state tens of billions of dollars in economic damages cause by interruptions in the State Water Project and Central Valley Project. Meanwhile, the value of all ag products in the Delta is less than $300 million a year, or less than 1% of the state's total. Howitt had a perfect example. Two years ago, a levee protecting an island known as the Jones Tract failed. The state raced to plug the gap and ended up spending somewhere between $45 million and $65 million to stabilize the levee. But Howitt estimates that the value of the privately owned farmland protected by the publicly funded levee is at most $28 million. To an economist — and probably to most taxpayers — this makes no sense. Speaking during a lunch session, McCorkle, manager of Wells Fargo's agricultural industries group, said the Central Valley farm industry is thriving and has a bright future. However, he said, that future is threatened by four things: the loss of unique farmland to urban development, an inadequate and unreliable water supply, an inadequate labor supply and an overloaded transportation system. If the Central Valley continues developing in its current pattern, it will lose about 900,000 acres of farmland (14% of the total) by 2040, said McCorkle, who emphasized that the region's combination of soil and climate is exceedingly rare in the world. "It's time to start going up a little bit more, rather than going out," McCorkle urged. In fact, this has been a theme at every Great Valley Center conference since the first one in 1998. Usually, it's the planners making this pitch. Now, even a banker agrees. Maybe he'll have more impact than the planners have had. — Paul Shigley

For the first time, residents in a Ventura County city have voted to substantially expand their urban growth boundaries in order to accommodate a residential development. Some 61% of Santa Paula residents voted on Tuesday, May 8, to expand the urban growth boundary by 4,800 acres to bring the Adams Canyon area inside the city's growth boundary. Measure A7 also directed the city to amend its general plan to permit about 500 houses, a resort hotel and golf course, and require at least 200 acres of passive open space. The vote more than doubles the amount of undeveloped land inside the city's growth boundary Tuesday's vote marked the third time the Adams Canyon area had been placed before the voters since they first approved the SOAR (Save Open space and Agricultural Resources) urban growth boundary initiative in 2000. In 2002, only 36% of the voters favored adding Adams Canyon. In 2006, the growth boundary expansion lost by only 88 votes. Those previous votes envisioned a much larger project, however. For the vote on Tuesday, Pinnacle Development Co. scaled back its proposal from more than 2,000 houses to about 495. The hillside homes would probably sell for more than $3 million each – an extremely high-end project for Santa Paula, a mostly poor city of about 30,000 people located 10 miles inland from Ventura. For the third election, Pinnacle took a different approach than the one the developer employed last year. Although the ballot measure describes how the general plan will be amended, Pinnacle has not proposed a specific development project yet. Also, the developer – which previously ran a million-dollar campaign – spent little this time, allowing proponents on the City Council to take the lead. Voters in Ventura County and eight of its 10 cities created urban growth boundaries in a series of initiatives between 1995 and 2000.

It may not be the parting of the Red Sea, but the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan is miracle enough. Sponsored by the Los Angeles River Committee of the Los Angeles City Council, the revitalization master plan may be the corner-turning event that actually kicks off the process of making a depressing culvert into a riparian green belt, studded with neighborhood parks, including several in the city's poorest neighborhoods. Published in draft form in February, with a final version expected in a few months, the plan covers a 32-mile stretch of the river inside the city of Los Angeles from the comfortable, single-family neighborhoods of the San Fernando Valley, through the industrial grunge of Elysian Heights, Atwater and downtown Los Angeles, to the aging, overcrowded frame houses of East Los Angeles. The only really bad thing about the plan is that it does not include all cities downstream of Los Angeles where the need for park space is even more critical. Part of the miracle, which the master plan does not adequately acknowledge, is the origin of the idea in grass roots activism. The L.A. River is probably the most democratic planning initiative ever to occur in Los Angeles, held together by dozens of volunteer organizations, most notably the nonprofit Friends of the Los Angeles River, which has conducted tours and events on the river for years to popularize the waterway as an environmental and open-space opportunity. If idealistic planners, architects and community activists were quick to see value in the Los Angeles River, however, government has been slow to act. One must remember that as recently as 20 years ago, Los Angeles County's flood control officials were busy pouring fresh concrete into the culvert, dismissing the idea of alternative flood control as unproven nonsense. The notion of removing vast stretches of concrete from the river seemed as lunatic as colonizing the moons of Jupiter. Since that time, nearly every other major American city — including Cleveland, Memphis, Denver and Houston — has cleaned up its dirty waterfront. Los Angeles, with its splintered city government and lack of interest in anything civic outside one's immediate neighborhood, is a latecomer to the party. As for planning, what a difference 60 years makes! The old culvert is a monument to single-issue planning. The new revitalization master plan, if anything, may take on too many issues: The plan tries to use the rebirth of the river as the catalyst for the creation of high-density development — including multi-family, industrial, office and retail — at certain points. The plan is laudable for attempting to address the complexity and multiple agendas of urban life. Even a healthy, beautiful river, however, may not provide the leverage needed to turn around entire neighborhoods. Still, it's an exciting piece of planning that thinks big, which is what planning is supposed to do. The plan puts forward 13 pilot, or catalytic, projects that center on parks. Each design tussles realistically with tough, unyielding existing conditions, like freeway underpasses and industrial compounds, without fantasizing that those conditions will disappear entirely. The steep walls that make the river inaccessible become concrete steps for pedestrians, and terraces that bring riparian landscaping down to the river. Inflatable dams create ponds in a number of areas, such as in Chinatown, where a secondary, "naturalized" channel widens the river and makes it a centerpiece for recreation. In Canoga Park, the river becomes the occasion of a T-shaped park that can co-exist with an existing Pratt & Whitney plant, or expand into that space if the manufacturer leaves. In downtown Los Angeles, the river becomes a linear park and the site of 1,000 new multi-family units looking onto the water. A proposed park in the Taylor Yards just north of downtown Los Angeles would be the "biggest act of restoration," according to the draft plan, entailing the removal of one mile of concrete along one side of the river, and creating a combination park and "water-quality treatment" wetlands with plants that can scrub pollutants out of urban storm runoff. Even more extraordinarily, this entire wetlands would sit atop contaminated soil, separated by a waterproof membrane. The river would also grow its own bureaucracy, including a joint powers authority for governance, a corporation to own the real estate and a foundation to receive contributions and grants. One sign of success is that the river has become tangible enough to be politicized. Alianza de los Pueblo del Rio, a coalition of Latino groups that consulted with river planners, publicly complained in March that only two of 87 proposed parks call for active recreation as opposed to "passive" uses (i.e. just for looks). "The plan as it stands now could be called the L.A. River gentrification master plan," executive director Robert Garcia told the Downtown News. If the charge is true, the lack of active-rec parks in poor neighborhoods would be a major oversight. But the real disappointment of the plan is that it stops at the Los Angeles city boundaries. That means that other communities, including Maywood, the poorest city in the state, will have to shift for themselves if they want to improve the river. These cities are largely lacking in parks and open space, and maps indicate that central Los Angeles County is a collective "heat sink" of unrelieved asphalt and concrete. It is doubtful that these less affluent communities can mount a planning effort comparable to that undertaken by L.A. It makes sense that Los Angeles would want to control the river-greening within its own borders, but the city needs to participate in some regional joint powers authority and possibly contribute heavily to the planning process in other jurisdictions so that the waterway can became a regional asset. Many of the same communities participated in the Alameda Corridor JPA to build a short-haul railway. Why not a similar effort for the river, perhaps as a means to get some more state and federal dollars? Of course, inter-governmental cooperation would take a miracle in L.A. County, but miracles have been known to happen.

A grading permit for a nursery in Huntington Beach did not violate a six-year-old conditional use permit and was not subject to environmental review, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. When it approved the conditional use permit (CUP) in 1998, the City of Huntington Beach found the nursery exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review because the project involved minor grading and no permanent structures. Environmentalists argued that the 2004 grading permit went beyond the CUP and the exemption because the permit referenced 4,046 cubic yards of fill. A 1998 grading permit contemplated no fill. In a terse opinion, the Fourth District, Division Three, said environmentalists did not prove that the amount of fill mattered. "The 1998 grading permit and the 2004 grading permit issued by the city are not separate projects," Justice Richard Fybel wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "They are separate steps in the completion of the nursery development project. As long as the 1998 grading permit and the 2004 grading permit authorized the work contemplated by the grading plans, and the grading plans were consistent with the CUP, there is nothing to challenge under CEQA at this time." In 1996, the city granted a conditional use permit to Landscape by Hiro, Inc., for a wholesale nursery on an approximately 10-acre site under Southern California Edison power lines. The city required subsequent grading plans and found that such grading would "improve ponding and flooding conditions" on the site. The city filed a notice of exemption from environmental review — a notice that was not challenged. Two years later, the city approved owner Hiro Kawachi's grading plan and issued a permit. Construction commenced but then stopped in 1999. Kawachi resumed in 2003. Acting on a complaint, the city investigated and found that the grading did not comply with the 1998 plan. Kawachi submitted new grading plans, the city found those plans in compliance with the CUP, and the city issued a new grading permit. The Santa Ana River Watershed Coalition, the HB River Park Foundation and resident Merrilee Madrigal sued, contending the latest grading permit did not comply with the CUP and was not exempt from CEQA. Orange County Superior Court Judge Stephen Sundvold ruled for the city and was upheld on appeal. The Fourth District first ruled that environmentalists had failed to establish the city abused its discretion in issuing the 2004 grading permit. A grading permit that contemplated no fill and a permit that contemplated 4,046 cubic yards of fill could both be consistent with the CUP, the court determined. A conclusion otherwise, the court said, "is completely unsupportable." The court next determined that the grading permit was a ministerial act, even though the city did not make a specific finding. A grading permit is not necessarily ministerial nor discretionary, the court said. But in this case, the permit contains no conditions. "As argues, the city could issue a grading permit only if the grading plan conformed to the detailed standards of the CUP," Justice Fybel wrote. The environmentalists failed "to establish the city exercised any discretion in issuing the 2004 grading permit. Therefore, we cannot conclude the issuance of the grading permit was a discretionary act by the city." The court did not rule specifically that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA as a minor alteration to land. Rather, the court found that environmentalists did not prove the project was not exempt. The court rejected the argument that an exemption could not apply because the site is a floodplain or wetlands. " hen the city issued the CUP and concluded the project was exempt under title 15, § 15304, subdivision (a), it impliedly found the property was neither a wetland nor a floodplain," the court ruled. "The time to challenge this implied finding has long since expired." The Case: Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach , No. G036991, 07 C.D.O.S. 2104, 2007 DJDAR 2655. Filed January 31, 2007. Ordered published February 27, 2007. The Lawyers: For Madrigal: Rose Zoia, (707) 526-5894. For the city: Scott Field, city attorney's office, (714) 536-5555. For Southern California Edison: Paul Singarella, Latham & Watkins, (714) 540-1235. For Landscape by Hiro: Lois Bobak, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, (714) 564-2653.

Voters in two small towns rejected development during special elections in April. Voters in the San Gabriel Valley city of Sierra Madre approved a referendum that requires projects of a certain size in downtown to go before voters. Meanwhile, voters in the Solano County city of Dixon rejected a proposed horse track and entertainment facility. Both elections were close, and the land use battles in both cities appear far from over. The balloting may provide cautionary tales for planners, as both elections occurred after lengthy planning processes. Downtown Sierra Madre More than two years ago, city officials began work on plans for the city's 30-acre downtown core. A city of 10,000 people in the foothills north of the 210 freeway, Sierra Madre has a healthy high-end housing market. However, the quaint downtown has been losing businesses and some key properties are vacant. The city and RBF Consultants began work on a specific plan that would maintain the community character, and encourage investment in housing and mixed-use buildings downtown, explained Kurt Christiansen, the city's former community developer director, who now works for Yorba Linda. Sierra Madre officials also wanted to create design guidelines for downtown. City officials and RBF did extensive public outreach and education. The city mailed information to every household, put up posters, and placed full-page newspaper advertisements. They organized an eight-week "understanding downtowns" educational series. There were tours of five nearby downtowns, youth activities and ultimately a design charrette, according to Suzanne Rynne, a planner for RBF. This all led to the writing of a downtown vision plan. But the plan became contentious. Opponents argued that the city was trying to entice high-density, high-rise and big-box development that would ruin the charming, stoplight-free downtown. Christiansen responded that Sierra Madre's demographics do not support high rises or national retailers. But two proposals galvanized the opposition: A plan to redevelop Howie's Market with a mixed-use project containing 72 residential units, and a 55-unit skilled nursing development. Last year, two of the strongest opponents to the city's downtown planning won election to the City Council. Not surprisingly, a slow-growth initiative emerged. Measure V limits projects in the downtown core to 2 stories and 30 feet in height, and to 13 residential units per acre (18 with a density bonus). Exceeding the limits will require voter approval. On April 17, the measure passed by a tally of 1,796 to 1,703, suggesting just how closely divided the city is. The campaign over Measure V was nasty, with websites and blogs on either side of the issue launching vicious attacks. "It was really filthy, and that's a shame," said former Mayor Glenn Lambdin, an initiative opponent. "There were a lot of personal attacks and mean stuff. This was absolutely the dirtiest campaign that I've ever seen." Christiansen, a California Chapter, American Planning Association vice president who has continued to follow Sierra Madre, said the initiative was an overreaction to modest efforts to bring life to downtown, generate a tax revenue and meet the city's fair-share of affordable housing. "This measure really has divided the town to the point where it's going to be hard to heal the wounds," said Christiansen, noting that City Manager John Gillison recently left after less than two years on the job. What Measure V means for downtown is unclear. Lambdin predicted that downtown would be "frozen in time." Councilman Kurt Zimmerman, a Measure V supporter, told the Pasadena Star-News that the initiative's passage bolstered the democratic process. The election results, he told the newspaper, "will serve to empower and inspire other communities that are fighting to preserve their character and heritage." What happens with the mixed-use and skilled nursing projects also is unclear. City officials declared the project applications complete prior to the election and say the initiative cannot apply. But some Measure V supporters have argued that the initiative would apply. Litigation is likely either way. Dixon Downs While Sierra Madre residents were voting more on the theoretical, Dixon voters were deciding a very specific project: Magna Entertainment's plan for a major horse racing track and entertainment center, plus 1 million square feet of hotel, entertainment, retail and office development. The City Council approved the project last fall, but opponents placed on the ballot referendums of the general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning and development agreement approved by the city. In an April 17 election with a 66% turnout, voters rejected all four City Council actions by 53% to 47%. "We kind of think we saved Dixon from a bad thing," said Gail Preston, an organizer of Dixon Citizens for Quality Growth, which backed the referendums. The City Council approved Dixon Downs after a six-year planning process (see CP&DR Local Watch , March 2007). Backers said the project would increase Dixon's existing base of 5,300 jobs by about 50%, provide tax revenue, encourage growth in an undeveloped part of town, and put the city's name on the map. Magna, a Canadian company that owns Golden Gate Fields, Bay Meadows and Santa Anita, poured more than half a million dollars into the campaign. The company paid for numerous mailers, advertising and a community barbecue. On election day, the company bused in employees from Bay Meadows and Golden Gate for rallies. In the months prior to the election, Magna vowed to open the horse track's infield for use as a community park, to limit non-racing events such as concerts, and to sign an agreement prohibiting slot machines or casino-style gambling. Opponents, however, were skeptical of the campaign spending and promises. They noted, for example, that Magna has been a leading lobbyist at the state Capitol for legislative changes that would permit slot machines at horse tracks. "The last couple of weeks of the campaign, people got to see what happens when someone comes into town with a lot of money," Preston said. "There was a lot of talk about thousands of jobs, but in reality it was only 300 jobs. The rest of the jobs come with the horse and leave with the horse." As in Sierra Madre, the future remains uncertain in Dixon. Magna still owns 260 acres in a 640-acre specific plan area zoned for highway commercial, industrial and office development. The company's initial reaction to the election was that it would take a month to re-evaluate and consider repackaging the project. Preston warned against trying again. "The people would go crazy if that thing came back," he said. Resources: Sierra Madre election material: http://cityofsierramadre.com/ Pro Sierra Madre Measure V: http://sierramadrecactus.blogspot.com/ Anti Sierra Madre Measure V: http://www.downtowndirt.org/ Dixon Downs project website: www.thecityofdixon.com/dixon/DixonDowns/DixonDownsHomePage.html Dixon Citizens for Quality Growth: www.dumpthedowns.org Dixon Downs campaign: http://www.dontletdixondown.org/page.cfm?id=72

If anything has become clear during the months since voters approved a $19.9 billion transportation bond last November, it's that freeways are still king. The first $4.5 billion allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) was aimed solely at roads, mostly for expanding freeway capacity. Another $3 billion for pavement — including $1 billion for Highway 99 — is scheduled for allocation by June. Proposition 1B did include money for projects other than highways and roads, specifically $4 billion for public transit, $3 billion for trade corridors and related air improvements, and $1 billion for transit system safety, security and disaster response. Because of the way state lawmakers and Gov. Schwarzenegger drafted Proposition 1B, however, public transit and rail monies are likely to make it out the door much slower than funds for pavement. In fact the governor's budget proposes slashing annual funding for the Public Transportation Account (PTA) in 2007-08 by $1.1 billion, and backfilling with $600 million in bond funds, according to a state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee analysis. The governor proposes to dedicate another $700 million in bonds over the following two fiscal years to the PTA, which provides operations and transit capital. The money pulled out of the PTA would be shifted to an account for highway rehabilitation and safety projects – a demonstration of pavement's current political superiority. Proposition 1B's $4 billion for transit included $400 million specifically for intercity rail programs, including $125 million for passenger cars and locomotives. The governor's budget for 2007-08 proposes no funding for intercity rail from bond revenues. Transit advocates contend the governor's proposal subverts the will of voters, who thought Proposition 1B would fund new light rail lines, buses and other public transit. Slashing general fund expenditures for the PTA would have "overwhelmingly negative implications" for transit riders, said Josh Shaw, executive director of the California Transit Association. Lawmakers have expressed concern about the administration's transit funding strategy, but the administration notes that the budget designates the PTA's $600 million in bond funding specifically for transit capital improvements. This recent round of allocations from Proposition 1B's $4.5 billion for "corridor mobility" demonstrated that political muscle is essential. Local transportation agencies had submitted requests for $11.3 billion worth of highway and road projects. The CTC staff recommended funding $2.8 billion worth of those projects — setting off furious rounds of lobbying by local officials and state lawmakers whose projects were left out. In the end, the CTC allocated all $4.5 billion available. About one-sixth of that funding ($730 million) was awarded for a single, 10-mile carpool lane on the 405 freeway from Interstate 10 to the 101 freeway. Staff initially rejected the 405 project, but Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and numerous other elected officials pressed hard for the project on one of the states' most congested freeways. Meanwhile, projects without similar big-name political backing – including a $177 million Highway 101 bypass in the Mendocino County town of Willits, $85 million for new bridges over I-10 in Fontana, and $28 million for a freeway bypass in the Imperial County city of Brawley — were cut at the last minute by the CTC. A 2002 state law (AB 857) requires the governor to prepare a five-year infrastructure plan based on promoting infill, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patterns. Schwarzenegger has never submitted such a plan, and AB 857 did not appear to factor into the CTC's spending. Since December, legislators have introduced more than 20 bills addressing Proposition 1B implementation, even though the proposition's language appears to give discretion over most of the $19.9 billion to the administration — and the governor's office has been making moves to dictate how much of the remainder would be spent. The proposed budget bill, for example, would permit the administration to transfer Proposition 1B funds among various programs without legislative approval. Of course, all of the bond expenditures are subject to legislative approval through either the annual budget process or other legislation. And, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, lawmakers do have specific discretion over $5.1 billion designated for goods movement, air quality improvements related to goods movement, transit security and disaster response, port security and a state-local partnership program. In addition, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is carrying AB 901, which would provide criteria for distributing the $4 billion in transit money. During a joint committee hearing in March, Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Chairman Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) made clear that goods movement projects should be selected based on their environmental performance. Transportation officials should not expand capacity and then rely solely on mitigation to offset the impacts of the expanded capacity. Earlier this year, the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the state Environmental Protection Agency finalized a goods movement action plan. It basically represents the administration's proposal for spending the $2 billion in Proposition 1B for trade corridors. While the plan emphasizes the need to reduce impacts of goods movement on public health, the plan appears to rely primarily on mitigation and would not use environmental impact as a major project funding criteria. During the hearing, lawmakers specifically focused on air pollution from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. According to the Air Resources Board, about 75% of diesel particulate matter — which accounts for 70% of the cancer risk in polluted air — comes from goods movement. The two Southern California ports are the state's hot spot, and activity is expanding rapidly. A consensus emerged during the hearing that, although it could ease congestion, simply providing more capacity for standard trucks and trains will not suffice. Alternatives to diesel-powered trucks, trains and ships are needed. "Environmental money and infrastructure projects need to be linked," Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster told senators at the joint hearing. "We cannot just keep building larger and larger corridors and expect the environment to improve." South Coast Air Quality Management District Executive Director Barry Wallerstein spoke of "a health crisis" caused by fine particulate pollution, which causes 5,400 people in the region to die prematurely every year. Proposition 1B does include a separate $1 billion for reducing air emissions from goods movement. Air Resources Board Chairman Robert Sawyer said that money should go where air pollution is the worst and goods traffic is the highest — which means urban Southern California. Resources: Legislative Analyst's Office transportation funding study: www.lao.ca.gov/analysis.aspx?year=2007&chap=1&toc=1 Senate Transportation and Housing Committee reports: www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/TRANSPORTATION/_home/

For at least the third time in two years, litigation filed by housing advocates has resulted in a court order or settlement for hundreds of affordable housing units. The latest city to get hit with a judgment is Brea, whose redevelopment agency was ordered to produce 208 units of low- and very low-income housing by June 2012. Orange County Superior Court Judge Sheila Fell found that Brea's redevelopment agency had inappropriately double-counted replacement units (those built to replace demolished housing) and inclusionary units (the percentage of new units that must be affordable). Fell issued her ruling in October 2006 in a case brought by San Diego-based Affordable Housing Advocates. To head off an appeal, the organization and the redevelopment agency recently signed a settlement agreement that holds the agency to the housing production mandate. The decision follows rulings in cases involving Stockton and Pittsburg. In the latter, the City of Pittsburg and its redevelopment agency agreed to produce 990 units of affordable housing (including 396 very low-income units) within nine years. The agreement settled a lawsuit brought by Public Advocates and the California Affordable Housing Law Project. In the Stockton case, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the city to provide relocation assistance to people who were displaced from their single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels by a large code enforcement effort. ( Price v. City of Stockton , 394 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (2005); see CP&DR Legal Digest , January 2005.) The court blocked the city from removing additional downtown hotels or apartments until the city met certain conditions. Stockton settled the litigation by agreeing to provide 340 replacement units. Local redevelopment agency officials sometimes see such litigation as nuisance lawsuits. Stockton officials, for example, make no apologies for shuttering substandard residential hotels. Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Steve Pinkerton said that the lawsuit against his city resulted in a modest amount of relocation assistance for plaintiffs and an agreement to develop units that the city was already planning to provide. In fact, he contended, the city had already provided nearly half of the settlement's 340 units. Mostly the lawsuit resulted in $1.5 million in legal fees for housing advocacy lawyers, Pinkerton complained. Eric Nicoll, who heads Brea's economic development and redevelopment agencies, sounded the same theme. "This was a frivolous lawsuit. It wastes the public's money," Nicoll said. "I'm completely convinced that it was all about her attorneys fees." Judge Fell did award plaintiffs' attorneys $1.9 million, an amount the settlement reduced to $1.4 million. Most of that money went to Affordable Housing Advocates, whose directing attorney is Catherine Rodman. "It's mind-boggling the spin that some agencies put on this," Rodman said. "If there was no merit to the case, we wouldn't have gotten a dime." Lynn Martinez, an attorney for Western Center on Law and Poverty involved in the Stockton litigation, has heard it before. Stockton officials vigorously fought the lawsuit before declaring afterward that the city was going to do the right thing all along, she said. "Most cities recognize when they are doing something wrong, and they don't drive up the attorneys fees," Martinez said. Most cities will either amend policies in order to prevent litigation, or quickly settle a lawsuit, she said. But some jurisdictions — including Brea — concede nothing. Six years passed from the filing of the Affordable Housing Advocates' lawsuit to the settlement signing. "They had plenty of time to get their house in order. Instead, they spent their time fighting us," said Rodman, who noted the city filed numerous motions intended to prevent a trial. "They tried very hard to prevent us from getting to the merits." Rodman said she began scrutinizing all Orange County redevelopment agencies in 1998. She uncovered what she thought were improprieties in Brea and leaned on the city for two years to change its practices before she filed suit in 2001. Her lawsuit against Brea had a number of aspects, and she lost some key portions. She argued that the agency should reimburse the low/mod housing fund because the agency spent all of a $200 million bond issued in 1986 on infrastructure in commercial areas, allocating nothing to serve housing. She also argued that the city should reimburse the housing fund millions of dollars from past years because the city was deducting pass-through and administrative fees before setting aside the housing fund's 20%. Judge Fell imposed a three-year statute of limitations, so the challenge to the bond spending failed. Fell found the city had incorrectly been setting aside 20% of net, rather than gross, income and ordered repayment to the housing fund back to 1998, a total of $524,000. Rodman also sought 458 replacement units and 130 inclusionary units. In the end, Fell ordered the agency to provide 204 inclusionary and 4 replacement units. Nicoll, the agency's executive director, called the housing fund repayment "no big deal. We can live with it." But he said there was no reason for Rodman and the court to spend so much time on the 1986 bond. The city filed a validation suit to get a legal ruling on the bond at the time, the bond provided infrastructure in an area where affordable units have been built, and the three-year statute of limitations is well known, he said. In fact, he said, a court of appeal confirmed the three-year limitation in Hogar Dulce Hogar v. Community Development Commission of the City of Escondido, 110 Cal.App.4th 1288 , a case litigated by Rodman (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2003). Nicoll charged that Rodman challenged the bond expressly to run up her bill. As for the double-counting, Nicoll said the agency has been doing so because the law is unclear. "Should we have done anything differently? No. In fact, the final outcome weighed more in our favor," Nicoll said. According to city statistics, 788 housing units, including 323 affordable units, have been constructed in Brea's redevelopment project areas since 1980. Another 1,377 units have been built outside the project area, including 341 affordable units. Nicoll said the agency would amend its redevelopment implementation plan in July to account for the judge's order, but the agency already has plans for more than 300 new units. "The average cost of doing an affordable unit in Brea is about $175,000," Rodman said. "If you multiply that by 208 units, that's over $35 million for affordable housing." Contacts: Catherine Rodman, Affordable Housing Advocates, (619) 233-8474. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, (707) 552-5306. Eric Nicoll, Brea Economic Development Department, (714) 671-4421. The Case: Un Hogar Nuestro v. Brea Redevelopment Agency , OCSC No. 01CC08089. Corrections. The May Redevelopment Watch story erroneously stated that the City of Brea issued a $200 million bond for infrastructure improvements in 1986. In fact, the bond was for $30 million. In addition, the story should have made clear that a judge's order regarding the Brea Redevelopment Agency's underfunding of the low- and moderate-income housing fund requires the agency to recalculate housing fund contributions in the future, as well as to repay shortages dating to 1998.