There could have been more fireworks at the USF debate, but it was fierce enough. Sponsored by the USF Law School's Environmental Law Society with support from local bar groups, the debate featured a speaker who is distinctly not a convert to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) view of CEQA transportation impact metrics: Holland & Knight's Jennifer Hernandez. Back in August, Hernandez was the lead author of her firm's polemical criticism against OPR's discussion draft on guidelines to substitute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for the existing Level of Service (LOS) analysis. The article, titled, " OPR Proposes to Increase CEQA's Costs, Complexity and Litigation Risks with SB 743 Implementation ," especially warned against litigation potential in a group of very specific suggested VMT mitigation approaches that were proposed to be added to Appendix F of the guidelines. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3560 and our recent OPR coverage at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3623 .) On the USF panel with Hernandez were NRDC's Eaken and UCLA Prof. Ethan Elkind, both of whom had published indignant responses to the Holland & Knight article. Elkind's called the article a "misleading diatribe" . Eaken's blog post titled, " Setting the record straight on the Governor's CEQA reform proposal " didn't say directly what it was answering but did announce "an effort to clarify misconceptions and stop the ill-intended rumors" before launching into a string of arguments, including "Fact: Suggestions of Mitigation Measures are Just Suggestions..." Appearing as a fourth panelist was San Francisco's lead transportation planner, Michael Schwartz. Prof. Adam Hofmann moderated the panel. Schwartz and Eaken, making the general case for the LOS to VMT transition, used arguments, phrases, and even a slide or two that were familiar from the OPR presentation -- Eaken however unbending a little for a largely student audience, saying LOS to VMT "has been a dream of mine ever since planning school," but that a colleague had told her, "You have very weird dreams." In arguing the case for VMT, Schwartz said the Van Ness BRT project would have gone much faster under a VMT standard. Elkind suggested the LOS to VMT transition, by highlighting the greater travel demands of "greenfield" projects, could change "sprawl culture" in California. While he suggested CEQA was "not particularly environmental," he said the new rule would help the "E" in CEQA to "make a little bit more sense." Where others have talked about risks of new litigation against projects, Elkind said he knew some "lawyers who go after infill projects" who found the new rules worrying. Hernandez came in on a different note entirely, working to introduce a student audience to a generally critical view of CEQA litigation as a tool for exclusive, self-serving and sometimes racist obstruction of projects. Using a confidential tone and frequent invitations to shared skepticism, she identified herself with environmentalist and politically liberal principles, but moved on to relate her firm's research on CEQA outcomes in general -- she said 43% of CEQA lawsuits are successful. She said, "This is a broken statutory scheme. It is used mostly against the projects that really want to promote: renewable energy, infill, transit. The last thing I want to do is introduce any new uncertainty into CEQA." Instead of applying VMT analysis she suggested projects should be approved more easily without "re-asking the question" about each project's appropriateness, allowing it to be litigated "by the neighbor, by the union, by the competitor, by the bounty-hunting lawyer." She said NRDC and others had decided "LOS is really stupid," and "I couldn't agree more." But her objection was to the addition of VMT standards. Observing that LOS rules still apply to many aspects of CEQA analysis, she said, "This does not get rid of LOS. It adds VMT." She asked, "Why would you give another tool to a CEQA litigant?" And yet the differences weren't complete. Eaken said her longer-term hope was to bring California program requirements with sustainability goals -- and as part of that, the opportunity to enact the LOS to VMT transition came up in part due to "Jennifer's work" demonstrating problems with CEQA. Elkind, protesting, "I'm not a CEQA ideologue," still said without the law there had been deference on development issues to government and private industry. "It's a lot harder to barrel a freeway through a neighborhood." Hernandez, protesting in turn that she was "far from rabidly anti-CEQA," said the 43% lawsuit success rate suggested problems with the law -- compared with which NEPA challenges failed 80% of the time. But Elkind managed to agree with Hernandez on the ineffectuality of Regional Housing Needs Assessment affordable housing targets, and she agreed with Eaken in deploring an injunction that held up San Francisco's bicycle plan in part for LOS reasons. They only drew opposite conclusions about what should happen instead. Hernandez criticized a part of the OPR guidelines draft that shifts from the LOS-driven view of road-widening as a mitigation, to the VMT-based notion that road widening can itself be an impact if it invites extra traffic. She said, "OPR knew there is no established methodology for doing the induced growth thing they proposed." Similarly, she said in any given region it wouldn't be clear which VMT model to use -- so "let's litigate." Hernandez said "We created a monster with GHG by not having clear guidelines" in the 2008 enactment of SB 375, and she suggested the VMT rule drafters hadn't learned that lesson. Elkind countered that VMT analysis is "a fairly off-the-shelf technology" and a lot of California is actually in areas covered by the VMT analysis exemption for projects within half a mile of transit, where new construction would be presumed to have no significant impact under the VMT rules. It was Hofmann who, as moderator, offered to play "the true right-winger" by taking a position in defense of the LOS standard. He asked, what if people didn't like living in dense environments? Eaken countered that with the general move toward denser housing, the Urban Land Institute found California's real estate market had enough "single-family product" -- freestanding houses -- to last until 2050. Elkind's own account of the debate is at http://www.ethanelkind.com/a-debate-on-sb-743/ .

Last week Harvard history professor Naomi Oreskes defended the public figure that many planners love to hate: the NIMBY. In a column in the Washington Post entitled, "Stop hating on NIMBYs. They're saving communities," she argues that "NIMBY" does not deserve the pejorative connotation that many in the planning community naturally ascribe to it. She focuses on an example from New Hampshire, where communities have raised opposition to a high-voltage transmission wire from a hydroelectric plant in Quebec. Who would be against power lines, she wonders? Anyone who values, "quiet, safety, security, and peace of mind." The beauty of the New Hampshire landscape, and all the therapeutic benefits that come from it, justifies opposition to the power lines. Her argument is as convincing as it is obvious. Even so, Oreskes writes that opponents have been "dismissed" by the project's supporters. The puzzling thing about her argument is that she writes that "communities and individuals who oppose fracking, nuclear power, high voltage power lines, and diverse other forms of development have all been accused of NIMBYism." Accused by whom? I know of few Americans who would welcome a nuclear power plant anywhere near their backyards, and for good reason.  Given that she's writing about New Hampshire, the stunning but un-captioned photo of a skyline (Chicago, maybe?) that accompanies Oreskes' piece is misleading. She is really referring to rural NIMBYs opposed to big-time infrastructure projects with deep-pocketed backers -- she doesn't touch on the urban situation at all. To most urban planners, the classic NIMBY is an urban resident who opposes intensive urban development, such as an office building or large, high-density residential development. They base their opposition on much the same grounds that Oreskes cites: aesthetics, environmentalism, community character. In New Hampshire, these positions may be genuine. In cities, they are often--not always, but often--disingenuous. Oreskes writes that many of the people who vilify the opponents of the power lines are in fact those who would profit from their construction. No surprise there. You have to take things with a grain of salt when your bete noire is Mr. Burns.  Progressive urban planners, many of whom are avowed environmentalists, often decry NIMBYism in cities because it can stand in the way of genuine improvements. All too often NIMBYs obstruct projects that are intended to revitalize neighborhoods, supply needed housing, or even create environmental benefits. Many urban projects, such as mixed-use apartment buildings, are often oriented towards transit lines and walkable neighborhoods. They often help reduce traffic and energy use. Try getting one of those past the local homeowners association unscathed. (Hint: It's difficult .) Oreskes thus misses a crucial nuance: the ethics of NIMBYism depend largely on the kind of environment that you're trying to save. A pristine White Mountains peak suffers different impacts from development than does a block on Hollywood Boulevard with a subway underneath it. Many planners accustomed to these urban battles would surely recoil at Oreskes' suggestion that we indiscriminately "stop hating on" those NIMBYs who oppose developments purely out of self-interest.  Oreskes writes, "Most supposedly NIMBY arguments are not NIMBYist at all--they are about preserving beauty, safety and integrity of communities." If you consider this statement in full, then it's easier to come to terms with NIMBYism. NIMBYism isn't inherently bad just as not all development is inherently good. The value of opposition, and even obstructionism, depends not only on the merits of this or that project but also on the initial "beauty, safety and integrity of communities." Only then can we decide whether an intervention is good or bad. The same goes for our decisions about obstruction: just as planners shouldn't always "hate on" NIMBYs, neither should they support them indiscriminately.  The main streets and steeples of New Hampshire's towns are the stuff of dreams for many of us who live in urban America. Those communities, and many others both urban and rural, are well worth "saving." Every community not worth saving is, by definition, one that should be improved. The real NIMBY's--the ones who deserve the derision--are those who don't recognize the difference.

Californians voted cautiously this week if they chose to vote at all. It would be foolish to look for just one electoral mood in such a large state – but when voters considered ballot measures related to land use, they mainly chose to preserve status quos. This was conservatism in a sense not necessarily pro-business or libertarian, but almost more Tory than American in pattern. The current conditions that California voters chose to protect included existing open spaces, existing public services, and, in some cases, existing development potential. Voters were often willing to accept small new taxes. General-purpose sales taxes were most likely to pass but some special-purpose taxes were approved, especially for schools, infrastructure, transportation, parks and open space. Voters tended to reject dramatic hard-sell appeals or egalitarian political gestures related to land use. Tenant protections were scarce on the ballot and not favored. Anti-development measures tended to succeed when they defended open space but fail when they resisted infill. "No" campaigns often won by raising doubts about hidden consequences of complex measures. At CP&DR we have a selection of initial results on land use ballot measures posted at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3619 and many of the same measures are profiled further at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613. In this article we'll get to some of those, and a few more land use measures that other commenters have mentioned – from an anti-growth measure that failed in Menlo Park, to an expression of strong feelings against roundabouts in Placerville. Not In My Back Forty Open space measures did well, notably the passage of Santa Clara County Measure Q, a tax to preserve open space. Measure P, a much-criticized parks tax in Los Angeles County (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613), failed to reach the required 2/3 vote but won 62.04% of the vote . Anti-development campaigns did well when they focused on preservation of open space, as with the defeats of two eastern Bay Area measures: Dublin's Measure T, which would have countermanded open space measures, mainly on the eastern Doolan Canyon area; and Union City's Measure KK , which would have relaxed development limits for a proposed 63-acre mixed-use project with potential impacts beyond the current proposal. Measures did badly if they were presented as anti-development but had complex provisions that opponents could characterize as stealth upzoning. El Dorado County anti-development measures M, N and O all lost, but the strongest margin -- 75.0% no to 25.0% yes -- was against Measure N, which was criticized as having mixed effects that could support a Sacramento-based developer. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3565.) Similarly, the City of Riverside's Measure L would have approved a specific plan that both promised open space and was criticized as seeking development authorizations , lost by 56.83% "No" to 43.17% "Yes". The Press-Enterprise reported a small grassroots campaign, and skepticism about an out-of-town developer, defeated the measure. In Santa Monica, both Measure D and Measure LC used anti-development rhetoric (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613) in characterizing their measures as limiting potential future development of the Santa Monica Airport, but the winner was Measure LC, supported by conservationists and longtime opponents of airport noise. As the SF Chron 's architecture critic, John King, has noted, on three Bay Area measures, positions against downtown infill development lost: Measure R in Berkeley, which failed, would have imposed especially strict community-benefit requirements to exceed downtown height limits. (See our discussion of Measure R at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613.) Measure M in Menlo Park would have limited the size of commercial projects and would have capped new office space overall. It failed dramatically in Menlo Park's small voting electorate, with 62.25% (4,144 voters) opposed. In working-class San Bruno, near the airport, over two-thirds of voters supported increasing height limits to add density around the Caltrain commuter station. King commented in detail on all three measures in September. The Escondido Country Club Homeowners Organization (ECCHO) handed a setback (likely temporary) to developer Michael Schlesinger in the defeat of the Lakes Specific Plan via Proposition H. That long-running dispute, however, is unlikely to be resolved by one vote. Voters did go for measures that were presented as offering them a chance to undo a specific act by local officials: for example, Measure S to undo a prior 2013 Berkeley redistricting choice; Measure P, an advisory measure opposing the Highway 405 toll lanes in Costa Mesa; Measure S to undo a City Council billboard replacement deal in Santa Clarita, and Dublin's Measure T as mentioned above. Irvine's Measure V, a financial accountability measure on the Irvine Great Park, passed with a steep 88.7% "yes" vote. And then Streetsblog LA and Nelson/Nygaard's Jeffrey Tumlin picked up on the Case of the Placerville Roundabout Menace. As we last discussed in July, some Placerville voters became agitated this summer over a plan to resolve an awkward meeting of streets by installing a roundabout. (For links to the campaign Web site and a Google Terrain map of the intersection, see our July item at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3532.) California voters may be turning Tory in their politics, but not so in their taste for street design. Placerville voted by an initial count of 58.2% to 41.8% to approve Measure K, requiring a public vote for construction of any roundabout in the city. Tax choices Voters' tax and other revenue choices are helpfully tabulated in a report by the California Local Government Finance Almanac. The charts there show specially earmarked sales taxes did not do well overall – just four passed of 13 – but one of the four winners was the large-scale Measure BB for BART to Livermore. A differently structured big transportation proposal, San Francisco's Proposition A , also succeeded (and so did Supervisor Scott Wiener's disputed Measure B to support the Muni system). Measures passed for streets and drains in Monterey, paratransit on the Monterey/Salinas system, and the Fresno Zoo. Measures that failed included one for the Del Norte County Fair, a library measure in Sonoma County, and a streets measure in Turlock. Proposals to raise or extend transient occupancy taxes were surprisingly unpopular: only four passed out of 14. Sales and use taxes did better, almost regardless of the tax increment's amount. Rental affordability measures disfavored Tenant protection and affordable housing measures generally failed when they were substantive rather than symbolic. In San Francisco, the nonbinding Measure K passed, with a policy statement in favor of affordable housing, but Measure G, the anti-speculation tax, was defeated, in a major defeat for San Francisco's embattled pro-tenant lobby. The vote against Measure G also fits a larger pattern in that, like Berkeley's Measure R, it sought to redress inequality by placing what could easily be characterized as arbitrary burdens on a very specifically defined type of real estate activity. Opponents were able to create significant doubt about whether Measure G would be applied fairly to individual property owners' business and family situations. In Santa Monica, Measure FS, to raise registration fees for rent-controlled landlords, won narrowly but Measure H, to increase the transfer tax on million-dollar properties, failed. Its companion Measure HH, an advisory measure to spend the Measure H proceeds, if any, on affordable housing, won narrowly but has no effect because H was defeated. Few grand gestures Voters in general rejected grand gestures if they threatened to have substantive effects. Where anti-fracking measures affected less current business in Mendocino and San Benito Counties, they passed. (An analysis by the Stoel Rives firm says San Benito County does have "significant reserves within its jurisdiction that require unconventional extraction techniques to produce.") Where it mattered the most economically, in oil-rich Santa Barbara County, the anti-fracking measure failed. San Francisco's dueling astroturf measures, Propositions H and I, were subjects of an environmentalist campaign against health risks of artificial turf through the summer and fall, but voters chose to allow the Golden Gate Park playing fields to install astroturf and nighttime lighting. San Francisco Proposition L, the pro-car "Restore Transportation Balance" measure backed by tech billionaire Sean Parker, failed resoundingly. Sacramento's strong-mayor Measure L, another grand gesture in its way, also failed .

Out of the many land use measures on California ballots, we profiled some picks at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613 , and here we're offering a tracking grid of key measures for use in keeping score. The following is by county in alphabetical order. Key links for your convenience if you don't see a measure listed here: Secretary of State, directory of county elections offices ; Ballotpedia, local ballot measures . Statewide: Measure 1 . Water bond. ( Sacramento Bee early election report here. ) Yes: 66.8%           No: 33.2% Percent Reporting: 100% of precincts "partially reporting" Measure 2 . "Rainy day" fund. Yes: 68.7%           No: 31.3% Percent Reporting: 100% of precincts "partially reporting" Secretary of State's office, election results page: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/ Alameda County Countywide: Measure BB. Would institute a transportation commission sales tax and implement a 30-year 2014 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan , significantly to pay for extending BART to Livermore. Would renew existing half-cent sales tax and add another half-cent for a one-cent transportation funding tax until 2015. (Needs 2/3 majority.) Yes: 69.56%           No: 30.44% Percent Reporting: 100% Berkeley: Measure F. A special parks tax would raise the existing levy by 16.7% for parks funding. (Needs 2/3 majority.) Yes: 74.90%           No: 25.10% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure R . Zoning ordinances for downtown Berkeley construction, including requirements of community benefits in exchange for exceeding maximum height limits. Yes: 26.13%           No: 73.87% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure S . Would cancel redistricting map approved by City Council in 2013. A "Yes" vote approves the redistricting map as adopted by City Council; a "No" vote requires the council to adopt a new redistricting plan, leaving the 2002 districting in place for the interim. Yes: 64.16%           No: 35.84% Percent Reporting: 100% Dublin: Measure T. The "2014 Let Dublin Decide Initiative" would set the stage for annexation of Doolan Canyon and partly override prior conservation measures. Yes: 17.21%           No: 82.79% Percent Reporting: 100% Union City: Measure KK. Complies with Hillside Area Plan by submitting a proposal for 63 acres of senior-focused development to the voters. Yes: 34.86%           No: 65.14% Percent Reporting: 100% Alameda County election results will be posted at: http://www.acgov.org/rov/elections/20141104/ . El Dorado County Cameron Estates: Measure D. Authorizes the city to increase the Cameron Estates Community Services District parcel tax by $100 annually, to a total of $350 per parcel, to fund road improvements and maintenance. (Needed 2/3 to pass.) Yes: 59.67%          No: 40.33%          Percent Reporting: 100% Countywide: Measure M . Would prohibit construction of any housing developments of five parcels or more unless CalTrans certifies that two preconditions exist: first, that the stretch of Highway 50 west of Placerville has traffic levels that do not reach Level of Service F, and, second, that traffic will remain at an LOS above F in the foreseeable future. Would prohibit rezoning of land currently designated as farming or open space for other purposes. Limits up zoning low-density residential areas, creates exemptions for non-residential and ag-related development. Yes: 42.06%          No: 57.94%          Percent Reporting:   100% Measure N . Framed as a competing alternative to Measures M and O. Would extend Measure Y slow-growth restrictions but opponents allege it would change the General Plan to allow more development in some areas. Yes: 25.00%          No: 75.00%          Percent Reporting: 100% Measure O . Would rezone a large portion of the county from "Community Region" to a "Rural" designation, changing the required traffic Level of Service of D instead of E. Yes: 33.20%          No: 66.80%          Percent Reporting:   100% Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (Parts of El Dorado, Placer, Nevada Counties): Measures U and E: Would authorize $62 million in bonds financing to update existing facilities, to be paid by an increase in annual property taxes of $29.75 per $100,000  of assessed value. Measure E results by county (requires 55% to pass): El Dorado County: Yes: 54.63%          No: 45.37% Percent Reporting: 100% Placer County: Yes: 59.05%          No: 40.95%          Percent Reporting: 100% Measure U results by county: Nevada County: Yes: 52.30%           No: 47.70% Percent Reporting: 100% Placer County: Yes: 51.97%          No: 48.03%          Percent Reporting: 100% El Dorado County election results will be posted at: http://elections.edcgov.us/results.fwx Placer County results: http://www.placerelections.com/election-night-results.aspx Nevada County results: http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/elections/Pages/November-4-2014-Election-Information.aspx Humboldt County Measure P . "Genetic Contamination Prevention Ordinance" would define as a public nuisance the act of growing genetically modified organisms in the county, with an exemption for research institutions that contain their work. GMO human foods, animal feeds, and medicines would be allowed into the county. Yes: 59.43%           No: 40.57% Percent Reporting: 100% Humboldt County election results will be posted at: http://www.humboldtgov.org/890/Elections-Voter-Registration Lake County Measure O . The "Medical Marijuana Control Act," one of many marijuana regulation items on local ballots, competing with Measure P. An attempt to limit cultivation to a scale consistent with personal medical use. Yes: 36.5%           No: 63.5% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure P . The "Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act" would recognize a "fundamental self evident right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth," with possible anti-GMO implications in a duty to "take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction". Would preempt the competing Measure O and many regulations imposed on medical marijuana by the currently applicable Measure N. Yes: 32.0%           No: 68.0% Percent Reporting: 100% Lake County election results will be posted at: http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/ROV.htm Los Angeles County Santa Monica: Measure D . Would prohibit new development of Santa Monica Airport property without voter approval. Yes: 41.70%           No: 58.30% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure LC . Competing with Measure D, placed on the ballot by the city Airport Development Council, would also prohibit new development on the site without voter approval, but would except parks and related facilities, and would also "affirm the City Council's authority to manage the Airport and to close all or part of it." Yes: 59.73%           No: 40.27%    Percent Reporting: 100% Measure FS . Would raise registration fees for rent-controlled landlords from $174.96 to amounts of up to $288 per unit per year, allowing half of each unit's fee to be passed through to its tenant. Yes: 51.50%           No: 48.50%   Percent Reporting: 100% Measure H . Would raise the local real estate transfer tax from $3 to $9 per thousand of sale price, only on sale prices of $1 million or more. Yes: 42.20%     No: 57.80% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure HH . Advisory measure whether proceeds from the single-H measure should be spent on affordable housing. Yes: 50.10%           No: 49.90% Percent Reporting: 100% Countywide: Measure P Parcel tax of $23 per year per land parcel, for park funding. Yes: 62.04%           No: 37.96% Percent Reporting: 100% Malibu: Measure R. Would require voter approval for any commercial project of more than 20,000 square feet. Supported by film director Rob Reiner. Yes: 59.27%           No: 40.73% Percent Reporting: 100% Santa Clarita: Measure S. Placed on the ballot by a petition rescind an agreement approved by the Santa Clarita City Council to remove existing billboards and replace them with three digital billboards. A "Yes" vote keeps the deal; sponsors of the petition are on the side of a "No" vote to rescind the deal. Yes: 43.81%           No: 56.19% Percent Reporting: 100% Los Angeles County election results will be posted at: http://www.lavote.net/home/voting-elections/current-elections/election-results . (More direct: http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/downrslt.html-ssi .) Mendocino County Measure S . Fracking and water use initiative. Yes: 67.18%           No: 32.82%   Percent Reporting: 100% Mendocino County election results will be posted at: http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/acr/elections.htm (More direct: http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/acr/current.htm .) Monterey County Marina Measure E . Would make permanent an existing temporary increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax from 10% to 12%. Yes: 73.22%           No: 26.78% Percent Reporting: 100% Monterey County election results will be posted at: http://www.montereycountyelections.us/Election%20Result.htm Orange County Costa Mesa Measure P . Advisory measure opposing the Highway 405 toll lanes. ( A "Yes" vote opposes the toll lanes . See early election results coverage .) Yes: 53.8%           No: 46.2% Percent Reporting: 100% Fountain Valley Measure S . Transient occupancy tax increase Yes: 39.7%           No: 60.3% Percent Reporting: 100% Irvine Measure V . Parks accountability measure related to management of Irvine Great Park. Yes: 88.7%           No: 11.3% Percent Reporting: 100% Newport Beach Measure Y . Amendment of Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element Yes: 30.7%           No: 69.3%    Percent Reporting: 100% Tustin Measure HH . Increase in Hotel Room Tax Yes: 52.5%           No: 47.5%        Percent Reporting: 100% Orange County election results will be posted at: http://www.ocvote.com/results/current-election-results/ Sacramento County: Isleton Measure D . Tax to support "Public Safety and Parks and Recreation projects and services." (Needs 2/3 vote.) Yes: 60.22%           No: 39.78% Percent Reporting: 100% Rancho Cordova Measure H . Half-cent sales tax. Proceeds are not actually restricted, but measure has been promoted as raising money to reduce "blight" on Folsom Boulevard and to assert local control. Yes: 58.79%           No: 41.21% Percent Reporting: 100% City of Sacramento. Measure L. The "Strong mayor" initiative promoted by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. Would give the mayor veto power, power to hire and fire the city manager, and other responsibilities of the city manager. Would subject the mayor to term limits and review by an independent budget analyst. Would return for a public vote in 2020. Yes: 42.78%           No: 57.22%   Percent Reporting: 100% Sacramento County election results will be posted at: http://www.elections.saccounty.net/Pages/default.aspx (More direct: http://www.eresults.saccounty.net/ .) San Benito County Measure H . Vehicle registration fee to fund the Vehicle Abatement Program. (Needs 2/3 vote) Yes: 66.90%           No: 33.10%    Percent Reporting: 100% Measure I . Transient occupancy tax increase from 8% to 12% Yes: 39.28%           No: 60.72% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure J . Anti-fracking measure Yes: 57.36%           No: 42.64 Percent Reporting: 100% Measure L . Hollister transient occupancy tax increase to 12% Yes: 32.51%           No: 67.49%   Percent Reporting: 100% San Benito County election results will be posted at: http://results.sbcvote.us/ San Francisco County Proposition A . $500 million bond measure for roads and transportation. Yes: 71.23%           No: 28.77%   Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition B . Supervisor Scott Wiener's effort to strengthen funding for San Francisco's Muni transit system in proportion to future daytime and nighttime population increases. Yes: 61.14%           No: 38.86%    Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition F . Would approve major redevelopment of the decayed Union Iron Works plant at Pier 70 on the southeast waterfront. Required to comply with the new Proposition B waterfront height limits. Yes: 72.28%           No: 27.72% Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition G . the anti-speculation tax, would increase transfer taxes for most multi-unit residential properties resold within five years of their last purchase or transfer. Yes: 46.01%           No: 53.99%      Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition H . Opposing artificial turf and stadium lighting on Golden Gate Park playing fields. Yes: 45.85%           No: 54.15%   Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition I . In opposition to Proposition H, supporting the Golden Gate Park artificial turf and renovations. Yes: 54.80%           No: 45.20%   Percent Reporting: 100% Measure K . Affordable housing policy statement against displacement of existing city residents and in favor of finding land and money to build new affordable housing. Yes: 65.05%           No: 34.95% Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition L . "Restore Transportation Balance" measure to protect car drivers' parking opportunities, restrict expansion of "demand-responsive pricing" of parking meters, and otherwise shift city priorities to favor car drivers. Yes: 37.67%           No: 62.33% Percent Reporting: 100% San Francisco election results will be posted at: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=4414 San Luis Obispo County Pismo Beach: Measure H . "Area R Development Standards General Plan Amendment." Would increase voter control over the Price Canyon area, outside the town of Pismo Beach but within its sphere of influence. Responds to the "Spanish Springs" golf/residential development proposal. Yes: 65.70%           No: 34.30%    Percent Reporting: 100% San Luis Obispo County election results will be posted at: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/clerk/Elections/ElectionsInfo/110414GeneralElection.htm Santa Barbara County Measure O . Would increase county's transient occupancy tax from 10% to 12.5%. Yes: 41.49%           No: 58.51% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure P . Anti-fracking ballot measure, in a county with an oil industry. Yes: 39.29%           No: 60.71% Percent Reporting: 197 precincts of 250 Santa Barbara County election results will be posted at: http://www.sbcassessor.com/Elections/UpcomingElections.aspx Santa Clara County Measure B . Would increase City of Palo Alto Transient Occupancy Tax from 12% to 14% and dedicate the funding to infrastructure improvements. Yes: 75.61%           No: 24.39%   Percent Reporting: 100% Measure Q . Would raise funds over 15 years to preserve open space across San Jose, four suburban cities, and unincorporated areas. Yes: 67.03%           No: 32.97% Percent Reporting: 100% Santa Clara County election results will be posted at: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/54209/144518/Web01/en/summary.html

In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that in adopting a climate action plan, San Diego County violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not following the mitigation measures the county laid out in the general plan process. The ruling is a significant victory for environmentalists and could portend future rulings from the Fourth District in the facing environmental plaintiffs, especially in the pending environmental challenge to the sustainable communities strategy adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The ruling might also influence the pending City of San Diego Climate Action Plan, in which many of the same issues are at play. (Disclosure: As most CP&DR readers know, the author was until recently the planning director for the City of San Diego and as such was in the middle of the debate on this very issue.) San Diego County adopted its general plan in 2011. The general plan's environmental impact report contained a mitigation measure requiring the county to adopt a climate action plan that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from county operations by 17% between 2006 and 2020 and community emissions by 9% between 2006 and 2020. The county also agreed to adopt significance thresholds to implement the CAP. However, the appellate court found that the actual climate action plan, adopted by the county in 2012, did not fulfill this promise. " hen it approved the CAP and Thresholds project, the County stated that the CAP does not ensure the required GHG emissions reductions," wrote Justice Gilbert Nares for a unanimous three-judge panel. "Rather, the County described the strategies as recommendations." The court also concluded that, in the general plan EIR and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) adopted with it, the county agreed to follow the "trajectory" called for in Executive Order S-3-05, issued by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 but did not do so in the CAP. EO S-3-05 requires state agencies to pursue a goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. Its application to SANDAG's SCS via the environmental review process is also an issue in the SANDAG case. The county's defense consisted largely of an argument that the statute of limitations had passed by the time the Sierra Club filed the lawsuit because the Sierra Club should have challenged the general plan EIR, not the CAP. The court rejected this argument and in so doing gave the county a stern lecture for attempting to consider the CAP, as well as adoption of significance thresholds associated with the CAP, as part of the same "project (for CEQA purposes) as the general plan itself. On this point, the court relied heavily on the Second District's decision in Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 443-444 ( Lincoln Place II ). In that case, the court rejected the City of L.A.'s argument that a tenants' association could not sue to enforce mitigation measures resulting from a tentative vesting map approval because the 180-day window for suing under the Permit Streamlining Act had closed. Although the court concluded that both the CAP and the significance thresholds were separate projects – and relied on that conclusion to strike down the County's defense – it did not order the County to prepare a CEQA analysis for other one. Nor did the court explain in detail its conclusion that the general plan and its EIR committed the county to meeting the "trajectory" of EO S-3-05. Although the EIR provides a description of EO S-3-05 , it acknowledges that AB 32, the state statute calling for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, sets no targets past 2020. Furthermore, the MMRP makes no mention of EO S-3-05 or targets past 2020. AB 32 does contain general language saying that emissions reduction efforts should continue past 2020, and the court does cite general language in the EIR about the ongoing risk of climate change. The court apparently based its conclusion on the idea that, in adopting the CAP and the significance thresholds as plan-level documents, the county sought to truncate or eliminate environmental review based on GHG emissions past 2020, even though the county staff acknowledged that GHG emissions might increase after 2020. In the ruling, the court noted that in appearances before the Board of Supervisors the county staff stated that because EO-S-3-05 was an executive order and not a statute, the county was not required to follow it. The Fourth District's ruling in the county case could portend a similar ruling in the SANDAG case. The environmentalists were successful at the trial level in using this argument, though the case involves a different kind of plan produced by a different type of government agency operating under a different state law (SB 375 as opposed to the general plan law). Judge Taylor's ruling was issued almost two years ago. The case is still pending in the Court of Appeal, though oral arguments occurred in August and a ruling is expected soon. Environmentalists have been aggressive in promoting the same set of arguments during the development of the City of San Diego's CAP. Recent press reports suggest that Mayor Kevin Faulconer and environmentalists are on the same page regarding the proposed CAP , although the post-2020 targets have become softer in recent drafts. The case is Sierra Club v. County of San Diego , D064243, at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D064243.PDF.

CalEPA has expanded its definition of "disadvantaged communities" in the cap-and-trade grantmaking programs under SB 535 to the most environmentally burdened 25% of all census tracts.   CalEPA originally proposed using the most burdened 20% of all census tracts. Although Friday's announcement changed the definition of disadvantaged communities, it continues to propose using  the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 environmental justice mapping tool . As CP&DR reported in September ,  CalEPA officials had noted that for most SB 535 programs 25% is the minimum proportion of benefits required to serve "disadvantaged communities", so in those programs a 25% cutpoint guarantees "disadvantaged communities" no more than their proportional share of the total. On the other hand, 50% of funds must be spent to benefit disadvantaged populations in the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. CP&DR 's previous coverage on how the metric and the AHSC program interact can be found here . The originally proposal for a 20% "cutpoint" had more starkly disproportionate effects by region. It would have denied the "disadvantage" label to many coastal, northern or hilly census tracts that have suffered from environmental injustice and disinvestment, but that have comparatively good air quality, and/or comparatively high absolute incomes. The metric does not incorporate factors that compare individuals' incomes to local costs of living, and it emphasizes types of environmental injustice that are especially severe in the Central Valley and Southern California.  Accordingly there was pressure to either widen the designation pool or change the metric. Activists and legislators from the San Francisco Bay Area had been especially indignant. The expansion from 20% to 25% adds the "disadvantaged" designation to more Bay Area neighborhoods, including parts of Bayview/Hunter's Point in San Francisco. The CalEPA press release said, "In response to comments, CalEPA said it will evaluate suggestions to further refine the information and methodologies used to develop CalEnviroScreen." New materials posted at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/ include a 40-page narrative of the selection process that, from the "Public Input" discussion onward, acknowledges some of the regional concerns, some methodology concerns raised by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District through its complex "Method 6" proposal, and the possibility of including factors like cost of living in the future.

Tax-increment financing isn't coming back anytime soon. But the state government hasn't squeezed as much money out of redevelopment as expected. So what happens next? What tools does the state provide to California's local governments to stimulate new development – especially infill development, which the state is trying to encourage through policies designed to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and achieve other goals? The short answer is not much – at least not compared to redevelopment, which at its peak provided local governments (mostly cities) with $6 billion a year for urban projects. But a more nuanced answer would be that the state is now doing lots of little things – some formal, some informal – to try to give the locals some running room. In vetoing the latest tax-increment revival bill (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3586), Gov. Jerry Brown made it clear – for the third year in a row -- that he has no interest in permitting redevelopment to rise from the grave. There has always been a theory (floated by me among others) that tax-increment revival would be a second-term Jerry Brown thing, but given Brown's animosity toward the League of Cities and his general stubbornness, this seems unlikely. Furthermore, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg – urban development's most effective advocate in the Legislature and one of the few in Sacramento who could go toe-to-toe with Brown – is now termed out, and Redevelopment has no obvious new main legislative champion in the wings. Of course, the Brown Administration is currently ramping up the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, which will expend the Strategic Growth Council's cut of the state cap-and-trade money. That means $130 million in the first year will be pushed out the door, mostly to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects that support smart growth goals. (See coverage in this issue.) And the number could go up to several hundred million dollars annually in the out years. It will be the biggest infusion of cash into urban development that we've seen since Brown took office. But it's still just a fraction of the amount redevelopment provided. Meanwhile, the redevelopment wind-down front is settling down a little. The state is actually winning most of the hundreds of lawsuits filed by cities. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3575.) The cities have consistently argued that they should regain control over a wide variety of redevelopment projects and tax-increment revenue flows – and they have mostly lost. Even so, post-redevelopment experts say the state windfall of $1.7 billion per year that was expected a couple of years ago simply isn't materializing. In part, that's because successor agencies – guided by AB 1484 – have taken a cautious approach to selling former redevelopment agencies' real estate assets. Instead of taking a "fire sale" approach as originally required by the redevelopment dissolution bill, agencies are now preparing "Long-Range Property Management Plans" that focus on the orderly development or sale of assets over time. This will probably produce substantial long-term benefits for all taxing agencies concerned – including the cities that used to have redevelopment agencies – but it hasn't created a lot of short-term cash. As Nossaman lawyer Rick Rayl said at the California Chapter, American Planning Association, conference, last month: "The assets have produced a lot less than anyone ever thought. If you asked Gov. Brown, he might second-guess the whole decision. I don't think it has accomplished what he intended." That I'm not so sure about. It's not like Brown to admit a mistake, especially a high-profile one. But the bottom line is that if the end of redevelopment isn't producing as much cash for the state as Brown thought, it doesn't really matter. Between an improving economy and the temporary tax increase he secured in last year's election, his problem is not how to cover a deficit. It's what to do with a surplus. Which leads me to think that what's really happening – informally, with a law or an executive order or any formal policy direction – is that the Department of Finance is beginning to ease up on its demands to repurpose ex-redevelopment funds. Yes, the hundreds of lawsuits will continue to drag on – many of them are now pending in the appellate court. Yes, long-range property management plans will work their way slowly – very slowly – through the system. And yes, DOF will continue to drive successor agencies crazy with opacity and resistance every day on issues large and small. But DOF also seems to have figured out that, as a general principle, holding things up doesn't do anybody any good – least of all the state general fund. The greatest asset that former redevelopment agencies had in the bank when the program was killed wasn't real estate owned or cash in the bank. It was the potential upside of pending redevelopment projects then in the works. And the longer those holes in the ground sit there, the less money the state, the cities, and the other taxing entities will get in the long run. I'll tell one war story from my time in San Diego to make my point. At the time redevelopment was killed, Center City Development Corp. and Westfield were working on renovating Horton Plaza Park, outside the famous shopping center downtown. The project got caught up in the redevelopment wind-down and it was literally a hole in the ground with a tarp around it the entire time I worked in San Diego. But during that time, the successor agency and DOF successfully worked through two problems that were holding the project up – first, the transfer of the property from Westfield to the successor agency, and, second, the allocation of additional funds to finish the project when the bids came in higher than expected. At the beginning of redevelopment wind-down in 2012, you might not have seen much cooperation from DOF. But eventually DOF apparently realized that the value of the successor agency's real estate assets – including the park itself and whatever benefit might be derived from a long-delayed renovation of Horton Plaza itself – was likely to increase more and faster if the project moved along. All this doesn't mean that Brown will back off of his resistance to tax-increment financing in his second term, and as I said before it's not likely to end the distrustful dance between successor agencies and DOF. But it does mean that – now that the state has the luxury of focusing on long-term asset value rather than short-term cash --  longstanding redevelopment projects throughout the state will have an easier path to completion.

Here's a roundup of recent land use news items  – San Diego Environmental Lawyer Backs Infill The progressive Democratic community in San Diego has split openly over the question of allowing more density near light-rail stops, especially in mostly white middle-class neighborhoods. In particular, environmental attorney Marco Gonzalez – who stood alongside former City Councilmember Donna Frye in calling for Mayor Bob Filner's resignation last year – has now broken with Frye on the density question. At a forum sponsored by the San Diego Housing Federation recently, Gonzalez – brother of Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez – said: "From within the environmental community I thought it was important for us to say, ‘If we're going to fight sprawl, we have to incentivize infill' (dense projects within already-developed areas). So we had to ask ourselves some tough questions, and what I'm doing now at this point in my career is asking those people who used to be my clients, those activists, those community-character-spouting residents, to really address these presumptions." Gonzalez's longtime ally Frye has been a leader in opposing more density in the Clairemont district along the planned Mid-Coast light-rail line. She has been joined by interim Councilmember Ed Harris, a former head of the city lifeguard union, and failed City Council candidate Sarah Boot, both of whom – like Frye – share Gonzalez's natural constituency of coastal environmentalists. City of Marina Opposes Slant Drilling By Water Company The city of Marina continues to oppose an effort by the Cal-American water utility to drill a slanted test well to check if an aquifer under the ocean floor is suitable as a water source for a desalination plant. A news feature in Environment & Energy Publishing quoted local officials and activists as opposing the plan on grounds that the well, once dug, might end up being used for a desalination operation, or might itself worsen saltwater intrusion. The EEnews article linked to comments by the Remy Moose Manley firm on behalf of the Marina Coast Water District, opposing the Cal-Am appeal, alleging in part that the project's Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to consider likely future uses of the well. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary's draft Environmental Assessment Report on the project from last June is here . The California Coastal Commission will take up the well proposal at its November 12 meeting. (See Items 14a and 15a at http://coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html.) For more on the history and context of Monterey's water supply plans, see Larry Sokoloff's report at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3598. $5 Billion For A South Pasadena Tunnel? Caltrans and Los Angeles Metro were reportedly contemplating a monster pair of tunnels to extend the 710 freeway for nearly five miles under South Pasadena – at a cost of $5 billion. The LA Times a bit unfairly noted it would be longer than Boston's "Big Dig" . Longer, maybe. But more trouble? The Big Dig was a nightmare of a highway undergrounding job in a densely built 350-year-old city with four seasons and a high oceanfront water table. In the middle of it, Rep. Barney Frank once suggested that, rather than depress the Central Artery, it would be cheaper to raise Boston. So, five miles under the San Gabriel Valley? Technically speaking, could it be any worse? Politically, though, it could be. Neighborhood groups have been fighting the 710 extension since 1965 . In Brief … A big cluster of Strategic Growth Council grant applications fall due in the next several days, mostly on November 13. The League of California Cities has posted the list more or less as distributed by SGC. A generally favorable feature article in the 7x7 arts and leisure magazine alternates eye-candy renderings of San Francisco's futuristic "Transbay District" project plan with brief accounts of some of the project's challenges. The project would build large office and apartment towers and raised public spaces around the city's old bus station in the eastern South of Market district. Developers hope the site also will become a terminal for the Caltrain and High-Speed Rail. It recently hit a snag when the Board of Supervisors and developers turned out to disagree on the tax structure for a "community benefit district" to which the major developers would contribute. The Los Angeles Times reports a motion before the L.A. City Council would begin local implementation of the Legislature's Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act, but the Board of Supervisors must approve the idea first. Hudson Sangree of the Sacramento Bee posted news features on increased infill development in Sacramento and on plans by developer Michael Heller to convert the Crystal Ice and Cold Storage plant building to retail and office use. The Monterey Herald reported another in a series of delays is holding up the draft EIR on the "Monterey Downs" plan for a mixed-use development at decommissioned Fort Ord. The project would include 1,280 units of housing and a racetrack. The City of Seaside's page for the specific plan on the project is at http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ . The law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge posted an update suggesting people who follow CEQA law and land use should look into efforts by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to update regulatory documents in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. See http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/Sept2014HotSpotsRags_SRP.html.

As the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant program neared its October 31 public comment deadline, the program was showing a more definite sense of institutional purpose, focused on promoting dense transit-oriented urban streetscapes. Would-be grant applicants may be disappointed if they expect AHSC to focus on maximizing affordable housing construction or promoting healthier living in small inland towns. Housing is a major statutory goal of the AHSC program, and the proposed grant criteria do allow some leeway for use in less dense areas. But this is not the comprehensive housing construction and rehabilitation program that housing and economic justice advocates would like to see the state enact. The Strategic Growth Council's presentation materials released in late October for the current, final round of public workshops on the program were full of reminders about AHSC's narrow focus. The materials said the program is able to make only a few grants -- 13 to 23 in the main part of the program for the coming year. The materials emphasized the goal of transit-oriented density in a look at "the big picture vision" through before-and-after renderings of urban street makeovers. These showed how a street could be made more prosperous and welcoming to visitors through denser, less car-oriented development. "Before" images depicted broad, rough-edged commuter arteries, with sparsely placed businesses, unevenly set back from the sidewalk by parking lots, often using old-fashioned or awkwardly hand-lettered signage. "After" images created a cozier, more prosperous look, using a palette of streetcars, bike lanes, trees, pedestrians, and upscale storefronts in better-kept, taller mixed-use buildings that snuggled right up to their sidewalks. In these images, the likes of International Boulevard in Oakland and El Camino Real in Santa Clara began to look more like the likes of Barcelona. The presentation called attention to a proposed requirement that appears in text surrounding Table 4 of the Draft Guidelines released in September . It would provide that housing developments supported by the program must have a transit station within a "walkable route" of half a mile. They would need to contain at least 100 units in a metropolitan area or 50 units elsewhere. Minimum net density for all-housing buildings would range from 20 to 60 units per acre by type of area; for mixed-use projects, minimum floor-to-area ratios would range up the same scale from 1.5 to 3.0. On two major outstanding questions -- identification of "disadvantaged communities" and definition of a role for regional government entities -- the new materials added little beyond the early-October staff report and SGC hearing discussion . On the belated CalEPA designation of "disadvantaged" census tracts that must be "benefited" by half of AHSC funds, the new materials said the choices "will be available in the next few weeks." The SGC Web site now provides a dedicated Web page for the AHSC program and a separate page for its separately administered farmland fragment, the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program (SALC). Workshops seeking to explain and receive comment on the near-final design for the main AHSC program were being held October 23 through 28 , with plans to webcast the October 28 meeting in Sacramento. Workshops on the SALC program were set for October 24 in Oroville, October 29 in Bakersfield, and October 30 in Watsonville . Comments on both program designs are due October 31, respectively to http://sgc.ca.gov/s_ahscwebcommentform.php and ahsc_ag@sgc.ca.gov. The ARB cap-and-trade proceeds page displays 149 comments on the "disadvantaged communities" choice process. Comments submitted to the SGC have not yet been posted online. The late-October AHSC materials said a final draft of the guidelines would be posted December 1 in preparation for the December 11 meeting where the Strategic Growth Council will be asked to approve the whole plan.

The Coastal Commission's October docket in Newport Beach served up a fair slice of Southern California celebrity-involved madness and possibly more items than usual of old business of the it's-never-over variety. The Commission's most widely reported act of the month was to postpone consideration of an appeal on an unpopular proposal by entities linked to U2 guitarist David Evans, known as "The Edge," to build five large new houses in the Santa Monica Mountains. The Malibu Times and LA Times reported the postponement was for lack of adequate notice to stakeholders and the Commission would likely take up the matter again in January. The paper quoted Frank Angel, attorney for the Sweetwater Mesa Homeowners' Association, as calling the continuance "a huge game changer" because the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Plan (LCP) was to take effect the Friday after the October Commission meeting. (On that approval see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3559; http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3474.) In a commentary ahead of the meeting , LA Times columnist Steve Lopez had questioned how Evans managed to get the hearing scheduled just before that effective date. In the staff report , summaries of public comments included celebrity relationship gossip and a mention of a Web site that formerly discussed the project, www.leavesinthewind.com. As of 2011 that site explained the plan as it then stood in some detail, promoting it in terms of environmental responsibility and high-concept design. Rejected in its original form that year, the project has since been reduced and redesigned for a less visible group of sites . The Laguna Beach Independent reported that Mark Christy, proponent of a renovation and rebuilding project at "The Ranch" in Aliso Canyon, brought three busloads of supporters to speak in public comment sessions at the Coastal Commission. It said speakers in Christy's favor included the Mayor Pro Tem and two City Council members. The Newport Beach Independent reported more than 60 supporters of The Ranch appeared, outnumbering participants in the monthly anti-fracking protest. The Commission has had rocky relations with Christy for some time. This month, as reported further at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3595 and in the Coastline Pilot , the Commission determined The Ranch had done unpermitted work on its outdoor landscape, including creation of a 7000-square-foot dance floor. Additional disputes concern whether Christy's proposed additions to the site will cause too much environmental harm, and whether the work he has already done on the mid-century resort buildings constitutes renovation or new construction. And this month the Coastline Pilot published a letter by Christy on an additional issue: the lack of a public trail on the site. He wrote that it wouldn't work for safety reasons because the resort includes a golf course. The Commission granted approval, with conditions , for a plan allowing the City of Los Angeles to sell the last seven house lots it owns on the rim of Potrero Canyon in Pacific Palisades. The plan comes with approvals for filling and grading by the city to stabilize the canyon rim. Proceeds will go into a special restoration fund for the park below the lots. The staff report recounts that the city bought 22 residential lots along the canyon in 1991 following litigation over landslides. Since then the city has been conducting restoration work in the area and selling house lots a few at a time to pay for each next stage of the project. This month's approval allows the city to sell the last seven lots without keeping an earlier promise that it would first complete a new park and riparian "habitat installation." Per the Los Angeles Times ' online archives the original landslide was in 1978 and coverage of city efforts to fix the problem dates back to at least 1985 and 1989 . Caltrans won confirmation of a 2012 approval to move about three miles of Highway 1 inland in San Luis Obispo County near Piedras Blancas. Shoreline erosion and bicycle safety were among the major concerns. The plan also brings the road farther away from a beach that is massively popular with elephant seals, hence decreasing the risk of sofa-sized marine mammals entering the roadway. On reconsideration, the Commission granted permission to the City of Los Angeles to install a seasonal ice rink on Venice Beach . The Commission had denied the permit initially in September because of objections to the city's prior handling of a zipline attraction and maintenance of nearby public bathrooms. San Diego got approval for its LCP amendment to license and regulate food trucks at parks and beaches . The Daily Pilot reported the Commission approved 23 "townhomes" for the former site of a Christian Science church in Newport Beach. The paper wrote, "The site along the 3300 block of Via Lido isn't far from where the former Newport Beach City Hall is to be replaced by a boutique hotel. Officials hope the move will inject life into the area." The Commission was still planning a workshop for December to consider methods of preserving public access to the cheap seaside family vacation. A cheerful mission at first glance, but conflicts over mitigation costs to developers to preserve low-cost access were less than cheerful through the summer, especially in July (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3528). The Commission's meeting agenda, annotated with outcomes, is at http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm14-10.html. News of the Commission during the rest of October was a mix of grants, enforcement actions and appeals. Napster and Facebook billionaire Sean Parker and his wife Alexandra Lenas got the label of "philanthropists" from a Monterey Herald report on their steps to comply with a Coastal Commission settlement. The settlement is in compensation for environmental damage caused at Big Sur by elaborate preparations for the couple's wedding in June 2013. Parker and Lenas agreed to sprinkle $1.2 million among eight environmental and education nonprofits on the Central Coast as part of a $2.5 million settlement payment. Parker also agreed to create a mobile app for the Commission to help coastal visitors to find beach access points. In another resolution of long-running old business, the Commission announced its approval of a "final plan to restore public access" to the Ontario Ridge trail in San Luis Obispo County.  More details from the Tribune here . Commission staff contributed to an Assembly hearing September 25 , primarily on dangers of desalination to sea life. The city of San Clemente got a $90,000 planning grant to work toward finishing its Local Coastal Program (LCP) certification. Newport Beach is applying for a similar grant. More jurisdictions' pending planning grant applications are posted online , awaiting decisions during the next couple of months. KIEM-TV reported the city of Eureka got a $250,000 grant to prepare a risk analysis on sea level rise. The Orange County Register reported Long Beach officials were moving toward approval of the Belmont Beach and Aquatics Center, a pricey remodel of the existing Belmont Plaza Pool for use in diving competitions. Columnist Bob Keisser objected that the new pool would be less ambitious than the old one in the scale of competition events it could host; he was among those calling for a bigger effort to potentially host 2020 Olympic trials. The local Daily Breeze reported the city of Rancho Palos Verdes was working on an amendment to its LCP to comply with a Coastal Commission determination that the current 70-foot flagpole at the Trump National Golf Club violated the existing LCP. San Diego's Friends of the Children's Pool filed suit over the Coastal Commission's decision to reserve the Children's Pool beach for seals during pupping season. Beach access advocates were additionally calling on the city to open sluiceways in the seawall to clean the sand. Sadly for an already-contested resource, the pool was reportedly part of an area closed for safety due to an October 14 sewage spill. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported that Ross Eric Gibson of the La Bahia Coalition filed an appeal with the Coastal Commission against city approval of a plan to partly replace, partly renovate the historic La Bahia Hotel. The project would convert it from a 44-unit apartment building into a 165-room hotel, conference center and day spa.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) won two major takings law victories in late October. Clients championed by the property rights organization defeated a San Francisco law on compensation to tenants evicted under the Ellis Act, and managed to undo a coastal easement requirement that the court said was an unfair permit condition. San Francisco city attorney to appeal San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera announced he would appeal a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer that struck down the city's new ordinance on compensation for tenants evicted under the Ellis Act. From its effective date in June until Breyer blocked it effective October 24, landlords who took an occupied unit off the rental market were required to pay their evicted tenants two years' worth of difference between the lost rent rate and the market-rate rent for a comparable unit in the city. The ruling in Levin v. City and County of San Francisco accepted arguments by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) that the ordinance violated constitutional property rights. The PLF victory press release said the lead plaintiffs in the matter would have had to pay $118,000 to the tenant of the duplex where they live in order to rent their extra unit to friends or family. The SF Chronicle 's Bob Egelko has details of the ruling . He quotes Breyer as calling the compensation amount "an enormous payout untethered in both nature and amount to the social harm actually caused by the property owner's action." A copy of the ruling is available on PLF's Web site . Coastal property owners vindicated On October 23, the Second Appellate District reversed itself on rehearing in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission . The court had agreed as of April 15 to depublish its initial ruling in March and rehear the matter. The new ruling is a victory for the PLF's clients, Sandra Bowman and her sisters, who inherited a large San Luis Obispo County property, partly along the coastline, from their father, Walton Emmick. The sisters have been disputing Coastal Commission efforts to enforce a public access easement as a condition for a coastal development permit (CDP) to improve the dilapidated house and barn on a part of the property a mile inland. As discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3452, the court's earlier ruling backed the Coastal Commission in finding that collateral estoppel barred the sisters from repudiating a public access easement that the county initially required of them as a condition for a CDP. The March decision gave a somewhat confused account of the facts, saying Emmick did renovation work in anticipation of that first CDP although it was issued after his death -- hence that he and his successors accepted the CDP's burdens along with its benefits. Accordingly the March court agreed with the Coastal Commission that the sisters could not take advantage of the county's decision to grant their application for a second CDP without the easement. The new opinion accepted the PLF's version of the facts: that Emmick did renovation work on the property only under county permits that were exempt from the CDP requirement because they did not "change the use or dimensions of the structure." It stated Emmick "did not make the repairs for which he sought authorization" under the initial CDP, hence that neither he nor his successors accepted any benefit under it. However, the court's new opinion was not based solely on this fresh understanding of the facts. It also said the easement exaction was unfair: "There is no rational nexus, no less rough proportionality, between the work on a private residence a mile from the coast and a lateral public access easement." The court found it immaterial whether the requirement was the Commission's or the county's fault. Regardless, the court said collateral estoppel doctrine calls for equitable results. Because of both the reinterpreted fact pattern and the lack of nexus between the renovations and the easement, the court found the equity requirement was not met. In a statement in April, the court had requested letter briefing on the standard of review. It said "the parties appear to agree" that the March ruling misapplied the substantial evidence rule to the administrative mandate question, in that it chose to consider only evidence supporting the prevailing party rather than "all relevant evidence even if it detracts from the administrative decision," as called for in La Costa Beach Homeowners' Assn. v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804. The court asked the parties whether the Commission should be treated as the sole authority to determine credibility of evidence, or, if not, how the La Costa case should apply. In the opinion that followed, the court looked to a phrase in La Costa saying "Courts may reverse an agency's decision only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency." It then based the decision on its own interpretation of the facts. The new, currently effective opinion is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B243015A.PDF.

News Item: the Los Angeles City Council has rescinded a long-standing ordinance requiring all high-rise buildings in the downtown area to have rooftop helipads . When the ordinance was in effect, all downtown buildings were flat-headed in design to accommodate the helipads. The result was a skyline of monotonous uniformity and "architectural mediocrity," according to the New York Times . There is only one way to provide an adequate commentary on this situation: A Greek tragedy. SCENE: LATE NIGHT IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES. A GREEK CHORUS, MADE UP ENTIRELY OF FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS, CHANTS IN UNISON. CHORUS OF FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: Oh, misfortune! Our reign has come to a sorry end. Gone is our skyline, unique in all the world, of uniform flatness. Gone, alas, are the days when ‘copters swarmed us The way butterflies swarm poppy fields. No more to hear The sweet sound of chop-chop-chop-chubba-chubba-chop-chop. Goodbye, copters! Goodbye cops! Farewell, first responders in MedEvacs! For the Chief Fireman has said, in his annoying nasal voice,    ‘Go not to rooftops any more, oh thou office workers of LA! People in emergencies should stay put, and wait for help.'  What kind of poppycock is that? Does this mean That choppers are never more to land on our flat, bald heads, Each with a target for helicopters marked "X" in the center,  Seen by none but birds, planes, God and Google Earth? No more will high-rise buildings look like us, the flat-headed tribe. The next generation won't have that special look -- that is to say, The look of a bunch of wooden boards at the hardware store, Standing upright, that nobody has bought. Enter THE TRANSAMERICA TOWER, a famous pointy-headed building from San Francisco. TRANSAMERICA TOWER: Oh, go ahead and moan, you inane band of overgrown cigar boxes. Snivel, if you want. You're through. The future belongs to sharper shapes. Just as skyscrapers with syringe-like tops were the toast of Manhattan In the Golden Age, so once again pin-head buildings will come to rule Your snoozefest of a skyline. FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: Insult added to injury! You pyramidal monstrosity, come to torment us Just when we're feeling totally like we can't deal. TRANSAMERICA TOWER (being really obnoxious) But deal you must. This is progress, enlightenment, artistic freedom! Face it, anvil-brains, you don't stack up when compared with Tokyo Or all those Chinese cities with their pointy tower things. Boring, boring! FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: You can laugh and scorn, you irresponsible pinhead! You, who never shouldered any social responsibility. Our very heads spoke of preparedness. TRANSAMERICA TOWER: Yes, and for that reason, you get no standout buildings by the Starchitects, Those favorites of Zeus and Hera, who got them jobs with the other gods. FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: What bosh! Know ye not that we are of the International Style? Just as the Seagram Building by Mies van der Rohe, and its wife, the green-skinned Lever House by Skidmore Owings Merrill, The legendary New York pair that gave birth to all the office buildings that came after them, were both flat of brow? What say you of that, you much-derided pinhead! TRANSAMERICA TOWER: Don't remind me of my poor reception when first built! Though I stand by the Bay, I was by designed by an Angeleno, The hard-partying Bill Pereira. Now I am a symbol of San Francisco! Take that, you derivative clump of banalities! ENTER the Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre, a recent building in Baku, Azerbajian by Zaha Hadid. This exquisite building, widely portrayed in published photos during recent months, is elliptically curved in profile. HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURE CENTRE (with a slightly husky voice): Hey boys, stop fighting. You're not just wrong, you're stuck in the past. Look at my beauty and be struck speechless as Buster Keaton. Flat, pointed, who cares? It's irrelevant. FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: You look like a woman in a head-scarf Standing in a strong breeze. I think we are in love. TRANSAMERICA BUILDING (to HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTER) You call us irrelevant? You're from Azerbajian, for crying out loud. The client is a dictator who builds what he wants, regardless of cost. Plus, you're a cultural center, not an office building, so you don't count. And you were designed by Zaha Hadid. Her office buildings On the whole, have flat tops! HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTER: All true. I'm just making a point, you pecan-brained dinosaurs. The future can be flat, pointed or free-form like me. The point is that LA can enjoy some variety, and catch up With the skyline of a second-tier Chinese city, maybe, if it tries. As for Tokyo or Dubai, however … oh, just give up now.  CHORUS OF FLAT-TOP BUILDINGS (highly offended): You decadent hussy! Irrational product of extravagance and waste! HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTER: Don't try to fluster me with your bluster, bub. Like the song says, you ain't so big, you're just tall, that's all.