The management of the Planning Grants and Incentives Team at the Department of Conservation announced today its recommendations for the next round of Prop. 84 Sustainable Communities Planning Grants (see CP&DR Insight Vol. 25, Nos. 5-6, March 2010 ) which is administered by the Strategic Growth Council to support the climate change goals of AB 32 and SB 375. The council received 189 applications and has recommended 44 awards totaling roughly $23 million in funding.  The primary goal of the grant program is to help develop and implement plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve objectives including infill development, public health, equity, natural resource protection, and urban revitalization. Grants are awarded in four focus areas: 1) local sustainable planning grants for cities and counties; 2) regional SB 375 grants for metropolitan planning organizations; 3) regional planning activities with multiple partners, and 4) economically disadvantaged communities. Awards of $10.3 million, $5.7 million, and $2.2 million $4.6 million have been recommended for each of these respective focus areas. Competition was particularly fierce among cities; SGC received is recommending 24 awards out of 100 applications, many of which were clustered in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Recommended grants range from $139,000 to $1 million.  For a full list of recommended projects, please download the PDF of the  full report  to the Strategic Growth Council.

Deep in the heart of John Steinbeck country, city folks, rural folks, farmers, businesses and everyone in between are still waging dubious battle over control of Monterey County land. After an 11-year process, a general plan update was unanimously approved by the county's Board of Supervisors on October 26. But rather than lay out a vision for a bright new future, the approved update � which focuses growth on existing urban centers, limits growth in some areas with water shortages, and expands farmland � may turn out to be a magnet for lawsuits. Groups are lining up to sue, with several suits expected to be filed by the end of the year. Contentiousness would be nothing new for the county. Two previous versions of the plan had come before the board in 2004 and 2007, only to fall apart. In 2004, the board rejected a city-centered growth plan. In 2007, county voters rejected an environmental group's general plan initiative, and they rejected the county's version of the plan update as well (see CP&DR, Vol. 22, No. 7, July 2007). Monterey County has all the ingredients for classic planning tussles: valuable agricultural land, scenic vistas near the oceans, wealthy residents who don't want to see more development, environmentalists who want growth in its cities, farmworkers who need housing, and chronic water supply issues. Put it all together, and common ground is difficult, if not impossible, to find. "Both sides at the extremes are unhappy" with the latest plan, said Simon Salinas, who is chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Salinas said that many groups in the county do support the updated plan�affordable housing advocates, cities, and developers. But environmentalists and agricultural groups may yet file lawsuits over the latest plan by the end of the year, delaying the plan from going forward. The website for environmental group LandWatch Monterey County, calls the general plan "a deeply flawed document." Its website said "LandWatch opposes new policies which would permit cultivation on steep slopes, a practice prohibited since the 1980s," and claims the county has chosen to postpone dealing with long-term sustainable water supply issues. LandWatch officials declined to comment further for this story. But many concerns about the plan's actual impacts are likely to be ironed out in the coming years. Both Sup. Salinas and Assistant County Planning Director Carl Holm say that implementing ordinances will spell out specifics from the 150-page plan. One thing that the general plan doesn't touch is use of oceanfront property, always a hot button issue. That would get the Coastal Commission involved, explained Holm, who was the county's project manager on the general plan. So the plan looked only at other zones in the county that are located inland or on coastal plains. Two notable parts of the new update are expected to impact parts of the county differently. One provision will limit housing subdivisions in unincorporated parts of the north county where water supplies are limited. This area has drawn particular scrutiny because it is just over the hill from the employment centers of Silicon Valley and therefore is considered ripe for development. And yet, Monterey County is still more oriented to crops than to computers. Another provision allows crops to be grown on slopes of over 25% grade, which is expected to allow more vineyards on hillsides in the foothills that extend south from Salinas. "Compromises were made to development on slopes and on water use," Holm said. The 25% slope issue is part of a long range plan to promote more tourism in the inland parts of the county, which is home to many of the county's vineyards. Tasting rooms, however, are currently clustered on the Monterey Peninsula where tourists to Monterey and Carmel are plentiful, Holm explained. To compel tourists to visit inland areas, the general plan update allows for easier development of bed and breakfast inns and tasting rooms in the Salinas Valley. Supervisor Salinas said the general plan update will also facilitate agriculture-related construction, such as food processing plants, in the region. Although environmentalists are concerned that crops might take over fragile hillsides, but those concerns may be unfounded, Holm said most wine growers do not plan to grow grapes on slopes with more than a 25% grade. And anything beyond that threshold will require a use permit from the county. Holm said the new requirements for slope grading is based on studying what has been done in nearby grape growing regions of San Luis Obispo, Sonoma and Napa counties "Most viticulturists indicated it's not cost effective to go over 25 percent," he said. But one agricultural leader said a blanket slope policy doesn't work for the vast county. "The one-size-fits-all mentality is pretty stone age, " said Christopher Bunn, Jr., who is head of the land use committee of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. Environmentalists, he said, "don't really care about slopes. It's a convenient way to shut down growth." Bunn said that, on the whole, the new general plan is "not friendly to farming" because "a lot of these regulations and policies cost (farmers) more." He said that the Farm Bureau would meet soon to decide on litigation. Several agricultural groups have threatened a lawsuit over the plan's requirement that most new construction include proof of a long-term water supply, according to the Salinas Californian newspaper. They contend that an annual $3 million tax assessment for various water projects already confers on them certain long-term water rights that the general plan update would effectively trump. Finally, Michael Stamp, an environmental attorney in Monterey, represents what he calls "citizen advocacy groups." "We're still evaluating the situation," he said on November 10, when asked if litigation would be filed over the update. "If the general plan is challenged, the challenge could be quite successful," said Carmel Valley attorney Richard Rosenthal, who is counsel for the Save our Peninsula Committee. Rosenthal said two top concerns with the update are inadequacies with traffic circulation and water issues. Rosenthal did not, however, indicate that his group would be filing lawsuits. "The county has a pretty rich history of land use litigation," he said. Bunn, whose family company grows celery and cauliflower, said the 11 years of contention on the general plan update are due to "a very polarized county. It has, he said, "sucked up a lot of time and money that we would have rather put into our businesses." Contacts: Christopher Bunn, Monterey County Farm Bureau Land Use Committee, 831.424. 2067 Carl Holm, Assistant Planning Director, Monterey County, 831.755.5240 Richard Rosenthal, attorney, 831.625.5193 Simon Salinas, Chair, Monterey County Board of Supervisors, .831.755.5033 Michael Stamp, attorney, 831.373.1214 LandWatch

If a new generation of transportation advocates and federal officials has their way, California will soon have miles of brand-new rail lines, strategically sited to enliven cities, increase real estate values, and whisk passengers several whole blocks at speeds of.... nearly 20 miles per hour. High-speed rail, it's not. But $40 billion, it's not either. While the state plans for its proposed high-speed rail network, a raft of California cities are pursuing a more twee type of rail travel. Ubiquitous in the early 20 th  century, trolleys and streetcars are emerging as a newly popular form of intra-city transit. But even the staunchest rail buffs admit that transportation is only part of the benefits that over three dozen cities across the country -- and more than a few in California -- are seeking as they to join the streetcar trend. The streetcar bandwagon, which has picked up dozens of cities nationwide, including Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, and Santa Ana, is fueled not only by nostalgia but also by new attitudes about both urbanism and transportation planning. In transportation terms, streetcars play the same role as downtown shuttle buses: they are "circulators" connecting places in close proximity to one another. Many planners see streetcars not as transportation projects at all and are instead "place-making" devices, according to Maureen Pascoe, capital improvement manager for the City of West Sacramento. Pascoe is in charge of the Riverfront Streetcar Plan, which is being developed in cooperation with the City of Sacramento. "The (transportation) paradigm is changing from mobility to accessibility," said Gloria Ohland, the Los Angeles-based author of  Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century . "Accessibility is really about things like streetcars, so you can be in one place have access to a lot of things without having to drive from point A to point B." Streetcars have been proposed for downtown Los Angeles' Broadway, which is lined with underutilized historic buildings. The effort is supported with up to $10 million in redevelopment funds and Los Angeles County Metro released a request for proposals seeking firms to conduct an initial environmental study. The City of Oakland would replace its Broadway Shuttle bus with a streetcar that would link Jack London Square to the rest of downtown and at least one BART station. Long Beach and Pasadena officials envision streetcars for their respective cities' historic downtowns. A streetcar has even been proposed for the edge city of Warner Center, in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley. Meanwhile, officials in West Sacramento see a streetcar as the catalyst that will enable it to share more of its big sister's vibrancy; its 1.2-mile segment would originate at City Hall, cross the Tower Bridge over the Sacramento River and connect with a system that the City of Sacramento is planning. "Too many people (in Sacramento) think that the world ends at the Sacramento River," said Pascoe. "We really see ourselves as the other side of downtown. We are right at the core of the region and we plan to develop." Similarly, Santa Ana's proposed streetcar system would link the city's downtown with a regional transit hub in adjacent Garden Grove. Each of these cities can look to San Francisco for inspiration. There, vintage streetcars have been running along Market Street and throughout the city continuously for over a century. Unlike light rail lines, which dominated rail transit over the past two decades, streetcars travel at grade and usually in the flow of traffic, without dedicated rights of way. It is their integral role in the streetscape that, supporters say, make them sought-after tools for urban development and economic development. "They can catalyze development because of their real and perceived sense of permanence," said Zach Seal, Broadway Streetcar Project manager for the City of Oakland. "Once the developers see the tracks laid in the asphalt they know the streetcar will be there for decades and know they can make large investments in dense, green, mixed use housing along the streetcar line." Long Beach City Councilmember Suja Lowenthal views her city's pursuit of a streetcar as a way to appeal to new transit riders who are attracted to fixed rail: "streetcars serve a different customer than buses, attracting more choice riders and tourists/visitors who are willing to travel on a rail system in an unfamiliar city." By that same token, however, streetcars' most often-cited downside is that by traveling in the flow of traffic they cannot move any faster than the average bus or car. Moreover, transit planner and streetcar critic Jarrett Walker notes in a recent blog post, "Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth," that for the cost of a streetcar system local businesses, property owners, and redevelopment agencies could invest in pavement upgrades, street furniture, and myriad other amenities that would enhance pedestrian life. Moreover, streetcar systems do not tend to serve regional goals. "It is a fad; it's always been a fad. That doesn't mean necessarily that it's a bad thing," said Lisa Schweitzer associate professor of transportation at the USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development. "Because it's not a commuter system�.it's not really something that's going to change climate or alter air quality." It may, however, change the fortune of local landowners and urban boosters. A 2008 report commissioned by Portland Streetcar contends that up to $3.5 billion had been invested within two blocks of the alignment since the system began operating in 2001. Likewise, residential and commercial densities had increased, with over 10,000 new housing units and over 5 million square feet of new commercial space. The report notes, however, that the streetcar is just one element of a strategy to promote investment in the city's core. "More than streetcars being transit projects, they are really economic development projects with transportation benefits," said Ohland. "They promote the whole local, sustainable, green trend. They would become such groovy neighborhoods with a streetcar." These developments often come right out of the smart growth pattern playbook, replete with mixed use buildings, pedestrian improvements, and even locally owned businesses that are, according to Ohland, sensitive to the unique character of historic urban neighborhoods. Backers say that the investment potential and concentrate benefits enable them to seek private investment from local businesses and landowners who stand to capture the economic benefits of a streetcar line. Streetcar planners say that businesses and landowners have been receptive to ideas for schemes such as benefit assessment districts. LA Streetcar Inc.'s website notes that the private sector funded 30% of Portland's line and nearly 50% of Seattle's; the group seeks similar participation among stakeholders in downtown Los Angeles. "All of the long-term studies of transit show that the main beneficiaries of public investment are the people who own land next to it," said Schweitzer. "And if we know this why can't we find ways of moving some of this�.increase in value up-front and allocating it across the lifetime of the investment?" Streetcars' fate may ultimately rest with the largesse of the federal government, which has of late introduced new policies and funding criteria that embrace circulators and urban livability.  This year the Department of Transportation awarded its first round of Urban Circulator Grants, dedicated to helping cities improve their internal transit (including streetcars), bike, and pedestrian networks. These grants emerged out of a new partnership between DOT, the department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This partnership has led to a major shift away from typical transportation grants, which consider the worthiness of a transportation project based largely on its cost-effectiveness, based on travelers' time savings, and towards a method of evaluation that takes into account broader neighborhood benefits. "A few years ago it was very difficult if not impossible to get federal New Starts money for streetcars," said Seal. "Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood tweaked the scoring system for rail projects and put less weight on speed and more weight on things like quality of life and economic development." Sixty-five cities applied for the first round of Urban Circulator Grant funding, which was awarded this summer. $130 million of the total $293 million was dedicated to streetcar projects and Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, and Charlotte, N.C., each snapped up $25 million grants for new lines. West Sacramento and Los Angeles applied in this summer's round of funding but were both shut out. Those and other planned systems in California are estimated to cost roughly $30 million per mile to build, plus several million per year to operate. Seal attributes this competition to the fact that the grants have arrived a moment when there is massive "pent-up demand." "There were 10-20 streetcar projects across the country sitting there waiting for this (funding) change to happen," said Seal. Those projects can still appliy for grants from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) federal stimulus program; TIGER II grants are available through Septembers 2012. "There seems to be continued interest at the federal and state level to continue funding these systems," said Lowenthal, who said that her city of Long Beach will apply for federal funds. "That being said, there may be changes to funding priorities as a result of the November 2 election." No matter what, it's likely that new trolleys will be clanging modestly down California streets long before they get out-raced by bullet trains. Contacts & Resources: Julie Gustafson, Portland Streetcar Community Relations Representative,  http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/ 503-823-2900 Daniel Jacobson, The Oakland Streetcar Plan, http://www.oaklandstreetcarplan.com Suja Lowenthal, Long Beach City Council Member, 562.570.6684 Gloria Ohland, Author,  Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century Maureen Pascoe, West Sacramento Capital Improvement Manager, (916) 617-4535 Lisa Schweitzer, Associate Professor, USC School of Policy, Planning, & Development, (213) 740-3866 Zach Seal, Broadway Streetcar Project Manager, City of Oakland; (510) 238-2937 Streetcar Proposals & Studies: Los Angeles: www.lastreetcar.org/ Santa Ana: santaanatransitvision.com/fixed_guideway_project.html Sacramento/West Sacramento: www.riverfrontstreetcar.com/

Local voters in the Nov. 2 California election were not necessarily "pro-growth" or "anti-growth" but rather seem to have embraced smart growth like never before. They expressed subtle but clear preferences for preserving open space while accepting compact development. Urban growth boundaries were a big hit, and several infill plans and projects were approved while anything that would have led to encroachment on greenfields or urban fringes was shot down. Local election highlights include the following: Smart Growth: Berkeley Smart growth scored a major victory in Berkeley, where the city's historic "no growth" attitude has eased. The approval of Measure R means that the city's downtown core can grow a little more dense and can rise a little higher, with the addition of up to three high-rises that would exceed the city's extant height limits.  The vote embraces what may be a new vision for California cities and, in particular, a new vision of environmentalism. Groups including the Sierra Club supported the measure because it promotes transit-oriented density and a focus on the urban core. Opponents were concerned that it would ruin the city's character and was pandering to developers.  Sustainability: Irvine In a spirit similar to that of the Berkeley vote, voters in historically auto-oriented Irvine approved a new environmental ethos for the city with the ratification of the Irvine Sustainable Community Initiative, which sets environmental goals for both the city and the beleaguered, delayed Great Park. The initiative calls for the city to promote green building, renewable energy, and alternative modes of transportation. The initiative complements the vision for density set out by the recently approved Irvine Business Complex plan (see CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 15, August 2010 ).  Projects & Plans: Menlo Park, Redondo Beach, San Diego, Saratoga In large part, local voters supported specific developments and development schemes. Voters in Menlo Park approved an enormous mixed-use development while voters in Redondo Beach approved a new vision and zoning scheme for the city's harbor area and waterfront. In San Diego, the Pacific Highlands Ranch development will be allowed to develop neighborhood amenities such as libraries and schools even in the absence of a planned highway. Meanwhile, a measure that would have limited building heights to two stories in Saratoga failed by a margin of less than 1%.  Urban Growth Boundaries: Cloverdale, San Ramon, Petaluma, & Santa Rosa Formerly the only city in Napa County without a UGB, Cloverdale embraced the trend and voted in its first UGB. Cloverdale is not known for growth pressures but the UGB may be a formal statement in favor of slow growth. Voters in San Ramon rejected a measure that would have expanded its existing UGB, and voters in Petaluma and Santa Rosa voted to extend the lifespan of their UGBs. UGBs are sometimes considered tools to promote higher-density growth within defined urban areas. However, by virtue of their rural locations, all at least three of the four UGB measures that appeared on local ballots appear to be intended to prevent greenfield development rather than promote urban infill.  Rancho Palos Verdes: College Expansion Perhaps the most contentious local battle the state centered on what was probably the smallest project. Marymount College in upscale, largely residential Rancho Palos Verdes appealed to voters in its quest to build a new dormitory and make other campus improvements. But even as the college spent over $1 million to curry favor with residents, the city's vehement no-growth coalition roused voter sentiment against the college and defeated the measure.  Sutter County: Food Processing, Agricultural, Recreation Combining District A more ambiguous situation in Sutter County led to an anti-growth vote. The county has been saddled with what many consider a white elephant of a parcel for the better part of three decades in the 1,800-acre Food Processing, Agricultural, Recreation Combining District – which for the better part of two decades has done none of the above. Measure V was supposed to give control of the parcel to the Board of Supervisors so that they would have the power to re-zone and redevelop the parcel to a higher and better use than its current vacancy. Sixty-eight percent of voters, however, were not willing to give them that sort of control; opponents feared that the board would eventually approve the development of homes on the parcel, so for now the site remains moribund. Statewide Measures Prop 19: Marijuana And for everyone who wanted a little piece of Amsterdam at his or her corner coffee shop or that 5 x 5-foot plot of green in their backyard (See CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 12, June 2010 )? Take a drag and mellow out because 2012 is only two years away. This means that local governments are off the hook. Prop. 19 would have essentially forced every locality in the state to come up with its own marijuana policy. Many would likely have banned pot outright, but others were wrestling with how and where to permit large-scale cultivation and use. Prop. 21: State Parks While Californians supported climate change legislation, local environments suffered a blow with the defeat of Prop. 21, which would have secured desperately needed funding for the State Parks system via an annual $18 vehicle registration fee. It's unlikely that anyone takes pleasure in the disrepair of California's parks. However, even with the parks' economic value – and even with the sly juxtaposition of vehicles and nature – voters in these fragile economic times simply did not want a new fee and rejected it by a 60-40 margin. Prop. 22: Local Transportation, Redevelopment Funding Local governments scored a dearly sought-after victory with the approval of Prop. 22, which secures local redevelopment and transportation funds against state borrowing or raiding. Groups such as the California Redevelopment Association and almost every transportation authority across the state lobbied vigorously for the passage of Prop. 22, lest this past year's $2.05 billion transfer of local redevelopment funds to the state become de rigueur (see CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 9, May 2010 ). This may be bad news if you're trying to balance a budget in Sacramento, but voters seem to have gravitated towards its spirit of local control and relatively unambiguous allocation of funds.  Prop. 23: Jobs & Climate Change Likewise, with a chorus of planners and environmentalists speaking out against oil companies and others who promoted Prop. 23, Californians affirmed their desire to combat climate change. Whether AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, will create the green jobs that then-Assemblymember Fran Pavely envisioned four years ago or undermine existing remains to be seen. The salvation of AB 32 also erases any concerns about the fate of SB 375. Although SB 375 was written to stand on its own, many have speculated that the defeat of AB 32 would undermine localities' efforts to promote compact development in accordance with SB 375. Prop. 26: Taxes & Fees Finally, Prop. 26, whose supporters sought to close a tax policy "loophole" that allowed localities to impose taxes under the guise of fees, gained approval by tapping into the same anti-tax sentiment that felled Prop. 21. Prop. 26  (see CP&DR Blog Nov. 4, 2010 ) now limits cities' and local agencies' ability to both raise revenue and achieve policy goals by assessing fees that only required a simple legislative majority. Instead, Prop. 26 reclassifies these fees as taxes and thus requires a 2/3 supermajority approval of local voters. Prop. 26 does exempt development impact fees, but is targeted at more generalized fees – possibly fees for general plans – that do not explicitly tie the fee to an actual impact.

What the government builds and where it builds things can have a major impact on a community and on the way generations of people live their lives. The siting of college campuses in California provides a poignant, and depressing, case study.  This obvious truth was reinforced to me by two recent events: Shasta County's annual count of bicyclists and pedestrians in Redding, and the recent completion of a multi-use trail connecting two sides of Redding that are otherwise divided by a river and a freeway. The bike count is a snapshot, not a comprehensive census. And the picture at Redding's Shasta College is nearly devoid of both cyclists and pedestrians. From 7 to 8:30 a.m. and again from 4 to 6 p.m. on a school day in September, 19 cyclists and 8 pedestrians crossed the intersection in front of the community college's primary entrance. Those are about the numbers you would expect to get with one change of the signal at an entrance to UC Davis, Chico State or Pasadena City College. I concede that Shasta College is not as large as those institutions -- but one pedestrian every 26 minutes?! If anyone is going to use their feet or bicycle for transportation, it's college students. The problem is that Shasta College, like most other community college, CSU and UC campuses built during the post-war period, lies on the edge of town in a location accessible almost exclusively by automobile. California's campus construction binge of the late 1940s through the 1960s was ambitious, but overwhelmingly suburban. The assumption was that everyone would drive to and from school. Many universities from that era are still called "commuter schools." Even my alma mater, CSU Sacramento, which is located in the middle of the metropolis, feels remote because the campus is essentially walled off from the rest of town. Sure, most of the post-war campuses enjoy decent bus service, and my old school does boast a heavily used bicycle and pedestrian bridge across the American River. Still, it's worth remembering that the CSU Sacramento administration vigorously – and successfully – fought a proposal to place a light rail station on the college campus because of alleged safety concerns. Sorry kid, I know you don't have any money and are racking up debt faster than empty beer cans, but you'll have to buy a car.  Moreover, the post-war college siting and design decisions relegated a thriving center of activity to a corner of town at the expense of the rest of the community. College kids may not be flush with money, but they are loaded with energy. That's why real college towns such as Davis, Chico and Berkeley pulse with activity. I'm not suggesting that every place needs to be a college town. But many places that are suited for street life become all the more lively with the injection of a few thousand students. Thirty years after the campus construction boom, we hadn't learned much, as evidenced by the CSU Sacramento light rail fiasco. Another example is UC Merced, which the state chose to build on pastures several miles outside of town 15 years ago. Yes, the plan for eventual development of a university community adjacent to the campus is impressive. Yet it's only more greenfield development in a region where cities are starved for investment, and the school will probably be open for 20 or 30 years before the urban village amounts to much. If we had learned anything, UC Merced would instead be UC Modesto or UC Fresno, and the school would be located in one of those cities' downtowns. CSU Channel Islands may be worse. The campus makes good use of the old state mental hospital outside Camarillo, but the planned university village is modest. It's an isolated campus surrounded by farmland and protected open space – bucolic, but an urban planning disaster. Officials at CSU originally proposed building the school adjacent to Ventura's poorest neighborhood; however, CSU gave up in the face of strenuous no-growth opposition. Sorry, but Ventura as a whole and tens of thousands of students, teachers and CSUCI workers would be better off if CSU had jammed the project down the throat of local naysayers. Instead, that part of Ventura continues to struggle, and everyone has to drive to a remote campus. With an ongoing state budget deficit and an aging populace, California is unlikely to build many new college campuses in the foreseeable future. We do continue to build transportation facilities, though, and here's where I have an example of a government project's positive contribution to community livability. In October, Caltrans completed a major upgrade to Highway 44 in Redding. The agency built a new bridge over the Sacramento River, widening the highway from four lanes to six. It rebuilt an intersection, modified a few ramps and built a new onramp. It also constructed a 1.1-mile-long, 12-foot-wide multi-use path along the highway. The path takes people from an existing bike path next to the convention center and the city's biggest museum to the retail center of town. Most importantly, it provides a safe route over the river and under the freeway, both of which pose barriers to cyclists and pedestrians in Redding. People have filled the path since the moment it opened. Much of the use is recreational, but I've also seen cyclists who are obviously commuting, as well as people carrying sacks of groceries. Caltrans recognized the latent demand. If California is truly going to shift to a more sustainable style of development, it needs to review its mistakes (poorly situated college campuses) and its successes (non-motorized paths that provide connectivity), and then build public facilities accordingly. Maybe we could start by hiring some progressive young planners that our public universities are graduating.  – Paul Shigley

A city ordinance effectively banning tattoo parlors oversteps constitutional limits protecting freedom of expression, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. A unanimous three-judge panel struck down a City of Hermosa Beach zoning code prohibiting tattoo parlors because it violated the First Amendment.  Although it may seem that tattoos are the provenance of modern day subcultures such as rock stars and motorcyclists, tattoos have been part of evolving culture around the globe for thousands of years, the court explained. City of Hermosa Beach, however, perceived tattoos' outlaw air and had adopted a zoning ordinance that precluded the operation of tattoo parlors. Johnny Anderson, a tattooist operating in the City of Los Angeles, wanted to open a parlor in this neighboring beach city and ran headlong into the prohibition. In 2006, he sued Hermosa Beach, but the action was dismissed because Anderson had not availed himself of city administrative procedures for determining whether a tattoo parlor might be allowed as similar to other permitted uses. Following case dismissal, Anderson filed a request with the city for such a determination. The city denied Anderson's request in June 2007. He then filed a 42 USC § 1983 civil rights claim, alleging violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. At the District Court level, the city successfully argued that tattooing was not a First Amendment protected activity. District Court Judge Christina Snyder reviewed the ordinance under the rational basis test, and, on the basis of potential health risks, upheld the ban. Anderson appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court, finding, "The tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and even the business of tattooing are … purely expressive activities fully protected by the First Amendment." Accordingly, the scope of city regulation must be limited to reasonable "time, place and manner," the court determined. The court then addressed and rejected each of the city's arguments that the ban amounted to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Perhaps the city's best argument was based upon public health. Tattooing involves the injection of ink into a person's skin. The required puncturing of the skin creates the potential for skin infection. State law requires every tattooist to register with county health departments. The Los Angeles County health department had one inspector, and not all establishments operating within the jurisdiction of the county had been inspected. The city asserted that the county's limited resources with which to inspect and regulate tattoo parlors for public health purposes was sufficient justification for an absolute ban.  The court held, however, that the city failed to provide sufficient justification that it could not otherwise accommodate public health concerns while permitting a First Amendment protected activity. In other words, the ordinance was too broad. " lthough a total ban on tattooing might be the most convenient way of addressing the city's health concerns, the city has given us no reason to conclude that these concerns cannot be adequately addressed through regulation of tattooing rather than a total ban on tattoo parlors," Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the court. "Thus, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's historical ‘concern with laws that foreclose an entire medium of expression,' we have little difficulty concluding that the city's ban is ‘substantially broader than necessary to achieve the interest.' The city also argued that there were alternative means of communicating the same protected speech, such as printing on a tee shirt. The court concluded, however, that the permanent nature of tattoo ink carried a different message, and that there were no other equally effective communication media. The Case: Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach , No. 08-56914, 2010 DJDAR 14319. Filed September 9, 2010. The Lawyers: For Anderson: Robert C. Moest, (310) 915-6628 For the city: John C. Cotti, Jenkins & Hogin, (310) 643-8448

Divine purposes do not give developers a free pass to circumvent local zoning regulations.  The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that Los Angeles County was entitled to a court order that prohibited a church from operating a school without a required conditional user permit. The Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Church owns two parcels zoned R-1 (single-family residential) in the San Gabriel Valley. In May 2008, the church filed an application for a conditional use permit to operate an 800-student, K-12 school on the property. Four months later, the county received complaints that the school was operating in advance of the issuance of the conditional use permit and without California Environmental Quality Act review. The county conducted an inspection, verified that the school was operating, and issued a notice of violation giving the school 15 days to cease operation. Within this 15-day period, the church applied for a "clean hands waiver" from the county, which would allow the school to remain open during the pendency of the use permit review and processing. The county denied the waiver request. The county then issued a final code enforcement order directing that the school cease operating within 15 days. The church appealed this order, but the county denied the appeal. Following subsequent verification in late 2008 that the school was still operating, the county filed a code enforcement action and sought a preliminary injunction to close the school. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Jan Pluim granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting the school from using the property until all necessary permits were in place. Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Christian School appealed. The appellate decision addressed the interface of local zoning regulation with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)-(b).) The first issue for the court was whether the county's requirement for a conditional use permit and the denial of the clean hands waiver violated RLUIPA's "substantial burden" test. Reviewing a number of decisions from other states, the unanimous, three-judge appellate panel concluded that the necessity for a conditional use permit and the denial of the clean hands waiver did not coerce or affect an individual's practice of faith and, therefore, was not an unreasonable burden. "No Supreme Court case holds the failure to comply with a neutral zoning application process is a substantial burden on the exercise of religious freedoms," Presiding Justice Paul Turner wrote for the court.  The church argued that the county's denial of the clean hands waiver was improper because the county had granted 50 waiver requests from faith-based and non-faith-based entities. (The county had also denied 23 such requests.) The county successfully argued that it had a sufficient factual basis upon which it could justify approving waivers for other applicants but denying this particular request. For one thing, the granted waivers were for activities in locations which would not have the same level of adverse impacts to surrounding uses as would the school. For another, the county had denied a waiver to a different church next to a residential neighborhood because of traffic and parking concerns.  "Thus, the clean hands waiver application in this case could be denied without violating the act. There is no evidence any other entity seeking to use the property would be treated any differently," Turner wrote.  A civil rights lawsuit filed by the church against the county remains pending in federal court.  The Case: County of Los Angeles v. Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Christian School, No. B216888, 188 Cal.App.4th 851, 2010 DJDAR 14846. Filed September 22, 2010 The Lawyers: For Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Christian School: Richard J. Kahdeman, Kahdeman & Nickel, (818) 597-9996 For the county: Dusan Pavlovic, county counsel's office, (213) 974-1900 --William W. Abbott

If I ever write a book about the crisis of the world's largest cities, this photograph from the Oct. 24 edition of the LA Times should be on the cover: A 27-story, 400,000-square-foot private home (!) built by a Mumbai billionaire Mukesh Ambani, reportedly the world's fourth-richest individual.  According to the Times story, Mr. Ambani's residence has both helipads and 168 parking spaces for a family of six. The home has prime views of both the ocean—and surrounding slums. No image could better distill the extremes of the modern mega-city than this bizarre building—looking like a Dagwood sandwich held together with enormous, diagonal toothpicks. To my mind, this single image hints at all the issues pressing down on the world‘s mega-cities (think Beijing, Jakarta, Sao Paulo). Start with overpopulation and uncontrolled urbanism. Add to that extreme contrasts of wealth and poverty. With the extreme gap in income, the rich feel increasingly vulnerable, and house themselves in bunkers that dramatize social polarization. Then add to that an inflated real estate market and construction without regard for environment (how many tons of greenhouse gases were pumped into the atmosphere from the trucks bringing materials to and from the site of Mr. Ambani's personal residence?). Add to that the "conspicuous consumption" of sheer volume; old-fashioned pashas went in for visual richness and ornament; today‘s fatcat just wants your jaw to drop with the sheer amplitude of private Cartesian space. As for open space and pedestrian friendly streets… fuhgeddaboutit! They're too expensive, and there's no return on the rupee. The slums, ironically, are the reverse mirror image of the Ambani residence: Granted, this has been said many times before, but the form of the modern city reflects labor economics of an industrial society—i.e. a perpetual oversupply of cheap labor, which must be fed and housed as cheaply as possibly, so that people can live on low wages. Hey, the view of these shacks is great from the top floor, from which they appear almost … picturesque (if you ignore the raw sewage running down the street, that is). None of these phenomena are new or surprising: What is remarkable here is the suddenness and the extremity that boom economies have brought to the world's densest cities. But can the exploding cities of the global economy be made into habitable places? What set of incentives must be in place to make cities habitable in the most basic ways? And is there a tension between private enterprise and the effort to "green" the world's most populous cities? In any event, the apologists for the global economy should look at this 27-story home and ask whether superwealth is translating into a better life for people as a whole, or driving an even deeper wedge between rich and poor. --Morris Newman

Refusing to second-guess a decision made by a public agency based on substantial evidence, the First District Court of Appeal has upheld a Sonoma County urban water management plan. The case resembled a great deal of land use and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases in which a plan or project opponent asks the court to scrutinize agency decision-makers by reweighing the evidence, and/or to expansively interpret the duties imposed by a particular statute. In  Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency , a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District, Division Five, declined to take either approach. The case involved the urban water management plan (UWMP) adopted by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The agency is a water wholesaler whose service area covers portions of Sonoma and Marin counties and includes a population of approximately 600,000. Under state law, water providers must prepare or update an UWMP every five years and address the supply of water over the following 20 years. The agency adopted the plan in 2006, and was sued by 14 environmental and agricultural organizations led the Sonoma County Water Coalition. The opponents sued on five general grounds: (1) lack of coordination with required agencies, (2) lack of the required detail within the plan, (3) failure to consider certain environmental factors, (4) failure to address the effect of recycled water on the future water supply and (5) failure to provide reasonable specificity with respect to water demand measures identified to address potential future water shortfalls. Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Gary Nadler ruled favorably for the UWMP opponents. SCWA appealed, and the First District court reversed the lower court, in large part by concluding that Judge Nadler had failed to apply the required level of deference to the agency's decision. A number of the opponents' challenges were constructed around the "possibility" argument. That is, the legal challenge was formulated by assaulting the decision on the possibility that one or more assumptions may not come to bear. For example, the challenged water management plan made certain key assumptions about future approval by the State Water Resources Control Board of additional diversions from the Russian River. The environmental and agricultural groups successfully argued to the trial court that, because this approval was not assured, the possibility existed that the future diversions might be denied. This type argument is frequently raised in land use or CEQA challenges because the contested project involves other agencies with independent regulatory control that influences future project implementation. Here, the appellate court determined that the trial court erred in setting aside SCWA's decision, because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's decision with respect to the future diversion and other future regulatory issues controlled by other agencies. In other words, an agency may rely upon a reasonable set of assumptions if the assumptions are supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court also rejected as a matter of statutory interpretation that the law required the adopting agency to develop the UWMP predicated on a "bare possibility." In recognizing the deference owed to the adopting agency, the appellate court noted that the issue was not whether another planning assumption was more reasonable, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the assumption adopted by SCWA. While the appellate decision does not explain the scope of the administrative record, from a practitioner's perspective it is clear that SCWA did its homework by providing supporting evidence for its key assumptions. Another example of the possibility claim was the opponents' argument that there existed the potential for future groundwater contamination as a result of potential wastewater discharges by the City of Santa Rosa. This possibility was raised after the City of Santa Rosa circulated a request for CEQA scoping for a proposed wastewater project in the Russian River watershed. According to UWMP opponents, this wastewater discharge proposal rendered the UWMP invalid because it failed to account for the risk that wastewater discharges could contaminate the drinking water supply. The appellate court noted that the record before SCWA did not support the conclusion that this risk existed. No specific discharge project had been defined and the project was speculative. Perhaps more importantly, the record contained evidence supporting SCWA's conclusion that its water treatment and natural filtration systems would reasonably assure adequate water quality. "Although others might well assess the significance of the risk presented by DCP differently, it was again error for the court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency," Justice Terence Bruiniers wrote for the appellate court. With respect to the coordination claim, the environmental and agricultural groups argued that SCWA was required to coordinate not only with all agencies that shared the same supply, but also with all agencies whose regulatory authority potentially impacted future supplies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The appellate court concluded that none of the agencies identified by the opponents meet the statutory criteria of agencies "in the area" that shared the same water source or otherwise qualified as water management agencies. The fact that these other agencies' regulatory authority might impact future water supply did not bring them within the scope of the statute for purposes of coordination, the court ruled. The appellate court applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the agency's decision not to coordinate with these other agencies. This decision restates and highlights the role of substantial evidence in guiding a court as it reviews challenged agency actions. The court refused to sit in place of agency decision-makers, but, instead, reviewed challenged decisions while recognizing the expertise of the decision-makers and applying the statute as drafted. Although this case involved an urban water management plan, the decision should act as important guidance in the CEQA and land use context as well. The Case: Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency , No. 124556, 2010 DJDAR 15743. Filed October 8, 2010. The Lawyers: For Sonoma County Water Coalition: Stephan C. Volker, (510) 496-0600. For Sonoma County Water Agency: Stephen L. Kostka, Bingham McCutchen, (415) 393-2000.

So, yet again Wendell Cox � a leader of the anti-anti-sprawl crowd -- has trotted out an impressive-looking quantitative report that purports to prove that certain metropolitan regions have high home prices because of "more restrictive land use regulation". In his New Geography piece  last week , which linked to a report on his web site , Cox seemed to attribute virtually all the variation in home price around the country to land use regulations � just as he has done in the past. But � as usual � Cox's analysis is based on the assumption that sprawl is the natural state of affairs and any deviation from sprawl must therefore be caused by regulation. He does extensive quantitative analysis to prove that all difference in home price  is due to regulation. But it's not too surprising that he reaches that conclusion, considering that his analysis assumes that any difference must be due to regulation. And even Cox himself apparently recognizes that he can't quite make an airtight connection. As he said in the New Geography piece: "Nearly all of this difference is in costs other than site preparation and construction, which indicates rising land and regulation costs." Note the language: Indicates, not proves. And that's not the only defect in his methodology. There are lots more assumptions piled on top of assumptions � some contradictory -- that make the numbers come out the way he wants them to. To summarize Cox's latest analysis, he compared home prices in 11 metropolitan areas. Home prices in six metropolitan areas that he categorizes as having "less restrictive land use regulation" (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham, and St. Louis) are lower than home prices in five metros he characterizes as having "more restrictive land use regulation" (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland, San Diego, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.-Baltimore). Not too surprising on the face of it, but let's unpack Cox's methodology, most of which is contained in a separate document . First, he asserts that more restrictive regulation raises home prices and disrupts normal market functioning in a variety of ways. There's obviously a lot of truth in that. Second, he identifies six specific regulatory approaches that, he claims, are characteristic of "more restrictive land use regulation policies with potential to increase land costs and house prices". These are: 1. Urban containment (urban growth boundaries, urban service districts, restrictions on physically developable land, infill quotas.) 2. Large-lot zoning in urban fringe & rural areas. 3. Geographical growth steering 4. Housing building moratoria or limits 5. High development fees & exactions 6. Mandatory regional or county planning. Where did he get this list? Well, in some cases he got them from the 2000 HUD report The Cost of Sprawl. In other cases he references himself, a la Mike Davis. But he doesn't differentiate among these policies; he simply asserts that they all fall into the category of restrictive regulation. Never mind, for example, that he lumps together UGBs (which encourage higher density) and large-lot zoning (which encourage lower density). He also asserts that no matter what the policies are called � for example, smart growth or growth management -- they are basically all the same. Next he categorizes the 11 metros based on the presence or absence of these six criteria. In the case of the five "more restrictive" metros, he finds the presence between two and four of the criteria. He's on target in many cases � clearly, Portland has a UGB. But he gives them equal weight, even though his discussion of the six admits that not all of them have the same effect. And, amusingly, he finds that none of these criteria are present in any of the six "less restrictive" metros. Apparently there's large-lot zoning in Minneapolis but not in Atlanta or Raleigh or St. Louis? He gives no indication as to how he decided this. Once he comes up with these categories, he then goes through an exhaustive � and, frankly, mostly well-executed � quantitative analysis about home construction cost, accounting for variation in construction costs in each metropolitan area. But then he assumes that construction cost is typically 80% of the advertised home price, meaning 20% is attributable to land cost and regulation. He says he has data to prove this but doesn't provide references; he simply assumes that 20% is what land and regulation cost should be in a less restrictively regulated market. And then he simply assumes that if the difference between home price and construction cost is more than 20%, then  all the difference must be due to regulation. For example, if construction cost is $80,000, the sales price of the house should be $100,000. Under Cox's methodology, if the cost of the house is more than $100,000, anything over that price is either due to excess regulation or due to high land cost that is caused by excess regulation. In his 11 metros, he compares the "expected finished land and regulation cost" with the actual difference between construction cost and home price. This is, miraculously, zero in his six "less restrictive" metros, and it's a lot more in the other metros � ranging from $28,000 per unit in Minneapolis to $221,000 in San Diego. To give a more detailed comparison, Cox calculates that construction cost of the average home in Atlanta and Washington-Baltimore is about the same -- $128,000. Based on his 80/20 rule, this means the average home price in each metro should be about $160,000 (with $32,000 for land and regulatory cost). The average home price in metro Atlanta is $161,000 � right on target. But the average home price in metro Washington/Baltimore is $235,000. That's $75,000 more than he thinks it should be � so obviously all of the increase MUST be due to regulation! The list of other things that could account for this difference is long indeed, but Cox doesn't even give lip service to any of them. To begin with, there's demand � and, in particular, the psychology of any given real estate market. Real estate booms and busts are common, as we saw have learned once again here in California in the last few years. Then there's the income of the people buying the houses; that's a factor because, in practical terms, home prices depend not only on how much houses cost to build but also on how much you can afford to pay. The more you can afford to pay, the higher the prices will be. (Median incomes in Washington-Baltimore are about 10% higher than median incomes in Atlanta And where's developer profit, which will rise in a boom market and drop in a bust market? Cox's formula doesn't seem to acknowledge profit at all. Poor guys. I could go on, but you get the idea. I respect the anti-anti-sprawl researchers � Cox, Randall O'Toole, Sam Staley � and I try to stay on good terms with them. But what drives me crazy about this stuff is that the self-fulfilling assumptions undermine the valid points and make it difficult to reach consensus about what's going on. There's no question, for example, that UGBs do increase home prices at least a little and also create a "bounce" effect, as my colleague Rolf Pendall and I have acknowledged in a piece of research Cox cites as part of his source material. But UGBs do not, by any means, account for all home price variation. Instead of acknowledging the complexity of the situation, however, Cox lumps all public policy into the same category of intrusive regulation and then ascribes all variation in home price to that regulation. (O'Toole does the same thing all the time.) I'm no academic snob, but I can't believe this would pass any serious peer-review muster. Unfortunately, Cox's stuff is the Fox News � or MSNBC, if you prefer � of land use research. One point of view always wins out. The possibility that another point of view may have merit is simply never entertained. Instead of moving toward greater understanding about land use policy and how to use it, we are pushed deeper into our own separate world views � and further away from a useful policy debate. -- Bill Fulton Bill Fulton's new book on economic development, Romancing The Smokestack , is available here .

The passage of Proposition 26 – which requires two-thirds voter approval for certain local fees – won't stop the gears of land use planning and development approvals from churning. However, it does turn traditional thinking on its head – a fee is a tax unless proven otherwise – and it's certain to lead to some litigation that might affect planning and development on the margins in California. At least that was the conclusion Wednesday of League of California Cities lobbyist Bill Higgins, who spoke at the California Chapter, American Planning Association, conference at La Costa Resort in Carlsbad. Philosophically, Proposition 26 represents a huge change in the way California views fees and taxes. There's now a new definition of taxes: "Any  levy,  charge  or  exaction  of  any  kind" imposed by the government, unless the fee falls within an exemption under the law. But the practical effect on planning may not be great. Although television commercials made it seem as though all fees will be affected, in fact Proposition 26 has a very narrow target: Sinclair Paint Co. v. Board of Equalization , a 1997 court ruling that upheld regulatory fees on manufacturers of lead paint to pay for programs to assist children subject to lead poisoning. The intent of Proposition 26 is to outlaw fees imposed generally on an industry to pay for the mitigation of problems created by that industry's products, without tying the fees to specific impacts. In a nutshell, Proposition 26 takes the "special benefit" language from assessments and applies them to fees. "Proposition 26 requires proportionality accounting on an individual user basis," Higgins said. In that sense, it's not unlike current rules on development impact fees and other obligations imposed on developers. In fact, development impact fees are exempt from Proposition 26. So are administrative costs associated with running the government – but not, apparently, advanced planning and regulatory rulemaking, which would have to be paid for out of tax funds. To that last point, Higgins said a broader question is whether other, more general fees imposed on developers – for example, a General Plan fee used to stockpile funds to update the General Plan – might get caught in Proposition 26's web. More broadly, a variety of other fees that local governments rely on – though not in the planning and development arena – might be affected. For example, according to prominent municipal lawyer Michael  G.  Colantuono , franchise fees could be at risk. And municipal gas and electric rate increases – which were exempt from Proposition 218 – will now be subject to a two-thirds vote, even though rate increases for private utilities are not. Fees and rates covered by Proposition 218 are exempt from Proposition 26.

Here's the factoid of the week at the California Chapter, American Planning Association, conference: Out of all the local sales tax declines since 2005, 40 percent are due to declining auto sales. That's right: Local sales tax revenue in California has dropped $600 million in the last five years. And of that amount, about $245 million came from declining auto sales. This according to economic analyst Stan Hoffman, who also reported that about 10% of all dealerships have gone out of business and somewhere between 500 and 1,000 acres of prime urban real estate have opened up as a result. Cities have depended on sales tax from auto sales for huge revenues in the last 20 years – but the auto industry is changing and it's hard to know how this is going to affect California cities in the long run. The bottom line, according to several panelists who spoke to this topic at the CCAPA event on Tuesday, is that cities will never get all this tax revenue back. They can possibly prop up auto sales by opening up auto malls and auto strips to used-car dealerships, but in the long run most of the land – especially along the old commercial strips – will turn over to other uses. The starkest tale told on Tuesday came from Whittier, which has had a strong group of auto dealers along Whittier Boulevard for generations. Here's what's changed since 2006: * 7 of the city's 9 dealers have closed. * Sales tax from auto sales has dropped from $1.8 million to $490,000 per year. * Sales tax from auto sales has dropped from 24% of the city's sales tax to 9%. Assistant City Manager Jeff Collier said Whittier has changed its Whittier Boulevard Specific Plan to permit used-car sales – at least temporarily – and is planning for intense commercial, housing, and mixed-use nodes along the boulevard. But he described a lot of problems, including fragmented ownership, contamination cleanup from service areas (one cleanup clost almost $1 million), and a lack of demand. Collier's takeaways: * Don't accept the first new use that comes along no matter what it is. * Understand the market so that you focus on development that's feasible, not aspirational. * Don't expect all the tax revenue to be replaced and look for other revenue options elsewhere. As the saga of declining auto sales and the impact on cities unfolds, a few wrinkles are becoming obvious. These include the following: * Commercial boulevards are struggling more than freeway-close auto centers. The Tuesday panel told the tale not only of Whittier Boulevard but also Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, which has similarly struggled. * Microclimates matter. High-end dealerships in Pasadena have struggled – Maserati recently shut down – but as my blog from a couple of weeks ago indicated , luxury car sales along the boulevards on the Westside of L.A. are still really strong and dealerships are expanding. * Especially along the boulevards, there are a lot of familiar landowner problems. In some cases, longtime property owners have such low costs that they're not motivated to redevelopment. In other cases, the auto brands are still paying on the lease even though the dealership has left – good for the landowner, bad for the city. And in some cases, complicated landowner circumstances make it more difficult to make anything happen. (Eric Duyshart of Pasadena told the story of one dealership where adjacent parcels were owned by the dealer's two ex-wives!) -- Bill Fulton