City of Alameda voters have overwhelmingly rejected a plan to redevelop Alameda Naval Air Station. In a February 2 special election, 85.4% of voters said "no" to Measure B, which would have permitted developer SunCal Companies to move forward with a housing and industrial project on about 1,000 acres of Navy real estate. The vote was only the latest of many setbacks for reuse of what is known as Alameda Point, the western end of the Alameda island that juts into the bay only a few miles east of downtown San Francisco. The Navy closed the 1,700-acre base in 1997. Since then, Catellus has mostly finished redevelopment of two smaller portions of the base with about 900 housing units, an industrial park and some retail space. However, the approximately 1,000 acres where the Navy's runways are located remains untouched. SunCal, which signed a master development agreement with the city in 2007 (see CP&DR Places , February 2008 ), is at least the fourth developer to take a run at the site. SunCal advanced a plan calling for about 4,800 housing units, 3 million square feet of industrial and office space, 145 acres of parks and open space, and public facilities ranging from a 58-acre sports field complex to a new ferry terminal to a library and schools. To implement the plan, SunCal needed an exception to 1973 and 1991 ballot measures that, respectively, prohibit residential units other than single-family homes and duplexes, and limit residential density to 21 units an acre. The developer qualified an initiative for the ballot that would have lifted the housing restrictions only for Alameda Point, and which would have ratified provisions in a development agreement, including a $200 million cap on SunCal's contributions to public facilities. Opponents argued that the project would overwhelm the city with traffic, especially in and near the Posey Tube, a tunnel that connects Alameda to Oakland. They also questioned the $200 million cap, a decrease in required affordable housing units from 25% to 15%, and what opponents saw as a lack of guarantees that SunCal would see the project through to completion. Opponents insisted that job growth, not housing, should be the focus on base reuse. Only one of five Alameda councilmembers endorsed the SunCal plan. The developer spent more than $1 million campaigning for Measure B, but the vote was 13,419 opposed and 2,300 in support. After the election, SunCal representatives said the company would continue to press ahead at the site. A few weeks before the election, the company submitted a greatly revised plan to the city that would reportedly comply with the 1973 and 1991 ballot measures.

Characterized as "the last piece in the puzzle" for Chula Vista bayfront redevelopment, a land swap between the San Diego Unified Port District and developer Pacifica Holdings has been approved by the district and the City of Chula Vista. The port district, the city and other stakeholders have been working on a plan for the 550-acre Chula Vista bayfront since 2003. The project received a major setback in late 2008, when Gaylord Entertainment dropped its plans for a large convention center and 2,000-room resort hotel on the site (see CP&DR In Brief , December 2008 ; Local Watch , October 2006 ). Very tentative proposals to use a portion of the land for a San Diego Chargers football stadium failed to gain traction. Under the deal approved on February 2, Pacifica will trade 97 acres it owns near Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and Chula Vista Nature Center for 35 acres the port district owns near J Street. In addition, the government agencies approved an agreement establishing a 1,200-foot buffer between potential new residences on the former port property and the existing Goodrich Aerostructures industrial operation. According to backers, the deal directs development to a more appropriate location away from sensitive habitat, while also preserving industrial uses. "We just took two enormous steps ahead," Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox said. "This is a massive opportunity and the step to the next step." Still, Chula Vista bayfront redevelopment remains a ways off. The master plan needs approval by the port district, the city and the Coastal Commission, and an environmental impact report must be certified. The bayfront master plan is available on the port district website .

A coalition of plastic bag producers avoided, at least for the moment, a major blow to business by using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to delay implementation of an ordinance banning the distribution of plastic bags in the City of Manhattan Beach. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District demonstrated that substantial evidence of a fair argument includes any evidence in the record, even a report from the Scottish government evaluating a plastic bag tax. In Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach , the appellate court found that substantial evidence supported a fair argument that an ordinance prohibiting the use of plastic bags in the city may require the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). The coastal city of Manhattan Beach in July 2008 adopted Ordinance No. 2115, which prohibited certain retailers and establishments from using plastic bags in order to preserve the marine environment by reducing the number of plastic bags making their way into and polluting the ocean. The city prepared an initial study for the ordinance. Based on the initial study, the city determined the ordinance was not a project involving any significant impacts upon the environment and prepared a negative declaration. The city acknowledged the ordinance may result in greater paper bag use, which could have negative environmental effects, including increased power plant, paper mill and recycling plant emissions; increased traffic involved in shipping the paper bags to retail establishments; and increased emissions from trucks carrying the heavier, bulkier paper bags. The initial statement found that reducing the use of plastic bags in the city would have a modest positive impact on the migration of plastic refuse into the ocean, and that the impacts of the ordinance with respect to air quality, traffic and landfill capacity due to the increased use of paper bags would be less than significant. The city determined there was no substantial evidence the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore adopted a negative declaration. An association of plastic bag manufacturers brought suit, arguing the ordinance may result in the increased use of paper bags, which in turn would result in significant environmental impacts. The association challenged the use of a negative declaration, pointing to five reports in the record as substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment: a 2005 report commissioned by the Scottish government in response to a bill in Scottish Parliament to impose a levy on lightweight plastic carrier bags; a 2007 study commissioned by the Progressive Bag Alliance to assess the life cycle of three types of grocery bags; a 2008 "Use Less Stuff" report; a 1990 report prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd.; and a 2007 Los Angeles County report. The trial court found that the association presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the ordinance may have a significant environmental impact and therefore the city had to prepare an EIR. The city appealed. The appellate court first addressed the association's standing to assert the claim (the ability to seek relief in court). The court found the association had standing under the public right/duty exception, which provides that a citizen interested in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result. The court stated, "This is not a case in which the plaintiff's interest is purely commercial and competitive." The court proceeded to determine whether the evidence in the record met the low threshold requiring the preparation of an EIR. The court explained that it is the plaintiff who has the burden of demonstrating the existence of substantial evidence of a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The court found that four of the five reports cited by the association – all except the Los Angeles County study of paper and plastic bag consumption – supported the conclusions that prohibiting plastic bags is likely to lead to increased use of paper and reusable bags; paper bags have a greater negative environmental effect as compared to plastic bags; and these negative environmental effects include increased nonrenewable energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste production, and acid rain. This constituted substantial evidence of a fair argument that the plastic bag distribution ordinance may have a significant environmental effect, meeting the low threshold for the preparation of an environmental impact report, the court concluded. Justice Richard Mosk's dissent presented tempting logic. He wrote, "Requiring the small city of Manhattan Beach … to expend public resources to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for enacting what the city believes is an environmentally friendly ordinance phasing out the retail distribution (not use) of plastic carryout bags within the city and promoting the use of reusable bags (not paper bags) stretches the California Environmental Quality Act and the requirement for an EIR to an absurdity. … This action to require an EIR was generated by the plastic bag industry for its economic interest." Whether or not economic interests spurred the litigation, this case shows us just how low the bar actually is for CEQA's fair argument standard. The case: Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach , No. B215788, 2010 DJDAR 1485. Filed January 27, 2010. The Lawyers: For the association: Stephen Joseph, (415) 577-6660. For the city: Robert Wadden, Jr., city attorney, (310) 545-5621.

San Diego County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Dianne Jacob has asked the state Public Utilities Commission to reconsider its approval of the Sunrise Powerlink transmission corridor because of its potential to make the unincorporated community of Alpine into "a ghost town" due to years of construction. San Diego Gas & Electric's 120-mile Sunrise Powerlink corridor would provide connections to new solar, biofuel and other power plants in the Imperial County desert. Environmentalists have fought the project because of its impact to fragile open spaces. But in Alpine, a small town along Interstate 8, the power lines would be placed underground along Alpine Boulevard for 6 miles. Construction for the lines could have the town's main thoroughfare torn up for at least two years. Jacob and Alpine residents protest that they did not learn about this potential alignment until very late in the process, when SDG&E abandoned its preferred route through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. The utility company maintains the route was thoroughly publicized and analyzed, and it has urged the PUC not to reconsider its December 2008 approval of the project. Litigation over Sunrise Powerlink continues. Meanwhile, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution restating its support for the Sunrise Powerlink project. With the highest unemployment rate in the country, Imperial County is hopeful for jobs from construction and operation of new power plants.

Successful CEQA Compliance, 2-Day Seminar UCLA Extension will offer a two day seminar on Successful CEQA Compliance at the Figueroa Courtyard in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday and Friday, February 25 and 26.  This intensive two-day workshop serves as a comprehensive introduction to CEQA and the environmental review process as well as an in-depth refresher and update for more experienced professionals.   The program includes discussions of the policies, players, procedures, and practices of CEQA.  It also covers key questions of when exemptions apply, and to prepare a Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  The course will also address proven techniques for ensuring that CEQA documents are legally adequate and useful to the decision-making process.  Project examples are used throughout to illustrate key issues arising in CEQA practice, and strategies for successfully addressing those issues.  Ron Bass , Senior Regulatory Specialist and Jonathan Riker , Environmental Counsel, both from ICF International will instruct the seminar.     The seminar runs from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm each day, and provides ample opportunity for participants to raise questions or interact with speakers. The fee is $495 and includes materials.  Please reference registration number V4763 when enrolling.    For a complete listing of our courses, more information, or to enroll, please call (310) 825-9971 or go to www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy

A $400 million economic stimulus grant from the federal government for the proposed Transbay Terminal in San Francisco will provide the final piece of financing for construction of the first, $1.2 billion phase of the terminal project. However, federal transportation officials appear to have stepped into the middle of a dispute between local officials and the California High Speed Rail Authority over the precise terminus for high-speed rail in San Francisco by siding with the locals. In addition, one rail authority board member, former judge and state Sen. Quentin Kopp, said that only the rail authority may allocate the $400 million to the San Francisco project. The $4 billion Transbay Terminal is proposed to be a 900,000-square-foot station for high-speed rail, CalTrain commuter rail, and local and regional buses (see CP&DR Public Development , August 2004 ). The facility would replace a dilapidated and undersized terminal. Groundbreaking was originally scheduled for 2008, but litigation, financing issues and engineering problems have caused delays. Only days after federal officials promised a $171 million loan for the Transbay Terminal project, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced on January 28 the project would receive a $400 million stimulus grant as part of $2.25 billion for the state's high-speed rail system. LaHood insisted the money was designated for a terminal that would serve as the San Francisco terminus of the high-speed rail line. But the rail authority disagrees with the alignment and terminal plans adopted by the local Transbay Joint Powers Authority. Kopp told the San Francisco Chronicle that the rail authority will decide how to spend the $2.25 billion federal grant, and that no federal money may be spent on the Transbay Terminal until the high speed rail authority completes an analysis of alternatives in 2011.

Local road and street maintenance needs an additional $71 billion investment over the next 10 years, according to a study prepared by the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. The study identified $99.7 billion worth of maintenance needed to roads, streets and their essential components, such as storm drains, sidewalks and signals. However, only $28.3 billion is expected to be available. The additional $71 billion would permit all facilities to attain a "best management practices" (BMP) condition, under which basic preventive maintenance measures – slurry seals and thin overlays, for example – would be adequate to keep roads in good condition. "It costs twelve times less to maintain a BMP pavement compared with a pavement that is at the end of its service life," the report by Nichols Consulting Engineers stated. "Even a modest resurfacing is four times costlier than a pavement in the BMP condition." The study is the first to comprehensively assess local street and road conditions in California, according to the local government organizations. The study found that the average pavement condition is "at risk," and that conditions will worsen based on recent funding trends. An additional $7 billion a year for the local system equates to a 38-cent increase in the gas tax. You may find the needs assessment report here .

Counties and cities must let go of another share of property tax revenues to school districts under the redevelopment law's distribution of the property tax increment. The case at hand involved a tug-of-war between a county and a school district over a share of the property tax increment distributed by redevelopment agencies. In the wake of Proposition 13, property tax revenues are limited and their allocation is coveted by local government, special districts and school districts. Under redevelopment law, redevelopment agencies must give a portion of the incremental increase in property tax revenues to local entities, including schools, based on the percentage of property tax revenue received by the entity in that fiscal year. These are known as "pass-through payments" from redevelopment agencies. In this case, the Los Angeles Unified School District argued that it was entitled to a larger share of the property tax increment than it had been allocated because the defendants, which were 13 redevelopment agencies, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles (collectively "county"), failed to take in account certain property taxes received by the school district. The trial court disagreed with the school district, and the Second District Court of Appeal reversed. The argument in this case centered around the overlap between two statutes: the pass-through legislation under Health & Safety Code § 33607.5, and the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (Revenue & Taxation Code §§ 97.2, 97.3), which is known as ERAF. The Legislature enacted ERAF to require the distribution of a portion of property taxes, along with other funds, to schools, to the detriment of county and city coffers. Health & Safety Code § 33607.5 deals with the allocation of the property tax increment, which is the increase in property tax revenues resulting from the redevelopment of property. In order to ensure that local entities are not financially burdened by the adoption of redevelopment plans, state lawmakers enacted pass-through legislation (Health & Safety Code § 33607.5) whereby redevelopment agencies must, according to the court, "share or pass-through a portion of the property tax increment to local taxing entities, including schools." This portion of the property tax increment is based on the proportion of property taxes allocated to the entity in the same fiscal year that the property tax increment is allocated. In this case, the county did not take into account the amount of property taxes received by the school district through ERAF when calculating the percentages of property taxes received by each local entity. Because the county's calculation of the percentage of property tax revenue received by the school excluded the additional ERAF amount, the pass-through payment allocated to the school district was too small, the school district argued. The school district sued the county on the grounds that the ERAF funds had to be included in the pass-through calculation. On appeal, the Second District held that the county acted unlawfully in excluding the ERAF allocations. According to the court, subdivision (d)(5) of §§ 97.2 and 97.3 of the Revenue & Taxation Code clearly and unambiguously includes ERAF distributions as property tax revenue, and therefore, "any property tax revenue deemed allocated to ERAFs under subdivision (d)(5) necessarily qualifies as property tax revenue to the school that received it." The court did point out that any money allocated through the ERAF to the school that was not property tax revenue should be excluded from the pass-through calculation. Thus, the court concluded that the county's calculations were unlawful and remanded the matter to Los Angeles County Superior Court to determine the right to reimbursement. The Case: Los Angeles Unified School District v. County of Los Angeles , No. B213703, 2010 DJDAR 1422. Filed January 27, 2010. The Lawyers: For the school district: Gregory Luke, Strumwasser & Woocher, (310) 576-1233. For the county: Paul Gale, Troutman Sanders, (949) 622-2704.

It's official: 2009 was the slowest year for new housing construction since the 1940s.  Builders pulled permits for only 36,209 housing units in 2009, according to the Construction Industry Research Board. That was a little more than half of the 64,962 housing starts in 2008, which had been the record post-war low. The 2009 housing starts were composed of 25,046 single-family homes and 11,163 multi-family units. The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area had the most new homes with 6,681. In second place was Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale with 5,610, while San Diego was third with 2,989 units. Not one metro area experienced an increase in homebuilding activity in 2009 compared with 2008. The greatest slippage was in Merced, which saw housing starts drop from 473 in 2008 to 84 last year. During the mid-decade peak, local governments in Merced County often permitted about that many new units in one week.

Opponents and supporters of a proposed luxury resort and housing development in the City of Healdsburg have signed an agreement outlining what a new environmental impact report should address. A Sonoma County Superior Court judge in December ruled that the EIR for the Saggio Hills project was deficient because it did not address water demand for tree planting, failed to consider impacts on nearby public open space, and lacked a sufficient range of project alternatives. The city in 2008 approved the project, proposed to include a 130-room, high-end resort and 70 large-lot houses on a portion of a 258-acre site at the north end of town. Proponents said the project would provide economic benefits as well as new parkland and 14 acres for future affordable housing development in the small wine country town. Rather than appealing the judge's ruling, developers Robert Green and Tony Korman reached an agreement with the lead opposition group, Healdsburg Citizens for Sustainable Solutions, on the parameters for a new EIR, with the apparent intent of streamlining the process and avoiding additional litigation. Opponents insist the number of houses in the project should be reduced to about two dozen.

Transportation costs associated with a community are a good predictor of housing foreclosure rates, according to a new study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The peer-reviewed statistical analysis found that, after accounting for variable factors, foreclosure rates in automobile-dependent fringe neighborhoods are higher than in "location efficient" neighborhoods in which residents spend less of their income on transportation, according to the NRDC. The study looked at 40,000 mortgages in the San Francisco, Chicago and Jacksonville, Florida, regions. "In all three cities, the study found statistically sound results that the probability of mortgage foreclosure increases as neighborhood vehicle ownership levels rise, after controlling for income," a briefing paper on the study says. The problem, according Jennifer Henry, of the NRDC's Chicago office, is that people who must drive everywhere "have much less economic flexibility" in difficult economic times. The NRDC makes three recommendations based on the findings: Land use, infrastructure and transportation policy should encourage development of location-efficient communities; mortgage underwriting practices should favor purchases of location-efficient homes; lenders and researchers should perform further research to refine underwriting models. A briefing paper about the study is available on the NRDC website, www.nrdc.org/energy/10012001.asp . The NRDC publicized its study at the same time the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) stepped up its campaign to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lending standards. According to CNU, the government-backed mortgage agencies will not finance developments that have more than 20% commercial use, meaning mixed-use project developers and buyers do not have access to Fannie and Freddie loans. "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enforce rules that have made Main Street almost impossible to build in America," complained CNU President and CEO John Norquist. He pointed to the 2008 study produced by CEOs for Cities called "Driven to the Brink" that strongly suggested high gasoline prices helped pop the housing bubble because exurban commuters could no longer afford both their mortgage and their gas bills. Norquist and other CNU leaders want Congress and the Obama administration to encourage lending programs that favor walkable, location-efficient development.

Last Wednesday afternoon, I arrived in Seattle and checked into a room on the 16th floor of the Hyatt At Olive 8 hotel and began preparing to moderate a panel the next day on transferrable development rights programs. The hotel was brand-new and less than a block from the convention center. It was comfortable and cool, the first LEED certified hotel in Seattle. Little did I realize that the very room I was staying in existed because of the King County transfer of development rights program I was there to discuss. TDR programs, as you may know, allow developers in "receiving areas" -- usually cities -- to increase density by purchasing the development rights of landowners in "sending areas" -- usually rural areas -- whose land has been designated for preservation. Our panel Thursday at the New Partners for Smart Growth was focused on TDR programs in the Seattle area -- including the King County TDR program , which is run by Darren Greve, who used to work with me at Solimar Research Group . The panel -- which also included Skip Swenson of the Cascade Land Conservancy and Ivan Miller of the Puget Sound Regional Council -- was an excellent overview of TDR programs in the Puget Sound area, and the questions from the audiences were unusually sophisticated and on-point. And about halfway through the panel, I realized that my hotel room had been created as a result of the King County TDR program. I bring this up not just because it's kind of a fun thing to write about, but because it goes to one of the central questions about TDRs raised during the panel: How do you get developers, cities, and people in the receiving areas to accept additional density? It's definitely a variation on the old notion of "what's in it for me?" Why should anybody in a receiving area be willing to accept additional density in order to preserve land a long way away? This is a question that Darren Greve, in particular, has been pondering a lot, because part of his job is to negotiate "interlocal agreements' with cities in King County to accept higher-density development through TDRs. In his presentation, Darren suggested several possibliities -- all of them compelling. The first is that cities that accept TDRs may be able to lower the region's carbon footprint -- important if that's a reiognal policy goal. Darren showed a slide suggesting that a condo in a receiving area has less than half the carbon footprint than a single-family home on a five-acre lot. The savings are not just from less driving, but also from less home energy use. The second is that it might be possible to link TDRs to urban redevelopment goals. For example, currently cities in Washington cannot use tax-increment financing. There's a bill in the state legislature right now to allow use of TIF -- but only if TDRs are also used. The third -- similar to the second -- is the use of what are called "amenity funds." Sometimes it's possible to peel off enough money from the TDR system to give the receiving area money to improve neighborhood amenities. The last one is the most intangible -- but possibly also the most powerful, and the one I thought about when I got back to my room at the Hyatt at Olive 8 that night. That's the sense of satisfaction you get from helping to accomplish a goal that conforms to your basic values. One of the reasons that TDR programs work in the Seattle area is that even the most urban dwellers do not feel removed from the rural environment. around them. Even if they walk or ride transit during the week, they love to get out and collide hard with nature on the weekends. So saving land far aware isn't an abstraction. It's real. During our panel, Darren said that the Olive 8 condo/hotel tower had gotten 30% more height because of TDRs (I was on the second-to-higest floor) and that one TDR from rural King County -- that is, removing the ability to build one house on a five-acre lot -- bought 2,000 additional square feet in the Olive 8 tower. That means every six or seven rooms on the upper floors of the Hyatt at Olive 8 preserved one five-acre lot in eastern King County from being mini-mansioned by a Microsoft millionaire. Maybe they should have put a plaque in every room: "This room preserved a half-acre of rural land in eastern King County." Hmmm. Not a bad idea. I'm suggesting it as part of the next TDR program I work on. – Bill Fulton