Voters in the North San Diego County city of Encinitas have narrowly approved  a ballot initiative limiting building heights to two stories in most parts of the city and requiring future changes in height and density to a vote. Proposition A emerged in part from the city's raucus debate over a General Plan Update, which highlighted the question of whether taller buildings and greater density. The measure passed with 51% of the vote Tuesday The City of Encinitas is a collection of older communities near Carlsbad that were combined when the city was incorporated in the 1980s. These communities include downtown Encinitas and the beach town of Leucadia. Downtown Encinitas has seen several three-story buildings constructed in recent years, including one designed around a Whole Foods supermarket. North County has always been a hotbed of ballot-box zoning, though the pattern has slowed down considerable in recent years Much of the debate over Proposition A revolved around the state's density bonus law, which permits developers to increase density in exchange for providing affordable housing. Several councilmembers who were originally in favor of Proposition A later changed their position, arguing that the density bonus law would permit developers to end-run the two-story height limit but do so with less city control. In an effort to blunt support for Proposition A, the City Council voted to eliminate an existing exemption to local voter-approval provisions. Previously existing Encinitas ordinances already required voter approval for large projects, but permitted the council to waive that requirement with a four-fifths vote. The council eliminated that exemption in May as the election heated up.

You might wonder how many times I can write a blog highlighting how different California is from the rest of the country when it comes to density. After all, I started on this screed back in 2001, when I co-authored Who Sprawls Most?   And just a month ago I wrote a blog noting that, according to the Census Bureau, California metros are densifying while their counterparts elsewhere are not. But evidence just keeps on coming. Now the Environmental Protection Agency has provided a compelling long-view look at density patterns in major metropolitan areas in the United States � which reveals this pattern has held over the past 60 years. The other day EPA issued the second edition of its turgidly titled Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality , an overview of a wide variety of environmental impacts of human settlement and the built environment. And buried in that report � Exhibit 2-2 on page 8 � is a pretty interesting table examining metropolitan population growth versus urban expansion in the last 60 years, since the Census Bureau first started keeping track of such things in 1950. What the table shows is that for the 39 largest metro areas that were delineated in 1950, population grew 150% over the 60 years while the urbanized area expanded 400% -- meaning urbanized area grew 2.5 times faster than population. (The Census defines an urbanized area as any Census tract that has a population of 1,000 persons per square mile or more, so it tends to underestimate low-density sprawl � but it's still a useful measure.) Some of the statistics are truly frightening. For example, Metro Pittsburgh's population grew by 19% while its land area grew by 257%. Metro Detroit's population grew by 36% while its land area grew by 216%. Metro Boston's population grew by a healthy 87% -- but its land area grew by 665%. These are the parts of the country that are truly sprawling. And California? Nope, not sprawling. In fact, San Diego, LA-Orange County, the Inland Empire and San Jose all saw its population grow faster than urbanized area � something that only seven of the 39 metro areas achieved. Overall, California's metros added 240% to its population and only 195% to its land area. For the non-California metros among the 39 metros studied, population grew by 150% and land area grew by 455%. This chart showing these figures for selected metros in California and elsewhere gives the general picture. (I derived this chart from the table in the EPA report.) It's interesting to note that Miami and Houston followed the California pattern, as did � to a lesser extent � Dallas and Houston

On Tuesday, San Diego Mayor Bob Filner announced that he had selected Bill Fulton, this publication's founding editor and publisher, as the city's new planning director.  Rather than comment on this surprising turn of events, we thought we'd simply provide a rundown of blog and media coverage. The surprise announcement took place early Tuesday morning before an assembled crowd that included some 500 employees of the city's Development Services Department. Mayor Filner's official press release can be found here. Almost before the press release was up, however Voice of San Diego had posted a blog highlighting "Four Things to Know" about the new planning director. (We particularly liked "He's Kind Of A Big Deal") Later in the day, Voice posted a short Q&A that was conducted right after the announcement, which included discussions about San Diego's neighborhoods, Civic San Diego, use of Specific Plans, and Fulton's views on redevelopment.  Later in the day, Roger Showley, the Union Tribune's longtime real estate writer, posted his version of events , complete with a photograph of Fulton with former planning director Bill Anderson and former city architect Mike Stepner. Showley and Fulton have known each other since the 1980s, when they were young real estate journalists together. Later, NBC San Diego  and the Ventura County Star , Fulton's hometown newspaper, also published articles -- and for once, the Star did not put the story behind its pay wall.

The latest illustration of intergovernmental non-cooperation examines the circumstances in which cities can route sewer lines through county rights of way, all without county approval. The facts involve the City of Los Angeles upgrading the capacity of its line to its Hyperion Treatment Plant in Playa Del Rey. Serving the coastal portions of the City, the existing 48-inch line was installed in 1958 but lacked the capacity to serve major storm events. The City studied various options for installing a new 54-inch diameter line. Most of the routing would take place in City streets, but one route involved use of public streets and a public parking lot located in the jurisdiction of the County. For environmental reasons, the City ultimately approved the alignment involving County streets. The County filed a petition for writ of mandate, alleging violations of the Public Utilities Code and CEQA. The trial court rejected the CEQA claim, but granted relief pursuant to the Public Utilities Code claims, effectively holding that County approval was required. The City appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court. The City made two claims. First, the City argued that it possessed the inherent police power to construct in the County's street. Alternatively, it argued that Public Utilities Code sections 10101 through 10105 gave it that authority. The Court of Appeal declined to accept the City's �inherent power" argument, finding that sufficient authority in the Public Utilities Code supported the City's action. In interpreting the statutory scheme, the appellate court recognized that cities have the express right to build utilities lines outside of its borders. (Public Utilities Code section 10101.) If the proposed line is to be located in another city, then sections 10102 and 10103 call for interagency review, with the option to go to court to resolve the necessity of the proposed use in the neighbor city right of way. However, the court concluded that these procedures do not apply if the affected right of way is a county, as a county is not a municipal corporation but is a political subdivision of the state of California. In those circumstances, the city can proceed when the alignment is necessary and convenient. The appellate court stated that the appropriate form of judicial review was ordinary mandamus, and that the decision of the approving city would not be overturned unless arbitrary or capricious, a very deferential standard. The appellate court concluded that the trial court had effectively reweighed the evidence, and failed to adhere to the necessary level of deferential review as to what was necessary or convenient. The matter was reversed and remanded to the trial court to apply the correct standard of review. County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (March 14, 2013, B236732) ___Cal.App.4th ___.

Early one Sunday morning in early February, the South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vista – a fixture on San Diego Bay for decades – was blown up. But it wasn't because terrorists had targeted the plant. It was because city and port officials – along with a developer and environmental groups – had finally reached agreement, after 14 years of negotiation, on how to move forward with a development project. The Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan – which calls for the construction of thousands of hotel rooms, a commercial harbor, a conference center, and 1,500 townhomes on a small portion of the 556-acre site – is being touted by land use experts around Southern California as a win-win for the developer, the City of Chula Vista, the Port of San Diego, and environmental groups.  The deal was completed after 14 years of negotiation and threatened lawsuits and even included the participation of a former Center for Biological Diversity employee who wound up working for the developer, Pacifica Companies. The Coastal Commission approved the project unanimously, leading Pacifica's Alison Rolfe to quip: "I got a call from the governor's office. They never heard of unanimous support!" The key deal point appears to be a land swap between Pacifica and the Port, which allowed Pacifica to take control of the developable portion of the property while the Port focused on conservation. But ultimately it was the willingness of the Bayfront Coalition – an assemblage of environmental groups that threatened litigation over the project – to sit down and negotiate pre-lawsuit that appeared to make the biggest difference. In the end, the parties signed two settlement agreements – a document typically negotiated after a lawsuit is filed, not before – in order to nail down the deal points. "One thing about CEQA," says Rolfe, who previously worked for both the Center for Biological Diversity and the Chula Vista mayor's office. "Mitigations don't always get done, which is a nice way of saying it. We needed to have more than mitigation in a CEQA document, we want a stipulated settlement agreement and some enforcement up-front. Not a lawsuit, just let's agree, so we have the confidence to know what's going to get done after the project goes through and not rely on CEQA." The story of the Bayfront Master Plan begins in 1999, when the Port of San Diego purchased the South Bay Power Plant, a 700-megawatt plant that had sat on the bay in Chula Vista since 1960. The Port leased the plant to power generating companies until 2010, when it was decommissioned. Beginning in 2002, however, the Port and the city began to negotiate the possibility of a development project on the property. "It is definitely a scar," said Ann Moore, president of the Port board. "We took a look at it and thought, we need to bring this down." Now a lawyer with Norton, Moore and Adams in San Diego, Moore is a former Chula Vista city attorney. "Early on there wasn't 100% commitment at the political level," says City Manager Jim Sandoval. "This coalesced over time. At the Port, we have one vote out of seven. When you are dealing with projects like this and deal with more than one agency, it takes a tremendous amount of financial resources. Unfortunately we have been having to cut gardeners and custodians, but we hung onto this project team, because of the benefit to the community." He said the port and the city each took on what they were good at – large-scale planning in the case of the city, real estate expertise in the case of the Port. The entire deal could have been scotched, however, if environmentalists had decided to fight it and litigate.  But the environmental coalition took a different approach. "What we decided to do," says Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition, "was come in out of our foxholes, just try to sit down together and look at anything that could be done, listen to each other about what their interests are. We started looking out for each other's interests. Sitting in one of our analysis meetings, the guy from the business association began to learn about (bird) nesting, and I learned what internal rate of return was." She added: " Instead of spending our energy vilifying each other, we could talk about what the issue really is, once you get a trustful communication going, then all things are possible." The critical element of the deal was a 3-for-1 land exchange between the Port and Pacifica, with the Port surrendering 35 acres of developable land in exchange for 97 acres of conservation land. Pacific surrendered a net of more than 60 acres, but of course received acreage in return that could actually be developed. The power plant itself was located on the bay side of I-5 at approximately L Street. The Chula Vista Marina is located just north of the site, at approximately J Street. The Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge is located even farther north, at approximately E Street. Under the land transfer, Pacifica gave the Port 95 acres of land adjacent to the wildlife refuge for conservation purposes. In exchange, the Port gave Pacifica 35 acres of developable land adjacent to the Marina. Because Pacifica now has a smaller footprint on which to build, the developer had to propose building heights of up to 200 feet. Ordinarily, such tall buildings might stimulate strong opposition, but opposition in this case was mitigated by two factors. First, the buildings were replacing an eyesore that had blocked the bay from the city for 50 years. And second, it was clear that the tall buildings were paying for the conservation land via the land trade. "Once everybody understands the underlying principal of why we had to do that , everybody was advocating for the land trade," said Rolfe. Sandoval said the main goal was to protect view corridors, rather than simply keep buildings short. "I've never met anybody who can see through a  one-story building," he said. "To me it's more important to protect view corridors than building heights. Yet that's something people never do." Pull-quote "I got a call from the governor's office. They never heard of unanimous support!"

In Alliance for the Protection of the Auburn Community Environment v. County of Placer , the Third District Appellate Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure section 473 does not provide relief from a petitioner's mistake that resulted in the late filing of a CEQA petition. While the provisions of section 473 are to be liberally construed, the statute cannot be construed to offer relief from mandatory deadlines deemed jurisdictional in nature such as Public Resources Code section 21167. In 2008, Bohemia Properties, LLC submitted an application to the County of Placer (County) for the development of a 155,000-square-foot building. The County required that an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared for the project. After the requisite hearings, the Planning Commission certified the EIR and approved the project in July 2010. Alliance filed an appeal to the Board of Supervisors, which was heard on September 28, 2010. The Board denied the appeal and again certified the EIR and approved the project. The County timely filed and posted a notice of determination on September 29, 2010. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167(c), an action to set aside an EIR must be filed within 30 days from the date of the filing of the notice of determination. In this case, the Alliance was required to file its CEQA petition on or before October 29, 2010. However, Alliance did not file its petition until three days later on November 1, 2010. Bohemia filed a demurrer to the petition, alleging the petition was not timely filed. Alliance filed a motion for relief under CCP section 473, as well as an opposition to the demurrer, on the grounds that the late filing resulted from a "miscommunication with the attorney service as to the deadline for receipt of the Writ." The trial court sustained Bohemia's demurrer without leave to amend and denied Alliance's motion for relief on the grounds of mistake and excusable neglect on the grounds that the 30-day statute of limitations contained in Public Resources Code section 21167 is mandatory and does not provide for an extension of time to file a petition based on a showing of good cause. In interpreting CCP section 473, the appellate court looked to the California Supreme Court case of Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th 364 ( Maynard ). In Maynard , the Supreme Court considered whether relief under section 473 was available for a party who failed to comply with the 30-day statute of limitations in the Mandatory Free Arbitration Act. The Court held that it did not, noting that section 473 provides relief only for procedural errors (i.e., untimely demands for expert witness disclosures, etc.). The appellate court also looked to Kupka v. Board of Administration (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 791, wherein the court held that section 473 could not operate to provide relief for the late filing of a petition for writ of mandate to review an administrative decision on the basis that statute of limitations are not flexible in nature, but are firmly fixed, unless the legislature expressly provides for an extension based on a showing of good cause. The court of appeal in this case noted that while the provisions of section 473 are to be liberally construed generally, and further, that CEQA should be broadly interpreted to protect the environment, CEQA also clearly requires prompt resolution of lawsuits claiming violations of it. Alliance argued that other courts have required relief to CEQA's 30-day statute of limitations, but the court distinguished each case Alliance offered in support of its argument and specifically noted that none of the cases proffered by Alliance related to section 21167. Moral :  If you are a petitioner and you are going to file a petition for writ of mandate to challenge an agency's actions under CEQA – whether that challenge is procedural or substantive in nature – compliance with the statutes of limitations under Public Resources Code section 21167 are mandatory. CEQA provides three distinct statutes of limitations - a 30-day, 35-day, and 180-day statute of limitations - depending on the specifics of the CEQA challenge and whether a notice of exemption or notice of determination was properly filed and posted. Strict compliance is required as failure to timely file a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to CEQA will not be excused.   Alliance for the Protection of the Auburn Community Environment v. County of Placer (April 2, 2013, C067961) ___Cal.App.4th ___; 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 256 .

Is 55 stories too high for a building in Hollywood? Neighbors think so -- especially when it will dwarf the iconic Capitol Records building next door. Opponents recently circulated an online petition called  "Stop the Millennium Hollywood Project", which calls for the project to be modified "to a reasonable scale". You can also hear a debate about the project -- featuring CP&DR publisher Bill Fulton -- on a recent episode of Which Way LA ?  San Diego Mayor Plans to Separate Planning Department From Development Services  New San Diego Mayor Bob Filner is appears ready to pull the planning department out from under the development services department -- four years after they were merged.Last week, Kelly Broughton, director,  of the city's planning department and development services, department announced that he was stepping down to take a similar position with the city of Chula Vista. Director Broughton's vacancy has created an opportunity for the mayor to reshape San Diego's planning and development services and fulfill his initial goals for separating the two departments. This separation will allow the planning department to focus on neighborhood-level decisions and prioritize for a more efficient community plan update process. Director Broughton will stay on for another month while the mayor looks for an interim director and works out the details for the departments' new arrangement.  Alhambra Says...It's Time to Complete the 710 Freeway! Los Angeles Times Last week, the city of Alhambra voiced its support to complete the 710 Freeway via a tunnel that would connect the 710 Freeway and the 210 Freeway. To raise awareness, Alhambra's mayor has proclaimed July 10th as "710 Day" in the city with a possible streetfair and other public outreach efforts. The controversial tunnel has resisted by its surrounding communities for years, arguing that the extension would bring negative traffic impacts into their neighborhood. The MTA is currently undergoing an environmental study that options different strategies for completing the freeway with a final draft of the study due next year.  Fresno City Council Supports Health-Sciences Campus Outside City Limits The Fresno Bee Despite support for the proposed health campus to be located in downtown Fresno, City Council supported the developer's plans to build outside the city's limits at Millerton Lake. According to the project developer, the space needed for the campus is larger than any downtown site can provide. Council's support for the project (location) also added to the divide between Council Members and the Mayor's efforts to focus new development in Downtown Fresno. The new university will open next year and the city will still be able to weigh in on the project during the planning process. Millerton Lake was one possible site for the the campus that eventually became UC Merced.

So, we all woke up this morning to the news that Eric Garcetti – longtime city council president, councilmember from Hollywood, and son of former L.A. District Attorney Gil Garcetti – will almost certainly be the next mayor of Los Angeles. What does this mean for planning and development in L.A.?  Well, first of all, far more than his opponent Wendy Greuel, Garcetti has been a high-profile political figure on planning generally and smart growth and infill in particular. At the same time, however, his reputation around town has always been that he's not as much of a policy heavyweight as Greuel. And, of course, he's got to compete with the legacy of Antonio Villaraigosa – the politician who can legitimately go down in history the guy who changed L.A. from a car town to a transit town and set the table for "elegant density".  So what does the guy do? Garcetti has always been an eloquent and forceful advocate for a truly urban Los Angeles. And while it's made him the darling of the planners, it hasn't always gone down well with his constituents, which has caused him to straddle the issue on occasion.  Witness his approach to the controversial, 55-story Millenium Towers project in Hollywood. On the one hand, Garcetti has held out Hollywood as the "template" for the new Los Angele s.  On the other hand, after he finished first in the primary, he came out against the Millenium project .  The practical reality is that as mayor he'll have to straddle more than ever. That's what big-city politicians have to do.  But Garcetti's got a great opportunity here to push L.A. in the right direction. He's a charismatic young politician who talks about this issue in a winning way – maybe the first truly urban mayor the city has ever had. He's not saddled with the baggage of controversy that always followed Villaraigosa around and, thanks to Measure R, he doesn't have to fight the battle to actually build the transit. Villaraigosa already won that battle for him.  What Garcetti has to do is seize the moment. The city is changing. The transit is getting built. A lot of people are already bought into the idea of "elegant density". Even as he straddles, Garcetti can bring his constituents along by pushing the idea that new development in L.A. must revolve around the rail transit stations – responding to emerging market demand, improving those neighborhoods, and protecting existing single-family neighborhoods all at the same time. Eric, it's your moment. Jump on the train and get moving this morning.

After eight years in elected office in California, I can tell you that I often fell into the same trap as everybody else: chasing revenue. When you're up against the wall on budget problems, any new revenue – especially a boost in property or sales tax revenue – looks like the solution to all your problems. And it is – at first. How many times have I heard a city councilmember or a city manager say they're just trying to hang on for one more year until the revenue from some new subdivision "comes online." But as I've written before in this space ("The Multari Curve" ), the revenue boost is short-term and over time it's eaten up by increased service costs, meaning you always have to approve another subdivision to make up for the deficits on the one you approved in the past. Yesterday, Smart Growth America – the organization I spend most of my time working for – released a national report called " Building Better Budgets , " which makes the argument on a national scale that smart growth-style development can actually improve the fiscal situation of local governments by increasing revenue and decreasing cost. (Full disclosure: I was the project manager for this report.) Building Better Budgets has already gotten a lot of publicity in the blogosphere (see, for example, the APA's blog . And it's mostly a review of research nationally – not a California-specific piece of work. But there are a couple of things worth calling out for California planning practitioners. The first is the simple fact that infill development properly done, can have a huge positive impact on the bottom line in a city's operating budget. This is the main thing we were shooting for in Building Better Budgets. The argument that smart growth and infill development lower the cost of up-front infrastructure was well established. But the report highlighted the argument about operating costs as well.  For example, Smart Growth America scooped up some research from Charlotte, North Carolina, which found that conventional suburbs cost four times as much for the fire department to serve than smart growth neighborhoods – and SGA concluded that a smart growth approach could avoid the need for Charlotte to build two fire stations when the city is built out, saving about $13 million in capital costs and $8 million per year in operating costs. As a former elected official, the bottom line for me is that a smart growth development approach is a way out of the fiscal box. Conventional suburban development always loses money in the end. Traditionally, the only ways around the problem were to keep approving subdivisions (simply pushing the day of reckoning out into the future), charge enormous impact fees (which simply shift the cost rather than reduce it), or raise taxes. Smart growth can lower the cost of development, which is good for everybody – developers, homebuyers, taxpayers – and increase more revenue. It's a game-changer.

Well, California's at it again -- going in a different direction than the rest of the country. The Census Bureau recently released a new report showed that -- by at least one measure -- the nation's overall population density dropped by 6% between 2000 and 2010. But by this same measure, the population density of most California metro areas -- where almost 90% of Californians live -- is going up. And density's going up faster in the smaller counties. What gives? Overall, the Census Bureau concluded, the population density of the United States increased by 9.7%. But that's a meaningless figure. Since our nation's geographical area is not increasing, every time population goes up population density will go up too. So the Census Bureau tried something different -- a technique it calls "population-weighted density". It's the average population density from across all Census tracts in a particular geography -- the nation, the state, the metro area, whatever. Some demography nerds  are excited that the Census Bureau has finally adopted this approach. And, indeed, since every Census tract has about the same population (around 4,000 people), an average across all Census tracts ought to be pretty revealing. Nationwide, the Census Bureau found that, by this measurement, density dropped 6.0% in all metropolitan and micropolitan areas combined, and 5.5% in all metro areas. (Micropolitan areas are very small population centers that function like metro areas. Both metropolitan and micropolitan areas are delineated by county boundaries, and the vast majority of them nationwide are one county.) Of the 377 metro areas in the nation, population density dropped in 232 of them -- more than 60%. But not in California. In our world, using the population-weighted approach, the population density of 14 of state's 22 metro areas went up. And, as Figure 1 shows, density was more likely to go up in small metros than in larger ones. Itís not possible, based on the numbers the Census Bureau released, to calculate the overall density change for all metros in California. But the chart below gives you the idea. Population density increased the most -- by far -- in Madera County. Other places that saw population density go up were Shasta, Kings, Napa, Sutter, and the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino counties combined). Among those metros losing density were Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Monterey. What's going on? Some of this makes sense and some of it is counter-intuitive. It makes sense that California metros are denser than the rest of the nation. But why would Madera, Kings, and Napa counties be densifying, while L.A. and San Francisco are not? Remember what's being measured here: The average number of persons per square mile for all the census tracts in each metro area (most often, in each county). In the case of Madera County -- admittedly the outlier -- what this probably means is that new single-family subdivisions are being built at a suburban scale (that is, the same density as across the river in Fresno County), which is a very high density compared to the traditional, more rural development pattern in the county. In a suburban county such as Ventura -- my home county -- it's likely that several things are going on: more small-lot single-family subdivisions are being built, more previously passed-over sites are being built on, and more apartments are being built. (Remember last week's blog , which showed that between 2011 and 2013 -- admittedly a different time period -- most new construction in Ventura was multifamily.) Fair enough. But why are densities going down in the big metros? This is harder to answer. At first I thought it might be because household size is going down. After all, the big population growth in these metros in the '80s, '90s, and [00s was from immigrants and high fertility rates among immigrant families, and now the Latino baby boom is over. But that's not it: According to the Census Bureau, average household size in California actually went up between 2000 and 2010, both statewide and in most counties such as L.A. My guess is that the aggregate number for these large metros is making smaller-scale trends -- that is, the dropping density in certain locations (most likely exurban areas) is more than making up for increasing or stable density in established locations. Imagine what LA-Orange might look like without the Antelope Valley, or San Francisco without Marin and eastern Contra Costa, or San Diego without East County. And anyway, as Figure 2 reminds us, these areas are already extremely dense. L.A. and San Francisco metros both have a weighted population density of about 12,000 persons per square mile. That's not nearly as much as New York, but itís way more than Chicago, Boston, or Washington. And it's six times as much as Madera.

Preliminary plans were recently revealed   Los Angeles's 77-year old union station modernization project. The plans (including four design concepts) focus on the integration of the stateís High Speed Rail system with the cityís historic transit hub. Additionally, the improvements aim to enhance the passenger experience by adding restaurants and retail, centralizing alternate terminals and improving connectivity and accessibility to its surrounding neighborhoods. The project team hopes to present its final design plan to the L.A. Metro board.  Pasadena's New General Plan: Praises and Controversies Pasadena Star-News After four years of work on the city's updated general plan, the Pasadena City Council has green-lighted moving to environmental review phase. Among its updated elements, perhaps the most praised is the addition of a component that focuses on promoting the city's public education system, and the most controversial being development caps for Old Pasadena -- 3,750 residential housing units and 2.5 million square feet for commercial development. Those who oppose the caps say the proposed limits will also cap economic development potential and conflict with the plan's guiding principle for a lively and walkable downtown. Another highly contested issue included proposals to increase density and allow for mixed use projects in commercial to residential transition areas, specifically in the North Lake commercial district. Council is expected to finalize the plan next summer.  CEQA Reform Moves Forward.... The Sacramento Bee Last Wednesday was a day for CEQA reform advancement as the Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved Senator Steinberg's SB 731 for CEQA modernization. Steinberg defended his proposal as an attempt to reduce project delays without compromising CEQA's original intent for environmental protections. Proponents of CEQA reform praise Steinberg for starting the reform process however are advocating for bigger changes than those that are being proposed in SB 731. But as the recent rejection of a broader reform approach shows, a new CEQA law would still have to satisfy those who oppose sweeping reform of the state's environmental law.  HSR Authority Gives Contractor Additional $96 Million Mercury News Last Thursday, the California HSR Authority voted to give its largest private contractor, Parsons Brinkerhoff, a two-year contract extension and an additional $96 million for the projectís architectural and engineering oversight. The extension allows the firm to continue its work and develop a revised business plan due next year. Responding to criticisms that the authority has failed to adequately monitor its outside contractors, the authority emphasized that it is prepared to exercise rigorous oversight over Parsons Brinkerhoff during the next two years. Bay Area Faces Potential Growth War Marin Independent Journal The Bay Areaís regional growth plan, Plan Bay Area, establishes a framework for the regionís future transportation and land use/housing choices that can accommodate its growing population while reducing GHG emissions (SB 375). The draft plan, released in March, identifies potential and priority growth areas, sparking strong opposition from both Marin County and San Mateo County. Opposition largely stems from the plan's alleged co-opt of land use controls- a power that fundamentally lies within the local government's jurisdiction. The public will be able to comment on the plan until May 16th before its adoption this summer.

Yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana dispensaries put a longstanding legal dispute to rest and gave cities the green light to zone out such establishments. The question of whether cities can use zoning powers to ban pot dispensaries has been a growing battle in municipalities around California in the last few years. Some cities created headaches for themselves by attracting dispensaries because they failed to pass a ban – witness the spectacle of Los Angeles having to shut down 800 dispensaries by holding hearings one by one. Many cities endured lengthy hearings to pass temporary moratoria, angering local medical marijuana advocates and gambling that in the end the courts would uphold a ban. But just as frequently, cities had to try to figure out what to do with dispensaries that opened up in defiance of a local ban. That's the situation that the City of Riverside faced in the case decided by the Supreme Court yesterday. A dispensary opened up in Riverside in 2009 even though the city had banned such establishments. The city then had to sue the dispensary to shut it down, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In ruling for the city, the unanimous Supreme Court concluded that neither the 1996 ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana nor the 2003 statute allowing dispensaries pre-empts the power of local governments to use land-use regulation to ban the dispensaries from within their borders. "We have consistently maintained that are but incremental steps toward freer access to medical marijuana, and the scope of these statutes is limited and circumscribed," wrote Justice Marvin Baxter for a unanimous court. "They merely declare that the conduct they describe cannot lead to arrest or conviction, or be abated as a nuisance, as violations of enumerated provisions of the Health and Safety Code. Nothing in the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders. The case began in 2009 when Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Riverside despite the fact that the city had passed a ban. The city successfully obtained an injunction against the establishment's operation and the case went up the chain all the way to the Supreme Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether either the initiative or the statute explicitly or implicitly prohibits a zoning ban on pot dispensaries. The explicit question was easily dealt with by the court. As Baxter, noted, the initiative does not mention dispensaries, while "no provision of explicitly guarantees the availability of locations where such activities may occur, restricts the broad authority traditionally possessed by local jurisdictions to regulate zoning and land use planning within their borders, or requires local zoning and licensing laws to accommodate the cooperative or collective cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana. Regarding the possibility of an implicit pre-emption by the state, the court rejected that as well, concluding "there appears no attempt by the Legislature to fully occupy the field of medical marijuana regulation as a matter of statewide concern, or to partially occupy this field under circumstances indicating that further local regulation will not be tolerated." Indeed, quoting an amicus brief from the League of California Cities, the court bought the argument that communities are different and whereas pot dispensaries might be fine in one city, they could well create blight in another. Of course, there is nothing the in ruling that would prevent the state legislature rom passing another law pre-empting local regulation of pot dispensaries. The state has done so with regard to other land uses – schools, for example – and could do so here. Justice Goodwin Liu wrote a concurring opening arguing for a very broad interpretation of the court's language about implicit state pre-emption, essentially arguing that there should be a very high bar. The text of City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center , No. S198638, can be found here .