Search Results

In this review of Governor Brown's signing and veto decisions, which by law were due September 30, we start with outcomes on some bills previously covered by CP&DR during the year, then move on to excerpts from the "Greatest Hits" list maintained by Senate Governance and Finance Committee staff: Within a day of his deadline for signing decisions, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed AB 2280 late September 29. Carried by Assemblymember Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, AB 2280 would have revived redevelopment-style tax-increment financing in narrowly chosen urban areas, with 25% affordable housing set-asides, to bring back a narrowly focused form of tax-increment financing usable in populous cities. AB 2280 had passed the Legislature after extended negotiations among business, local government, and housing advocates.(See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3563 .) The bill represented the latest attempt by the Legislature to revive redevelopment in a more limited form - and the second time in the last three years that Brown has vetoed such a bill. (There was no veto last year because Senate leader Darrell Steinberg chose not to forward a bill to Brown's desk.) In the same signing/veto list issued late September 29, Brown vetoed other redevelopment bills including Steinberg's SB 1129 post-Redevelopment cleanup measure. He also vetoed Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins' AB 1999 historic rehabilitation tax credit and Assemblymember Jose Medina's AB 1399 California New Markets Tax Credit. See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18741. Brown's veto messages are linked from the announcement press releases. The AB 2280 veto message reads in part, "I applaud the author's efforts to create an economic development program, with voter approval, that focuses on disadvantaged communities and communities with high unemployment. The bill, however, unnecessarily vests this new program in redevelopment law. I look forward to working with the author to craft an appropriate legislative solution." Brown sounded even less pleased with AB 2493, saying "The cost to the general fund to backfill schools could be significant, to the tune of $500 million." For details on AB 2280's history and surrounding politics, see comparisons mentioned in CP&DR's prior coverage of SB 628, which the Governor signed on September 29. (See prior coverage at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3563 .) Appeals to Brown to sign AB 2280 had been published by a politically broad coalition of business and housing advocates on the League of California Cities site at http://bit.ly/1Bdj51w , and by top officers of the American Planning Association's California chapter at http://bit.ly/1mTiiC1 . Some of this year's major land use bills that were signed or awaiting signature this month are discussed more fully in past CP&DR news briefs at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3564 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3580 . They include: - SB 270 , the first-ever statewide ban on single-use plastic bags in the United States, was signed early September 30. See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18742 . - The Pavley-Dickinson groundwater package, AB 1739 , SB 1168 , and SB 1319 , signed September 16 - see http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18701 . Sacramento Bee coverage is at http://bit.ly/XdAZ6S and a National Geographic analysis of the expected delayed effects is at http://bit.ly/1pjFC61 . - AB 52 , the CEQA bill on consultation with Native American tribes over projects that may affect tribal cultural resources. Signed September 25: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18726 . - SB 1077 , to create a pilot program testing an approach to vehicle taxation based on measuring miles traveled, signed. - Six bills were signed September 21 on electric vehicles and high-occupancy toll lanes. See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18720 . - SB 1183 and AB 1193 , benefiting bike lanes and bike paths, signed. - SB 1300 on public disclosures by refineries, signed. - AB 141 , Treasure Island Transportation Management Act, signed. - AB 523 , allowing interest reductions on public loans to rental housing developments, was signed. See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18715 . - AB 2067 and SB 1036 , urban water management plans, were signed. Governor Brown made a last-day decision, on September 30, to sign SB 968 , the Martin's Beach coastal access bill. See http://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18744 . In the meantime a court ruling in favor of public access was issued in the Surfrider Foundation's suit, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV 520336; the decision is available at http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/civil/default.asp . On Sunday the Governor vetoed AB 69 and AB 1521 , relief bills for new and newly expanded Inland Empire towns - including Jurupa Valley, which may now have to disincorporate. The veto messages are linked via http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18738 . For detailed past coverage see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3561 .For post-veto impact coverage from the Press-Enterprise see http://www.pe.com/articles/valley-750953-governor-vetoes.html . On September 30 Brown signed AB 1537 , to redefine Marin County as "suburban" for affordable housing density zoning purposes. See http://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18744 . For past coverage see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3561 . The Governor did sign AB 1513 , possession by declaration, a pilot program directed against squatters that some tenant and criminal defense advocates fear could criminalize new aspects of homelessness and erode tenants' rights to standard unlawful detainer process. See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18733 for the signing announcement; see the earlier legislative analyses on the official Legislature page for summaries of the debate. The Governor's September 26 signing list, in press release form at http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18731 , included AB 2282 on building standards for recycled water systems. His main September 27 signing list, at http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18733 , included several measures on affordable housing and post-redevelopment law. An additional September 27 list highlighting veterans' bills included signatures on some measures relevant to land use and housing. See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18732 . A September 28 signing list at http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18736 emphasized elder care and seniors' bills. Lists got thicker after that as the deadline approached - see http://gov.ca.gov for the full set of press releases. From the SGF 'Greatest Hits' list As to the rest of the bill-signing picture, staff at the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance have again performed the major public service of preparing a "Greatest Hits" list of major bills affecting public finance and local governance. The final memo was posted late September 30 under the "2014" link at http://sgf.senate.ca.gov/legislation . The following is derived from the "Greatest Hits" list, edited to focus on bills in categories related to land use and skipping bills that didn't pass the Legislature at all. To check on bills not mentioned here, see SGF's posted list, the Governor's press site at http://gov.ca.gov , and the Legislature's bill tracking site at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml . Descriptions below are by the legislative staff. Links to articles and sites other than the Legislature's are CP&DR's: LAFCOs & Boundary Changes AB 2156 (Achadjian) adds joint powers agencies and joint powers authorities to the list of entities LAFCOs may request information from for purposes of conducting studies. Signed - Chapter 21, Statutes of 2014. AB 2762 (Assembly Local Government Committee) proposes several changes to laws affecting local government organization and reorganization. Signed - Chapter 112, Statutes of 2014. Land Use Planning & Development SB 1353 (Nielsen) repeals the sunset dates in statutes that allow counties to increase the assessed values of Williamson Act land and divert the resulting property tax revenues. Signed - Chapter 322, Statutes of 2014. AB 2188 (Muratsuchi) requires cities and counties to adopt an ordinance streamlining the permit process for small rooftop solar energy systems. Signed - Chapter 521, Statutes of 2014. AB 2241 (Eggman) modifies fees charged when contracting parties rescind a Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contract to enter a solar-use easement contract, and allows the county to keep 50% of the rescission fee. Signed - Chapter 582, Statutes of 2014. Local Finance & Infrastructure SB 69 (Roth) establishes vehicle license fee adjustment amounts for newly incorporated cities. Vetoed. Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_69_Veto_Message.pdf . SB 614 (Wolk) allows local officials to use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure improvements in disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Signed - Chapter 784, Statutes of 2014. SB 628 (Beall) allows local officials to create Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts. Signed - Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014. SB 936 (Monning) allows the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and other financing entities to issue water rate relief bonds to finance water supply infrastructure. Signed - Chapter 482, Statutes of 2014. - see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3580 . AB 1521 (Fox) changes the formulas for calculating annual vehicle license fee adjustment amounts to account for territory annexed to cities since 2004. Vetoed. Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_1521_Veto_Message.pdf . AB 1883 (Skinner) allows a public agency to transfer its interest in voluntary contractual assessments and makes several other changes to the statutes governing those assessments. Signed - Chapter 599, Statutes of 2014. AB 2119 (Stone) allows a county board of supervisors to impose a transactions and use tax within the county's unincorporated area with the approval of voters within that area. Signed - Chapter 149, Statutes of 2014. AB 2170 (Mullin) specifies that the common powers that public agencies may jointly exercise pursuant to a joint powers agreement include the authority to levy a fee or a tax. Signed - Chapter 386, Statutes of 2014. AB 2211 (Ting) requires each county to make available to taxpayers on its internet website a graph visualization of how ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated countywide. Vetoed . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_2211_Veto_Message.pdf . AB 2274 (Gordon) makes several changes to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission's authorizing statute. Signed - Chapter 181, Statutes of 2014. AB 2292 (Bonta) adds public capital facilities or projects that include broadband to the types of facilities that an infrastructure financing district can fund. Signed - Chapter 783, Statutes of 2014. AB 2618 (Per-z) amends the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 to conform its provisions to constitutional requirements established by Prop 218. Signed - Chapter 240, Statutes of 2014. Local Powers & Governance SB 827 (Liu) extends, until January 1, 2020, the sunset date on statutes allowing Los Angeles County to charge fees and mail notices related to recorded real estate documents. Signed - Chapter 65, Statutes of 2014. AB 155 (Alejo) allows the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to use counties' design-build contracting procedures to construct a pipeline or tunnel connecting two lakes owned and operated by the agency. Signed - Chapter 865, Statutes of 2014. AB 745 (Levine) allows a Regional Park and Open Space District's general manager to enter into non-construction contracts worth less than $25,000 without a formal bid process. Signed - Chapter 42, Statues of 2014. AB 1963 (Atkins) extends, until January 1, 2016, the date by which the Department of Finance must approve a redevelopment successor agency's long-range property management plan. Signed - Chapter 146, Statutes of 2014. AB 2551 (Wilk) requires statement on total cost of debt service to be included with sample ballot information on local agencies' bond elections. Signed - Chapter 908. Statutes of 2014. Parcel Taxes AB 2109 (Daly) requires the State Controller to report annually on locally assessed parcel taxes and requires local government to provide information required by the Controller to complete the report. Signed - Chapter 781, Statutes of 2014. Property Taxes SB 1113 (Knight) extends the deadline for County Tax Collectors to refund taxes for the disabled veterans' exemption from four to eight years . Signed - Chapter 656, Statutes of 2014. SB 1203 (Jackson) cancels assessments on low-income housing excluded from the welfare exemption. Signed - Chapter 693, Statutes of 2014. AB 777 (Muratsuchi) enacts a property tax exemption for property used in space flight. Signed - Chapter 13, Statutes of 2014. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3564 .) AB 1760 (Chau) prohibits local agencies from imposing payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreements; presumes PILOTs don't affect a low-income housing project's welfare exemption. Signed - Chapter 671, Statutes of 2014. AB 2231 (Gordon) revises and reenacts the senior citizens' and disabled citizens' property tax postponement program. Signed - Chapter 703, Statutes of 2014. AB 2257 (Cooley) diverts excess proceeds from tax sales from taxing entities to the county. Signed - Chapter 501, Statutes of 2014 . AB 2415 (Ting) requires property tax agents to register with the Secretary of State's Office. Vetoed . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_2415_Veto_Message.pdf. Redevelopment (For prior CP&DR coverage on this year's post-redevelopment bills see primarily http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3563 , http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3492 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3480 .) SB 1129 (Steinberg) amends several statutes governing redevelopment agencies' dissolution. Vetoed . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_1129_Veto_Message.pdf. AB 471 (Atkins) allows infrastructure financing districts to include portions of former redevelopment project areas and amends several statutes governing redevelopment agencies' dissolution. Signed - Chapter 1, Statute of 2014. AB 1450 (Garcia) directs how a county auditor must allocate specified revenues derived from an extraordinary property tax rate approved by voters to pay for pension programs. Vetoed . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_1450_Veto_Message.pdf. AB 2280 (Alejo) allows local governments to form Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities to administer economic development and affordable housing programs. Vetoed . See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18741 . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_2280_Veto_Message.pdf. AB 2493 (Bloom) allows redevelopment successor agencies to spend proceeds from bonds issued by former redevelopment agencies in 2011. Vetoed . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_2493_Veto_Message.pdf State Bonds & Indebtedness AB 1471 (Rendon) replaces the $11.4 billion water bond on the November 2014 ballot with a new $7.2 billion general obligation bond and enacts the "Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014." Signed - Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014. State Personal & Corporate Income Taxes AB 1393 (Perea) conforms state law to federal law for mortgage debt forgiveness. Signed - Chapter 152, Statutes of 2014. AB 1399 (Medina) enacts the California New Markets Tax Credit. Vetoed . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_1399_Veto_Message.pdf. AB 1839 (Gatto) enacts $1.6 billion in tax credits for qualified motion picture and television production. Signed - Chapter 413, Statutes of 2014. AB 1999 (Atkins) allows a 20% or 25% tax credit for rehabilitation of a certified historic structure. Vetoed . Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_1999_Veto_Message.pdf. AB 2434 (Gomez) excludes from gross income amounts received as a rebate, voucher, or other financial incentive issued by a local water agency for participation in a turf removal water conservation program. Signed - Chapter 738, Statutes of 2014.

A few weeks ago I stopped by Bacara for the first time. Bacara is a superfancy resort along the Gaviota Coast, just off Highway 101 west of the UC Santa Barbara campus. With a rack rate of maybe $700 a night for a room, it's far from cheap. And it's beautifully designed – a collection of Santa Barbara-style white buildings, two and three stories, tumbling down a hill toward the ocean. It's so beautiful, in fact, that it's easy to forget that Bacara – or, more precisely, an earlier proposal for a luxury resort on the site – prompted the court case that made the California Environmental Quality Act what it is today. When you ask experts what the most important case in the 44-year history of CEQA is, usually they'll say Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors of Mono County , 8 Cal.3d 247 (1972) – the case establishing that government approvals of private development projects are subject to environmental review. And there's no question that Friends of Mammoth is a seminal case. But for my money, the defining CEQA case is Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors , 52 Cal.3d 553, handed down by a much more conservative California Supreme Court on New Year's Eve 1990. It was Citizens of Goleta Valley that cleared the way for the eventual construction of Bacara. More important, it transformed CEQA from a project-killing mechanism into a mitigation machine. As a result, almost a quarter-century later, all kinds of organizations use CEQA's mitigation power to gain leverage (and that's a polite word) over all kinds of things. And that, more than anything else, is the reason it's impossible to repeal CEQA or even reform it in a truly meaningful way. Environmental and citizen groups have always used CEQA to gain leverage, of course – that's the point of the law. But today, unions, business trade associations, rival local government agencies, and even the building industry all use CEQA to gain leverage over some local political process, and in most cases there's no other way for them to get so much leverage. That's what Citizens of Goleta Valley changed. At issue was whether the private owner of the Bacara property had to consider alternative locations for the project as part of the alternatives analysis under CEQA. The Supreme Court, which was then newly more conservative thanks to appointments by Gov. George Deukmejian – said no. But more than that, the Court – in an opinion written by Deukmejian's longtime friend Armand Arabian – basically told environmental groups to stop using CEQA to try to kill projects. The purpose of CEQA, Arabian said, was not to re-fight the local general plan's land use decisions in an environmental impact report, which is what the plaintiffs were trying to do. The purpose, he reminded everybody, was to inform the public about the environmental consequences of governmental decisions and mitigate the damage as much as possible. The switch from killing projects to extracting mitigation meant, essentially, a switch from CEQA as blunt instrument to CEQA as a means to specific ends. Over time, more and more organizations saw that, through CEQA, they could gain unique political leverage via CEQA, whether they had environmental concerns or not. For example, CEQA has been consistently used by labor unions to try to shut down retail development projects they don't like – especially Wal-Marts – for reasons that have to do with labor practices, not environmental damage. This has led to many lawsuits. It has also led Wal-Mart to attempt to evade CEQA by trying to get projects approved via ballot initiative – a practice that was upheld recently by the state Supreme Court in Tuolomne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court of Tuolomne County . But it's not just unions. More and more, CEQA has also become a tool that business groups use to try to quash regulation they don't like. Take the recent city-by-city battle in California over banning single-use plastic bags. Whatever you think of this type of regulatory approach, it's hard to argue that banning plastic bags is bad for the environment. Indeed, when I was working in San Diego, our back-of-the-envelope estimate was that the ban would eliminate the use of 500 million plastic bags per year in the city. My view – highly personal but strongly held – is that a plastic-bag ban is a slam-dunk exemption under Class 7 and 8. Still, every time cities or counties proposed such a ban, they had to look over their shoulders for the plastics industry, which was sure to file a lawsuit unless the locality undertook an environmental impact report that used the industry's own studies about the lifecycle cost of plastic versus paper bags. The plastics industry was singularly unsuccessful in this litigation, losing a Supreme Court case from Manhattan Beach and appellate cases from Marin County and San Francisco  (which the Supreme Court declined to take – see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3426.) Even after that, cities and counties still had to watch out for the plastics industry, because the Supreme Court had not laid down a conclusive, all-encompassing ruling. (The recent passage of the state's plastic-bag ban, SB 270, which Governor Jerry Brown has now signed, put this question to rest.) Developers, who often complain the most about CEQA, frequently invoke the law to sue each other in order to stop development projects and gain a competitive advantage. They also sometimes use CEQA to challenge government policies they don't like – as when the California Building Industry Association tried to claim that the creation of significance thresholds under CEQA creates a significant impact that must be analyzed under CEQA. (The appellate court didn't buy the argument – see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3395.) Obviously, if the building industry had won that case, the consequences on all future CEQA analysis would have been profound – and the building industry wouldn't have been happy. (Although that case, CBIA v. BAAQMD, is now before the state Supreme Court – see  http://bit.ly/1wOXR9o – the high court granted review only on the separate issue of when if ever CEQA may "require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project".) Even cities and counties, which also often complain about being hamstrung by CEQA, are skeptical of any change that suggests the possibility of surrendering leverage. The best current example is the local government hand-wringing over taking traffic congestion level of service standards out of CEQA as a result of SB 743. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3571.) It's been so long since traffic engineers used anything other than CEQA to extract traffic improvements from developers that they can't figure out how it can be done without CEQA. So that's the crux of the problem: CEQA provides a way for anybody who wants anything out of a public agency to get some leverage over the situation – whether that's unions, environmentalists, businesses, developers, and even local governments themselves. And no matter how much all these folks say they want CEQA streamlined, they don't want anything to change that will cut into their leverage. Until that equation changes, you won't see much in the way of meaningful CEQA reform.

California's Fourth District Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in August on the major suit by conservation groups against the San Diego Association of Governments over its Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. The court took the case under submission August 27 so a decision is expected in the next month or two. For the online docket see http://bit.ly/1uSBoHd. The case concerns the first Sustainable Communities Strategy that was issued under SB 375. The Cleveland National Forest Foundation, the Center for Biological Diversity and others contend that it does not adequately consider and explain public health impacts of projected freeway expansions and that it does not respond adequately to the 2080 greenhouse gas reduction targets set in Executive Order S-3-05. CityLab wrote up the dispute in 2012 at http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/01/fight-future-san-diego/910/. Another administrative record case favors city officials' cost recovery The Fourth District Court of Appeal held San Diego County could recover from petitioners the cost of attorney and paralegal time to prepare an administrative record on a CEQA cause of action. By the court's account, the petitioners initially elected to prepare the administrative record, but after a disagreement over the record's proper contents they voluntarily dropped their CEQA cause of action; the county then told the court it would prepare the record at the petitioners' expense and they did not object; after the county rushed to prepare and present an 18,000-page record in a few days, the petitioners dismissed their whole case. The petitioners were former owners of a target shooting range in Chula Vista who alleged that the current owner's environmental remediation plan for the site should not have been approved without an EIR and other additional review. The court found in a published portion of the case that the petitioners had to pay $59,545 for the attorney and paralegal time as well as $7,093.14 for clerk and staff time and production costs. In unpublished holdings, the court said two of three entities petitioning lacked capacity to sue because they were not active legal entities, and held the court properly rejected evidence of an indemnity agreement submitted late in a reply brief. The case is The Otay Ranch, L.P., v. County of San Diego , at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D064809.PDF. It follows a September 15 ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that allowed a lead agency to recover some (but not all) costs of supplementing an administrative record in Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (See Katherine Hart's writeup of the San Francisco case for Abbott & Kindermann at http://bit.ly/1uYA2wI.) Governor's concurrence in federal casino ruling not subject to CEQA The Third District Court of Appeal found the Governor's concurrence in a federal casino review decision was not subject to CEQA because Governor Jerry Brown was not himself a "public agency" under CEQA definitions. The case is Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown , available at  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C074506.PDF The Turtle Talk blog on American Indian legal issues has copies of briefs in the matter at http://bit.ly/1ovVPWM. CEQA held not to cover freight operations approval The First District Court of Appeal upheld a Marin County trial court decision that CEQA review is not required for a contract to use rail lines. The contract would open the rails of the public North Coast Railroad Authority to use by the private Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company. Two petitioners, the Friends of the Eel River and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, had sought CEQA review of the project's EIR, but the trial an appellate courts both held CEQA was preempted in the matter by federal law. The appellate decision summarizes extensive administrative and court disputes on various aspects of the rail line contract. The September 29 decision is Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority , at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A139222.PDF. Third District upholds cell phone tower permit In an unpublished decision September 29, the Third District upheld a Nevada County permit for a cell phone tower over objections that it failed to apply local zoning rules regarding visually important ridgelines. The case is Lockyer v. County of Nevada , at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C075249.PDF.

The Coastal Commission met in Smith River this September, just three miles from the Oregon state line. The reduced two-day agenda and remote setting gave the meeting aspects of a retreat. Members used the slack in the session to raise big-picture and procedural questions – and at the end of the second day, a group of Commissioners staged a mini-rebellion seeking greater power to choose agenda items. The occasion for the agenda rebellion was a board-requested staff presentation on how the staff sets agendas. Wendy Mitchell and Jana Zimmer, with Martha McClure and others chiming in, said they wanted more power to get staff responses to questions – even complex questions requiring research – and to request a discussion or workshop on a general issue. Commissioners noted followup is difficult because Commissioners meet formally just once a month and are restrained by Bagley-Keene ethics rules from meeting informally more than two at a time. Because the discussion itself was on an informational item, no formal vote on the matter could be taken. Low-cost visitor uses In other discussion, staff confirmed plans to the Commission for two major big-picture discussions by the end of the year: a hearing in November or December on the long-awaited overarching guidance to help towns plan for sea-level rise, and a December workshop on lower-cost visitor-serving uses.   Commission chair Steve Kinsey appointed Commissioners Martha McClure and Gregory Cox, who have expressed repeated interest in protecting cheap coastal vacations, to work with Executive Director Charles Lester on planning the workshop. McClure repeated her concern that cheap beachside motels should be renovated, potentially with developers' mitigation money, and kept affordable to middle-class families who might not want to stay in the hostels or campgrounds that have been typical mitigation projects. She said, "This is near and dear to my heart because right now in Crescent City, for instance, there is a motel that the city has had to close down because of the conditions and if that motel were to be rehabilitated, there isn't anyone probably in California that would be willing to invest and pay $30,000 a room as mitigation" for low-cost visitor-serving accommodations. North state issues North Coast officials and community members were eager to use their one chance this year at the Commissioners' undivided attention. Among issues raised: - An extensive briefing on coastal development and tribal lands included presentations by District Manager Bob Merrill and Tolowa Tribe representatives Briannon Fraley and Loren Bommelyn. Part of Merrill's presentation explained the Commission's role in conducting reviews for consistency with state coastal zone management policy under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act where land use plans involve tribal lands regulated by federal agencies. The briefing starts around the one-hour, 42-minute mark of the September 10 recording at http://www.cal-span.org/media.php?folder[]=CCC. - In a presentation on Humboldt Bay Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning, by staff analyst Melissa Kramer and consultant Aldaron Laird of Trinity Associates, Laird said major portions of northern shoreline properties depended on dikes, some of which were actively eroding. He said some became overwhelmed when annual "king tides" temporarily added a foot to local sea level, simulating the expected effects of sea level rise. Laird called for cooperation between owners of diked waterfront properties and managers of utility conduits – and highways – that the dikes protect. He said the Humboldt Bay Power Plant might have to be moved back – "it's likely to become an island". (The Eureka Times-Standard gave a detailed preview of his presentation at http://bit.ly/YAopQ3.) That led Commission Chair Steve Kinsey to wonder how local governments can "retreat from the maintenance of infrastructure without becoming responsible for the takings of the private properties that would be affected by that." (The sea level presentation starts around 2:52:00.) - Several speakers called for more enforcement staff in the northern coastal region. - The Commission approved a settlement for environmental remediation on a former mill property that had been meant to receive debris from the 2011 tsunami only temporarily, but had ended up storing it long-term. Venice Beach comes to Smith River The Commission couldn't escape Southern California beach town disputes even at the northern state line. Anti-gentrification activists from Venice Beach and Laguna Canyon followed them to Smith River. A group of Venice neighbors, some in "Saving Venice" T-shirts, criticized the cumulative impacts of profit-seeking disruption in their neighborhood: short-term Internet-mediated rentals, and projects that replace older, cheaper houses with denser new buildings. They especially contested the 664 Sunset LLC project in Venice, which would demolish two older single-family homes – acknowledged to be affordable housing – and replace them with three new ones. The owners' spokesman, Andy Liu, said "small-lot subdivision projects" like 664 Sunset promoted affordability by placing small new houses on the market. He also said they'd anticipated neighborhood objections by providing covered on-site parking for all units. Speakers who disagreed included appellant Rene Kraus, who public commenter Lydia Ponce said was still living on the property. The Commission found no substantial issue, clearing the way for the project. Robin Rudisill, chair of the Venice Land Use and Planning Committee (see http://www.venicenc.org/committees/lupc/) told the board her committee had been working with other local groups toward a more standardized project review process, currently known as the VNC Approved Expedite Project. Laguna Beach activist Sharon Fudge, who with her husband has been fighting a makeover project at the Laguna Ranch resort near their house, showed photos of gutted buildings that she said the resort's owner was presenting as a "minor health and safety upgrade." She said, "those buildings are see-through – they've been taken down to the sticks." This summer Commission staff had reluctantly allowed some work, characterized as renovations, to go forward, but the Commission prohibited outright rebuilding pending an enforcement action. Fudge insisted the buildings were being reconfigured, from small apartments that had been rented for low-cost family beach vacations into standard hotel rooms – "They are making this into a luxury resort." And she said the current owners had "stripped" a eucalyptus grove, originally set aside as a camp site for local Girl Scouts, making it into an events center for crowds so large they create traffic problems. Fudge asked the Commission to reconsider a proposed Laguna Beach LCP amendment that she said would discourage second units, saying it would make affordable stays near the beach more expensive. The Commission extended a time limit to act on that matter. Other Items - A discussion from the August meeting continued about whether or when Commissioners became responsible for avoiding ex parte contacts with landowners who were subjects of enforcement actions. Chiming in, Zimmer asked the staff to notify Commissioners when enforcement actions began, rather than leave it to them to find out. - Steve Ray of the Banning Ranch Conservancy representative warned that a suit against the Commission by a little-known plaintiff, "Horizontal Development LLC," was a part of the Banning Ranch development effort – an attempt, he said, to do the decontamination and grading work for new development under an old permit issued in 1973. The Coastal Commission's September agenda is at http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm14-9.html, as annotated with outcomes and including links to staff materials. In actions separate from the Commission meeting: - The Commission staff reached a settlement expected to allowing U2 guitarist David Evans, known as the Edge, to build a five-house compound in the Santa Monica Mountains. For LA Times coverage see http://lat.ms/1BVTfBt. - The Monterey County Weekly reported further hitches for the Monterey Bay Shores Resort plan in Sand City, despite the apparent settlement reached with the Commission last spring. It said a lender had filed court papers seeking to foreclose on the project site for an allegedly defaulted debt and that Coastal Commission staff were not happy with project proponent Ed Ghandour's progress toward meeting conditions of the settlement. See http://bit.ly/1pmowpf for details. - The Del Mar Times reported Solana Beach had begun a study to decide what compensation is due to the public from property owners who block coastal access with seawalls. See http://bit.ly/1oqSzvL for details. - News reports and editorials gave cheerful and ample coverage to the San Mateo Superior Court decision favoring coastal access at privately owned Martins Beach. The court opinion issued September 24 is captioned as a tentative statement of decision but it was widely interpreted as an order requiring software billionaire Vinod Khosla to open the beach to public use. See San Francisco Chronicle coverage at http://bit.ly/ZO3eem and Mercury News coverage at http://bit.ly/1nAP37f. In a further action supporting coastal access, Governor Jerry Brown on September 30 signed SB 968, the bill instructing the State Lands Commission to begin negotiations for purchase of an access route to the beach that, after a year, could be followed by an eminent domain action. See http://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18744.

The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) staff members working on the SB 743 transportation impact metric are showing signs they may be receptive to criticism, possibly slowing the CEQA Guidelines changes down and rethinking the "regional average" metric for vehicle miles traveled that they proposed last month. In a September 25 webinar so popular it overloaded the meeting software, senior counsel Chris Calfee and senior planner Chris Ganson announced they would push back the comment deadline on the August 6 proposed draft from the original October 10 to November 21. They said the decision followed conversations with groups including the Association of Environmental Professionals and American Planning Association. New at the presentation was a distinctly tentative stance on two key aspects of the proposal. On the date for full statewide implementation – as distinct from initial implementation in transit-rich areas, or voluntary adoption where local agencies prefer the new metric – Calfee said, "We put as a placeholder January 1, 2016, but we know that that time period is likely to move, given how long the rulemaking process is likely to take." Separately he reassured listeners that the current discussion process was "pre-regulatory," to be followed by a formal rulemaking via the state Natural Resources Agency. Possibly more important, Calfee implied willingness to change the draft's proposed approach to assessing projects' VMT levels by relating them to regional average VMTs. That approach has been criticized as difficult to apply fairly to local areas that don't match the averages taken across large regional government areas. (See prior discussion at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3560.) He said OPR "would really appreciate your input on things like, what might be the appropriate recommendation for a threshold? We started out with regional average but we know others have some good ideas as well so please submit those." He said the staff knew the safety discussion needed to be further refined, "and also, give us your thoughts on whether the timing that we set out is appropriate." (On the webinar recording, which is available at http://opr.ca.gov/video/SB_743_Webinar_092614.wmv, these key comments show up around Minute 41. Note this is a different, more extended recording than the webinar recording shown at http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php, which stops just past Minute 38.) p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { } -->> p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { } -->> Otherwise, in a tag-team presentation, Calfee and Ganson offered reassurances on the advantages of the SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for infill projects; among much else they emphasized the tendency of existing Level Of Service (LOS) analysis, which it would replace, to impose mitigations on infill projects that are intended to reduce auto traffic congestion even if the projects are well served by transit, bicycle or foot travel. They leaned hard on the discretion the draft would still offer to local lead agencies, both in choosing VMT analysis methods and in using LOS analysis outside the CEQA context. Calfee and Ganson have repeatedly emphasized that the CEQA Guidelines will permit lead agencies to use "professional judgment" regarding both inputs and outputs of VMT models. In Q&A discussion late in the presentation, Ganson said it would be permissible, and in fact important, for local lead agencies to choose VMT measurement tools that have sensitivity to different relevant factors. He said standardized measurements may work well in some circumstances but will "miss a big part of the picture in other circumstances." As expressed earlier this month at a forum in San Diego (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3571), the team confirmed the proposed SB 743 analysis approach could trump local general plans' analysis on the narrow issue of whether congestion and auto delay count as a significant environmental impact under CEQA. And as discussed at a prior forum during the American Planning Association - California convention (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3576), they addressed the question whether an agency might be required by its local planning standards to increase roadway capacity as a means of avoiding congestion under an LOS analysis, hence raising local vehicle trips through the induced demand effect of added capacity. Their response in the webinar was that, as with renewable energy, projects that have mixed good and bad environmental effects must always be analyzed as a matter of overall policy, and a roadway expansion might still be pursued after adopting a statement of overriding considerations. Reactions to the SB 743 analysis during the late summer have included strongly worded attacks by the real estate firm of Holland & Knight. As initially reported at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3560, the firm responded to a list of potential mitigation measures as an impermissible attempt to expand CEQA law by pushing economic and social policies such as affordable housing near transit. At the September 25 presentation, the OPR team said the mitigation measures in question were optional suggestions derived from a list prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association. More recently, a widely posted Sacramento Business Journal commentary by writer Allen Young at http://bit.ly/1CwNo5L quoted Holland & Knight's Jennifer Hernandez as claiming that sponsors of infill projects would be pushed by the new rules to justify projects that did not minimize vehicle trips. Comments on the draft are due by November 21 to ceqa.guidelines@ceres.ca.gov. Details related to the presentation are in a new FAQ document posted at http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/FAQs_Regarding_SB_743_09262014.pdf and otherwise on the general OPR SB 743 site at http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php.

In land use and planning this week: The San Francisco Chronicle reported a Mello-Roos tax district deal among Transbay Transit Center landlords and San Francisco officials failed and was "likely to become the subject of protracted litigation". The paper reports the deal would have helped finance the downtown Transbay Tower and Caltrain extension. See http://bit.ly/XYT3C8 for details. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has scheduled a webinar for September 25 at 1 p.m. to discuss OPR's SB 743 proposed transportation metric draft. Invitation information has been posted online by at least two sources: the League of California Cities at http://bit.ly/1prQWNJ and the Santa Cruz Sierra Club Chapter at https://ventana2.sierraclub.org/santacruz/articles/node-183. KPCC reported the Metropolitan Water District has used two-thirds of its reserves: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/09/22/46902/metropolitan-water-district-two-thirds-of-reserves/ Planetizen picked up an article in UrbDeZine by architect Jim Chappell, former head of the SPUR civic and development organization, on major changes coming to Fort Mason Center on San Francisco's northern waterfront at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-71234. Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island has asked the Califronia Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the First District appellate ruling that approved Treasure Island's massive EIR in July. For the online docket see http://bit.ly/1umclzJ. Abbott & Kindermann's Katherine J. Hart has a careful look at the Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco case on CEQA record preparation fees at http://bit.ly/1uYA2wI. CP&DR's initial, less detailed writeup, with relevant case and Planning links, is at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3577. The League of California Cities noted a Napa Valley Register report that a housing civil rights suit against the city of St. Helena has been dismissed pending settlement. See http://bit.ly/1rumPux. The Porterville City Council moved toward clarifying its Urban Development Boundary as a first step toward annexing East Porterville areas with dry wells that need municipal services. For details see the Porterville Recorder at http://bit.ly/1Cg40hT. For a compelling LA Times news report on the East Porterville drinking water shortage see http://lat.ms/1ohA3Gb. Governor Jerry Brown keeps signing bills. Anyway, some bills. (not, to date, the quasi-Redevelopment AB 2280 bill, despite urging from senior planning figures like this: http://bit.ly/1mTiiC1.) This week in bill signings: The top current item on the Governor's press site, http://gov.ca.gov/home.php, is his signing of AB 1839, the film production incentive bill. On September 21 he signed six bills on electric vehicles and "high-occupancy toll" (HOT) lanes as announced at http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18720, including AB 2090: "Repeals the level of service requirements on HOT lanes for the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and directs them to work with the California Department of Transportation to develop appropriate performance measures." SB 936, with special water bond provisions for a desalination plant and other Cal American Water projects in Monterey. See Monterey Weekly coverage at http://bit.ly/1um1XaU, State Sen. Bill Monning's press release at http://bit.ly/1B66o8K and the bill itself (now law) at http://bit.ly/1ruleoO. SB 1183 and AB 1193, benefiting bike lanes and bike paths. For LA Times coverage see http://lat.ms/1Dxc8Mw. SB 1183 allows local agencies to place bonds on ballots to support bicycle infrastructure. AB 1193 makes standards more flexible to ease construction of bicycle lanes or separated "tracks". As discussed in the same LA Times article as the bike lanes, Brown signed SB 1300 on public disclosures by refineries (see http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18719) but issued a signing message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_1300_Signing_Message.pdf calling for cleanup language "to clarify the public disclosure process" to stop refineries from collecting attorneys' fees from records requesters. Brown signed Assemblymember Tom Ammiano's Treasure Island Transportation Management Act, AB 141, Ammiano's AB 523 allowing interest reductions on public loans to rental housing developments, See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18715. In the same September 19 signing group as the Ammiano bills, Brown signed AB 2067 by Assemblymember Shirley Weber and SB 1036 by Sen. Fran Pavley on urban water management plans (UWMPs). AB 2067 pushes back deadlines to finalize the next round of UWMPs from 2015 until 2017 and reduces the number of separate reporting requirements on water demand management measures. SB 1036 allows but does not require water agencies to add energy usage figures to their UWMP reporting. Brown also signed SB 1420, requiring UWMPs to include reports of water lost to leaks -- see http://bit.ly/1sXnRf0. Meanwhile Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters called Brown's signing decision on SB 968, the Martins Beach coastal access bill, a "symbol of the Bay Area's burgeoning class conflict over the impact of the techno-wealthy." See http://bit.ly/1uYyNxo. A few more General Plan updates have been in the works as follows: Cotati -- comments due October 24, 2014: http://bit.ly/1yqCpMB Cupertino -- Study sessions have begun on the EIR, next one October 7. See http://bit.ly/1Cg080C for Mercury News coverage and http://www.cupertinogpa.org/ for the General Plan site itself. Menlo Park -- The "ConnectMenlo" General Plan update is in a long sequence of public discussion events with the next "focus group" meeting September 29. See http://www.menlopark.org/739/ConnectMenlo-General-Plan-Update and, for Mercury News coverage, http://bit.ly/1sXqc9K. City of Tulare -- the City Council was headed toward approval of a 2035 General Plan revision with plans for "transit-oriented development" and "climate action." The Tulare Voice reported at http://bit.ly/1yqCPmb and http://bit.ly/ZcV9jc that the plan won praise from environmental activist Don Manro, who had challenged the 2008 plan successfully in court. City of Fresno: comments on the proposed General Plan are due October 9, with the next community workshops set for September 30 and October 1. See the city site at http://bit.ly/1rW40SY. Calaveras Enterprise columnist Muriel Zeller was thrilled to hear a General Plan draft for Calaveras County will be released for public review "after eight years and consultant fees exceeding $1 million". See http://bit.ly/Y1lGOW. September 19 was the tenth annual Park(ing) Day, an event founded by the Rebar design firm in San Francisco, when persons who question the prominence of automobiles in cities turn parking spaces into temporary parks. See Rebar's own account of the event at http://parkingday.org/about-parking-day/, Streetsblog for a photo roundup at http://bit.ly/1ym2AnI and the #parkingday hastag at https://twitter.com/hashtag/parkingday?src=hash for much more.

CP&DR was livetweeting extensively from panels at the APA California conference, as you can see by scrolling back to our September 14 and 15 posts at http://www.twitter.com/Cal_plan. Following are some notes filling out those highlights in context, and adding some further notes on issues raised at the conference. How to relate VMT estimates to each other? At a conference panel on the proposed SB 743 changes to traffic impact assessments and SB 375 CEQA streamlining, panelists had few clear answers on whether SB 743 aided or even might hinder the goal of creating simpler, more reliable procedures for project approval. But they had definite concerns about whether work done to study Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) might have to be redone on a different scale, or by a different method, if the calculation approaches weren't coordinated and standardized. Bob Leiter, a consultant who formerly headed land use and transportation planning for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), said the old-school LOS congestion analysis that SB 743 seeks to replace had stopped some projects that met compact development goals of SB 375. Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of the Sacramento Area Council of Goverments (SACOG), said SB 375 provided an explicit exemption from doing regional transportation analysis, but SB 743 obligations might include a duty to perform project-specific analyses. More energetic discussion at the SB 743 / SB 375 panel concerned the many ways to calculate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the multiple approaches that have evolved to date in different programs, and the awkwardness of adjusting one to another. For example, Fred Dock, Transportation Director for the city of Pasadena, said his office had already begun calculating VMT on a citywide level. He wasn't certain, however, how the work already done in Pasadena might fit in with the regional-average standard proposed under SB 743 in the guidelines proposed this August by the Office of Planning and Research. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3576 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3560.)  OPR's proposed guidelines document links directly to several different Web pages offering "sketch model" interactive worksheets to calculate VMT. (See http://bit.ly/1kOofPD, Appendix F, starting Page 36.) The panelists said officials and project proponents needed to understand better which calculation methods would be accurate and respected enough to survive legal challenges -- and public agencies would need budgets to put staff time into research on the subject. Leiter recommended a staff report by Peter Imhof of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) on ways regional differences might affect the proposed SB 743 VMT guidelines. The report appears as an attachment to a recent SBCAG advisory committee agenda at http://bit.ly/1uFvU4p. Leiter and Trost thought it would be helpful to create provisional VMT guidelines and test them out in a feedback process before enforcing definite rules. CEQA Guidelines discussion with Calfee becomes comment session The presence of OPR Senior Counsel Chris Calfee on the panel turned a discussion on the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Amendments into a comment session to help Calfee take the conference group's temperature on possible CEQA guideline revisions. Calfee told the group that although a comprehensive update to the CEQA guidelines had been in the works for some time, OPR had decided not to publish it during the SB 743 traffic impact metrics debate in order not to "distract from those issues." He called the delay "a blessing in disguise" in that it allowed OPR to continue taking comment and revising the guidelines draft accordingly. (He carefully did not offer clues to any timetable for their release.) Panelist Doug Carstens, of the CEQA petitioners' firm Chatten-Brown & Carstens, praised OPR for publicly posting all comments received on the guideline revisions. Comments and other CEQA regulatory materials are posted at http://opr.ca.gov/s_ceqaguidelines.php. Among three groups of comments linked from the page, the group from summer 2013, indexed at www.opr.ca.gov/docs/word_of_index.pdf, got attention for a City of Los Angeles Planning letter posted there. The letter, appearing on Page 57 at http://opr.ca.gov/docs/CEQA_Guidelines_Public_Comments.pdf#page%3D57, objects to what it describes as the current practice of treating "illegal uses that are already in place" as "part of the existing environmental baseline." It said, "By amending the definition of baseline to include only uses that were legally in place at the time of application, we can require these illegal uses to at least mitigate for the impacts that they create." Or if not, the letter asked that guidelines "include ways to alter the baseline in the record... to catch illegal or unapproved operations." Calfee singled out the case of Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439 as "a really interesting one" on CEQA baselines -- "the court gave us a really good policy rationale" -- on when to stick with an assessment of existing conditions as the baseline. (The case is accessible free via search at http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/.) As Bill Fulton explained last year at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3392, the California Supreme Court held in the Smart Rail case that lead agencies may be able to use a "future baseline" -- a comparison of projected future conditions with and without the proposed project, rather than comparison with the present day. However, a bare majority of the Court found that future baselines are only permissible with carefully documented justifications. Panelist Barbara Schussman of Perkins Coie, however, viewed the case as suggesting that an "existing conditions" CEQA baseline could be read more broadly than some people might think, though a "distant future" baseline such as the rail program's 2030 projection did require a strong showing.  Moderator Curtis Alling, of Ascent Environmental, invited shows of hands to tell OPR the relative importance of issues to clarify in the new guidelines. The conference audience cared intensely about more clarity on standards of review, baseline-setting, CEQA's interaction with other environmental rules, and when it becomes acceptable to defer mitigation measures until later in a project. They showed less interest in clarifications on the feasibility and alternatives process or on the types of public paper and online notices require. Panelists and audience agreed that Internet posting of notices still can't be treated as sufficient to reach the whole public. (Agreement seemed a bit less clear on what Internet posting standard should be met.) Also on the panel, Mindy Fogg, Planning Manager with the County of San Diego, suggested agencies should help their publics to understand and use the alternatives process, as an underused means of improving projects. And Alling suggested OPR could make existing CEQA streamlining methods more accessible to local lead agencies by assembling a "CEQA toolbox" of possible methods to consider. Other insights from conference panels: Jason Uhley, Chief of Watershed Protection for Riverside County, complained from local experience that infill projects could be put at a disadvantage by rules designed to regulate standalone "greenfield" developments: a requirement to treat all new runoff on a newly developed property could make an infill builder responsible for water travelling along streets from existing development. For new projects' water effects, speakers on different panels mentioned pressures toward handling new projects' impacts through off-site compensations: to offset a new demand on local water supply, a developer might be asked to contributed to a regional "water bank"; to compensate for runoff effects, a developer might contribute to an "alternative" mitigation project elsewhere in the region. Bryn Evans of the Dudek environmental consulting firm said if the state water bond passed, to look for more integration between management of water supplies and of stormwater. A discussion of diversity and tourism in Los Angeles County in part explored what former Burbank mayor Emily Gabel-Luddy called "the decentralization of experience" through transit. Panelists said improved transit could help draw tourists, including overseas visitors, into a broader variety of Los Angeles physical and cultural landscapes, and could help residents of low-income neighborhoods travel more easily to opportunities elsewhere in the region. The panel also highlighted some major economic development efforts in LA that may result in shifting travel patterns. Former City Council member Jan Perry, now General Manager of the Los Angeles Economic and Workforce Development Department, discussed downtown affordable housing increases (now hampered by the loss of redevelopment financing), efforts to slow traffic and promote cultural tourism on historic Central Avenue, local-hire provisions in project labor agreements, and economic development around the Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital project in Willowbrook (see http://planning.lacounty.gov/willowbrook). Glyn Milburn of Mayor Eric Garcetti's office described a major expansion of Universal Studios as planning to add 30,000 jobs, which he said would ideally be reached by daily transit commuters -- for example, from Santa Clarita. (County Specific Plan materials for Universal Studios are at http://1.usa.gov/1qsqSlG.) In a panel on housing issues in areas "where industry is king", Amitabh Barthakur of HR&A Advisors said production/distribution/repair (PDR) jobs were declining in Southern California but demand for industrial real estate was rising, especially inland where larger floor areas could be built. The reason? Demand for warehouse and distribution space for goods produced elsewhere. Lara Gates, Community Plan Update Project Manager with the City of San Diego Planning Department, recounted some of Barrio Logan's history as an industrial-residential neighborhood where residential neighbors have organized to assert cultural and environmental rights; the largely resident-supported creation of the Barrio Logan Community Plan ("I went and walked every single parcel") and its shipyard-backed defeat in two June citywide ballot measures (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3510 for prior coverage). Since the defeat of the plan, Gates said the existing "mishmash" of zoning-authorized uses remained in effect, including industrial zoning "completely ringing an elementary school." In the negotiations on what should happen next, she said local industry advocates were asking to reinstate industrial uses in the area that the plan had sought to designate as a transition zone. She predicted litigation would follow. She said lessons for planners included working closely with industrial interests to understand their goals; laying down solid baseline data; concurrently reviewing both land use planning and zoning; and engaging community and political support, including understanding what local elected officials are hearing. In the housing-and-industry panel, and in a separate panel on projects near roadways, planners from dense urban areas talked about the difficulty of imposing any outright ban on sensitive uses, such as schools or housing, near industrial polluters or roadways. (Los Angeles County's ban on affordable housing within 500 feet of freeways has actually been opposed by some activists as shutting out freeway-crossed neighborhoods from housing funds that they need. See http://www.shelterforce.org/article/3346/living_in_the_buffer/.) Connie Chung of the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning said in the roadways discussion that many community development and transit-oriented development effort have focused in areas near major roadways (not solely freeways) that create dense air pollution. Realistically, she said, focus for development in buffer areas near big roadways has to be less prohibition in than mitigation. On the other hand, Ian MacMillan, Program Supervisor for CEQA Intergovernmental Review with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said the 500-foot buffer distance consistently seemed to be the "magic number" for housing. And there are costs to building near freeways with the mitigations that freeway-damaged air quality requires. MacMillan said mitigation in such areas could include use of expensive high-quality indoor air filters that would have to be replaced timely throughout the life of the building -- potentially a cost and maintenance issue for affordable housing. Cathy Fitzgerald of PlaceWorks said especially high-level air filters, above the MERV-13 level, can create problems with air flow resistance, high maintenance costs, and possibly a need for special HVAC systems. For jurisdictions or builders looking to estimate roadway emissions, Leland Villalvazo, Supervising Air Quality Specialist with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, offered an online estimator -- not necessarily approved by all jurisdictions, but with data available for all California Counties. He offered links to the District's "Inventory and Modeling Resources" links page at http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Resources/resources_idx.htm, and directly to the estimator at ftp://12.219.204.27/public/Modeling/Final/Roadway/. At the industry-vs.-housing panel, a conference participant from Chula Vista noted a problem with industrial landlords in prime industrial areas who, when demand for industrial uses periodically goes slack, try to fill in their space with non-industrial tenants such as martial arts studios or small churches. The temporary tenants change the character of the area; when heavy industry returns, its effects on the non-industrial tenants create land use conflicts. Laura Stetson of the MIG planning firm said it can be important to set and enforce firm code restrictions against non-industrial uses in such areas. A broad discussion that started from the subject of second-round Sustainable Communities Strategies featured a meeting of powerful regional governance figures: Executive Directors Gary Gallegos of SANDAG, Mke McKeever of SACOG, and Hasan Ikhrata of SCAG, and Ken Kirkey, MTC plan director. Of the four, Ikhrata was best at sound bites. In a comment that quickly drew approval online, he said of the Los Angeles transit network, "Right now we are going back to the future. We are building the system that we got rid of." He said studies showed "Millenials prefer access to ownership." And with an ironic reference to "the Happiest Place on Earth," he talked about families packed into overcrowded housing in Santa Ana, not far from the Disneyland conference site; he said people will house themselves somehow. Gallegos of SANDAG (the San Diego Association of Governments) reported initial success for San Diego's first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project with managed lanes; he reported a 40% cost recovery rate from transit fares; McKeever of SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) said other areas could only aspire to a 40% cost recovery rate. "We're a light year away from that." Gallegos said he had hoped cap-and-trade would fund ongoing transit operations more than it has. Kirkey of the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission mentioned a need to use public funding to develop jobs outside the tech sector that don't necessarily require college diplomas. Anona Dutton, vice president of water resources practice with the firm of Erler and Kalinowski, said water supply assessments required by SB 610 "show me the water" rules would be more under scrutiny to the extent they relied on groundwater. She said project proponents and administrators would also need to consider if water supply assessments put forward during 2014-2015, after several years of severe drought, could still be safely based on the Urban Water Management Plans developed in the better-watered year of 2010. (For delays in the plan deadlines and changed provisions see CP&DR's news briefs on the new AB 2067 and SB 1036, both signed since the conference.) Dutton said water supply offset requirements for new projects, such as those now applied by EBMUD, are a trend moving west from inland, e.g. New Mexico. She also said careful conservation and recycling can be used to get projects built. She said one developer of a large project reduced its per capita *potable* use projection to 30 gallons per day. Eric Robinson, the water practice manager with the firm of Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, said a good "teaching case" on practical application of the state's water supply assessment rules would be the First Appellate District's Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 33. Although Disneyland's fantasy towers and transplanted palm trees formed a viewshed around the conference, news reports of strained natural resources formed its real backdrop: drought conditions, wildfires, and record-setting summer heat. It became routine to hear panelists, especially water and air quality specialists, reporting on pressures imposed by scarcity to acknowledge physical logistical demands, such as depletion of groundwater. As with the questioning of 2010 water plans, many of the experts were warning planners not to presume that formal assumptions could insulate them or the public from jagged facts. For a conference built in part around raising the value of property investments, it gave a great deal of time to the notion that the physical limits of air, water, and transportation systems can and do limit property rights in land.

The Strategic Growth Council has proposed that 40% of its estimated $130 million in cap-and-trade funds be devoted to transit-oriented development (TOD) projects and that another 30% be devoted to a variety of infrastructure-related programs that may include housing. The SGC issued draft program guidelines yesterday afternoon. The week before,  the Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted guidelines on benefits to disadvantaged communities. The newly public documents represent important strands in a braid of agency rules required by prior AB 32 / SB 535 provisions and the new programs set up by this year's SB 862 budget bill. In particular, SGC has begun more definitely to describe the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program, which as of June 2014 brought housing issues into a statutory scheme previously focused on reducing carbon emissions and environmental disadvantage. (See information on SGC's prior workshops asking the public how to create the new program here .) The final strand in the braid, required by the end of the month, will be a definite decision from CalEPA on which of California's 8,000 census tracts to designate as "disadvantaged," most likely through application of the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 environmental/socioeconomic metric. (Prio CP&DR coverage of the "disadvantage" definitions issue can be found here .) On September 18 the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved a lightly revised version of its previously circulated guidelines on defining benefits to disadvantaged communities. The revisions raise the percentage of CAL FIRE urban forestry grants to serve disadvantaged communities from 55% to 100%, and they add, in 26 separate instances, the phrase "direct, meaningful, and assured" as a descriptor for the ways benefits should be provided to disadvantaged communities. The proposed SGC guidelines refer to the September 18 approvals but state the resulting "disadvantaged community threshold requirements" table is "subject to revision to be available by September 30, 2014." SGC's main 82-page non-agricultural guidelines draft recommends "two project prototypes", identified as transit-oriented development (TOD) projects, to receive at least 40% of funds, and "Integrated Connectivity Projects" (ICP), to receive at least 30% of funds. It describes the program as offering "gap financing for rental housing developments that include affordable units, and as mortgage assistance for homeownership developments. In addition, grants are available for infrastructure improvements." In the TOD category each project area to receive an award of $1 million to $15 million with a "Major Transit Stop within a 1/2 mile catchment area." The transit stop can connect to high-speed rail, "commuter or light rail," Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), or an "Express Bus." Each TOD area "must" include both affordable housing and a "capital use" from a list that may include a variety of housing, transportation or greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction programs. The ICP description does not require housing but does require two eligible projects, one of which must be an "Infrastructure-Related Capital Use" that may promote housing, transportation, transit, "green infrastructure," pollution reduction or "planning implementation". It allows for grants of $500,000 to $8 million for project areas. Its transit requirement may be met by an ordinary bus or "vanpool/shuttle" stop but it must increase transit use to "key destinations". (The references to less urban choices such as home mortgage assistance and bus or vanpool transit could be concessions to calls made by rural housing advocates and planners for ways to use AHSC money outside major transit corridors.) Additional requirements and limits on uses apply, in part according to each project's type of existing landscape and proposed use. Housing infrastructure spending is restricted to $35,000 per housing unit or $50,000 per affordable "restricted unit", and program uses are restricted to 10% of each whole grant. Other limits further push projects away from infrastructure-only planning toward mixed purposes that are likely to include housing. The program forbids any grant-assisted profit that "exceeds the commercially reasonable range for other developments of similar size and level of risk". Further "The applicant must show that Program funds are reasonably necessary for Project feasibility and no other source of compatible funding is reasonably available." Rental housing developments must carry 55-year affordability covenants. Projects that demolish or rehab existing affordable housing units must replace them at a level of "equal or greater affordability". This is a key difference from, for example, the SB 628 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts program, which also requires any lost low-rent units to be replaced, but at levels of "affordability" targeted to incomes as high as 120% of area median. The application process is to be managed as separate TOD and ICP competitive processes, each handled according to a point scoring system. "Anti-displacement strategies" are among the factors to be considered in the "community orientation" scoring category, though it's not clear if there would be any requirement to compensate for gentrification effects that do not directly evict existing tenants. Other factors (among many) include housing affordability levels, "affordability factors" of project locations, blocks shorter than 500 feet, sidewalks, bike facilities, green building techniques, electric vehicle charging stations, and maximum limits on parking. "Co-benefits" that earn points include public health and safety improvements, economic and job training advantages to residents, and reduced pollution exposures. After 40% of the funds have been allocated to TOD applicants and 30% to ICP applicants, the remaining 30% goes to "Either TOD or ICP based upon score; and requirements." A cover memo appearing as part of the posted draft guidelines PDF sets out "issues to be resolved prior to Council adoption of the Final Guidelines in December." It lists "coordination and partnership" with regional government entities, "geographic distribution of funds throughout the state," "ARB guidance on GHG reductions quantification" and choices of point values for application scoring. (The current draft leaves point values to be filled in later.) On the roles of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other regional government entities, SGC states in the draft guidelines themselves that it is "soliciting input and advice from" such entities and "developing a framework for thorough, meaningful consultation with these institutions." It does not suggest a more than advisory direct role for them. The draft guidelines do however require funded projects to be consistent with regional agencies' Sustainable Communities Strategies. The agricultural lands proposal calls for planning grants of $100,000 each to "counties and/or cities in collaboration with other partners," adding up to $1 million; and agricultural easement grants of unspecified individual amounts, adding up to $3.75 million. It calls for spending an unspecified further amount on creating incentives for GHG reduction through land management in cooperation with USDA. The planning grants are to cover purposes such as designing farmland conservation plans or exploring possibilities for agricultural easements. Applicants are to use CalEnviroScreen to determine whether half the proposed project area is in a disadvantaged community or, if not, must show how the proposed project provides "direct, meaningful and assured benefits" to a nearby disadvantaged community. A resource appendix to the agricultural land preservation draft carries a dense collection of links to state and federal agency Web sites on land use, GHG reduction and conservation. The main SGC draft guidelines as released September 23 are here . The workshop notice  currently sets hearings October 23-28 but has yet to announce precise dates or times. It states written comments may be submitted until October 31, 2014 to AHSC@SGC.CA.GOV and the Strategic Growth Council's adoption board meeting will be December 11. The agricultural lands draft from SGC is at http://bit.ly/1wKxcdW. A September 23 email announcement of the agricultural lands draft said "Public workshops for this specific Program will be noticed by the end of September. Public Comments shall be sent to AHSC_AG@sgc.ca.gov." The ARB approval was announced in a press release at http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=658. The guidelines as approved are at http://bit.ly/1Dm4VPp. Public comments on the ARB and CalEPA elements of the proposed disadvantaged communities definitions are at http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm2/bccommlog.php?listname=sb-535-guidance-ws. The combined workshop page for the ARB and CalEPA processes is at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/upcomingevents.htm. The CalEnviroscreen 2.0 metric is at http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html.

While CP&DR and lots of our readers were at the APA California conference, land use news continued to appear in the outside world. A few highlights are summarized here. (Coastal Commission coverage to follow in a few days.) Keep watching our Web site as we unpack and follow up more news from the conference, and if you haven't seen our livetweeting stream from some of the September 14 and 15 panels, it's still available at https://twitter.com/Cal_plan. Rominger : tentative subdivision maps are CEQA business The Third District Court of Appeal held in Rominger v. County of Colusa that a proposed subdivision map was a "project" for CEQA purposes where it concerned tentative subdivision maps -- a topic that the Court said was defined in Sec. 21080 of the Public Resources Code as categorically CEQA subject matter. Although the map had been the subject of a mitigated negative declaration certified by the county, the trial court was willing to find it exempt from CEQA on the grounds that it did not count as a "project". The appellate court rejected several of the petitioners' underlying allegations, in an extended point-by-point analysis that Art Coon's developer-side law blog has already identified as worth a careful read for practitioners. The Third District found merit only in one of the petitioners' allegations, over traffic impacts -- but it still remanded the matter for preparation of an EIR. The case is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C073815.PDF. Unsuccessful petitioners on SF's Market/Octavia plan stuck with record preparation bill In Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco , the First District Court of Appeal judged a record costs dispute stemming from an unsuccessful CEQA challenge to the Market and Octavia area planning process in San Francisco. The underlying plan concerned a downtown area that was made more attractive  to developers by removal of the freeway viaduct that formerly crossed Market Street west of Civic Center. The city and petitioners disputed the preparation of the administrative record: the petitioners, who elected to prepare the record, claimed their access to city documents to prepare the record was hindered, and then that the city drove up costs by insisting on supplementing the record with thousands of additional pages. The trial court rejected the petition for writ of mandate, then also rejected a motion in which the city sought more than $64,000 in costs for its work preparing the supplement to the record. On appeal, Justice Kathleen Banke wrote for a panel of the First District Court of Appeal that the city could in fact claim the cost of preparing the supplemental record. It rejected petitioners' argument that a large fee bill would have a chilling effect on future petitioners' willingness to invoke their rights. Banke found it important that the city did not prepare the supplement unilaterally, but instead first obtained a local judge's agreement that the supplemental documents were necessary for a complete record. On the other hand, Banke wrote that under the heading of paralegal time, which formed the bulk of the city's fee bill, the city could only claim time spent actually preparing the record and not time spent reviewing it "for completeness." The case is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A135512.PDF. It follows a prior unpublished 2013 ruling, at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A131487.PDF, that addressed more of the underlying issues. For the Market and Octavia Area Plan that was disputed see http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1713. Also in the outside world: As you'll have seen, Governor Jerry Brown signed the groundwater legislation. For Sacramento Bee coverage see http://bit.ly/XdAZ6S. A news feature in National Geographic , just published this morning, welcomes the new requirements but notes their effect is to start planning processes that won't actually restrict groundwater pumping for several years. See http://bit.ly/1pjFC61. Governor Brown also signed a string of measures on Monday, September 15 that included SB 1353 on extension of Williamson Act contracts. See http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18700 for the list. He signed a further group of bills September 16: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18702 An audit alleged misuse of housing bond funds by the state Department of Housing and Community Development. See http://lat.ms/1ARMfTx for an LA Times report on the audit and https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/summary/2014-037 for the audit itself. The LA Times reported Los Angeles began a hotel tax enforcement campaign against AirBnB hosts: http://lat.ms/1qg1lC8 Bloomberg reported the California Oil Marketers' Association was asking State Attorney General Kamala Harris to investigate the legality of the state cap-and-trade program's fuels component: http://bloom.bg/1u09r3h. The "Six Californias" measure failed to qualify for the California ballot: http://bit.ly/1Bz6fN1

This week CP&DR is livetweeting the APA California conference in Anaheim.  You can read first impressions from the panels at http:// www.twitter.com/Cal_plan. (No need to have a Twitter account: just close any pop-up windows at the site and keep reading.) We'll have more detailed coverage here later on based on news picked up at the conference.

You think this is going to be another piece about the shortcomings and backfires of the California Environmental Quality Act. It's not. The most affecting moment in Paul Bogard's book The End of Night  describes a Cherokee ritual called "opening the night." Participants sit in a quiet place -- forest, desert, front lawn, mountaintop -- and listen to the sounds within an armspan. Then the radius doubles. It doubles again. It keeps doubling until the listener has beheld the entire spectrum of perceptible sounds, taking in the landscape with an intimacy that those of us in busy, bright places can only imagine. The marriage of silence and darkness is an utterly appropriate bit of synesthesia: they are two sides of the same globe. Both are in woefully short supply in California. Under the Dome Almost everyone reading CP&DR spends half his or her life in a crepuscular third space created by artificial light. Without it, we would see brilliant darkness, unknown stars, meteors, the ballet of the heavens, and a Milky Way true to its name. Bogard, a professor of creative writing at James Madison University, describes the sublimity of the true night sky first and foremost in aesthetic terms. It is a beauty that all people deserve to enjoy. He explains why van Gogh's "Starry Night" might have been more the product of observation than of madness. Crazy or not, that's what a real night is supposed to look like.   The trillions of points of light in the true night sky are no match for the mere billions on the ground. You know the culprits: streetlights; parking lots; gas stations; billboards; preening McMansions; "security" lighting; athletic fields; headlights....and on and on. Parking lots alone can account for up to 50% of a city's outdoor lighting. It all piles up in icteritious "domes" that hover above every urban area in the country. Just as Americans in the 1950s gleefully inhaled smog in the name of progress, Americans now surrender the night for much the same reason. Tablets and smart phones are today's cigarettes, enabling us to further disrupt our eyesight, hormone production, and circadian rhythms. Nocturnal animals don't fare so well either. Bogard is particularly protective of bats, which, he writes, consume insects, rarely carry disease, and are way too good at flying to get tangled in anyone's hair. The Bortle Scale measures the night sky on a scale from 9 (Times Square, the Vegas Strip) to 1 (antediluvian void). If you're reading this at night anywhere in a major city, a Bortle 8 is probably seeping through your curtains this very moment. Bogard numbers his chapters backwards, from 9 to 1, in a march through time and space that begins with the spotlight atop the Luxor Hotel and ends in an empty Moroccan desert. Under a Bortle 1 sky, he writes, even your first glance is revelatory. Then give your eyes an hour or two to adjust. Then you'll see what's really going on up there.  California features prominently in The End of Night. Los Angeles' light pollution is described as second only to that of Las Vegas. At the same time, one of Bogard's many lyrical descriptions of a real night sky (they never get tedious, I promise) -- of which there is little in the western United States and next to none in the east -- comes from the still backroads of Death Valley. It's amazing to think that California was once so dark that some of the world's most important telescopes were here. (They're still here, of course. They're just not important any more.) It's worth reading End of Night just to reach his most inspiring quotation, from the gonzo naturalist Edward Abbey. Referring to nowhere in particular: "this is the most beautiful place on earth. There are many such places." Unlike so many other environmental ravages, light pollution's effects are not necessarily permanent. The depths of Vernon wears the same crown as does Half Dome. The stars are all up there, waiting like cut diamonds to be disinterred.  Planning for Darkness The End of Night is not a book of urban planning, but the role that planners can play is clear as, well, day.  A few cities around the world, primarily in Europe, are already trying to get their light under control. Flagstaff, Ariz., is the only U.S. city that has implemented a comprehensive program to combat light pollution. It has been a modest success. Even Walmart and Target conform to the city's regulations without, apparently, going out of business. Bogard reports that between 2000 and 2010, the city's brightness increased only 17 percent, with a 25 percent increase in population. He isn't thrilled with achieving merely a lower rate of increase, but it's better than nothing.  Ordinances regulating light pollution could be integrated into a general plan, replete with Bortle ratings to set goals and track progress. The International Dark-Sky Association, an admittedly quirky organization to which Bogard makes repeated reference, has model programs that can help cities reconnect their citizens to the sublime. It invites cities to joint its International Dark Skies Communities, taking a vow if not of darkness than of less brightness. A few cities in California have taken this vow (see CP&DR July 2003 ). But, in my many years of discussing environmental issues with planners, the topic has never come up. It's nowhere on the agenda at the California APA conference , going on right now. Of course, the dimming of lights could be an invitation for mayhem. But maybe not. Bogard notes that dark places do not necessarily have more crime than bright places do. As in architecture so in public safety: well lit doesn't have to mean brightly lit. Without lights, the would-be burglars can't see either. Shadows give assailants places in which to lurk. Someone who has adjusted to the darkness is more keen than someone assaulted by glare. Eyes on the stars can also be eyes on the street. It takes generations to construct a build environment. It could take months to retrofit a neighborhood with more sensible lighting, especially in the age of sensors and LED's. Cities could transfer the funds to policing, to calm the paranoid. And, yes, there's an argument to be made that atmospheric light pollution should be covered under the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA does refer to light pollution, but that typically refers to nuisances in an immediate area (like this ). The entire skyscape might be a tough one for public officials to regulate: it is either immutable or, at a few light years' remove, too far out of their jurisdiction. But surely the health risks of artificial light to 39 million people might justify action?   Why, ultimately, should cities put try to something as amorphous as darkness into their finely tuned plans? Bogard's finest chapter is Chapter 4, midway between light and dark on the Bortle scale and a far piece into the human psyche. In it, he addresses not just literal darkness but metaphorical darkness. He cities English professor Eric Wilson who, in his book In Praise of Melancholy , insists that sorrow, darkness, and contemplation are all crucial elements of, if not happiness per se, then at least of satisfaction -- of the fullness of being human. This ethos runs contrary to the superficial happiness that is ascribed to Californians. And yet, to banish, ignore, or devalue darkness is to lose authenticity, forsake ambiguity, and stunt our souls. But we can get it back. We just have to extend an arm, and flip the switch. The End of Night Paul Bogard Back Bay Books $16.00 (paperback)

The proposed CEQA Guidelines prohibiting lead agencies from categorizing traffic congestion as a significant impact will likely trump any significance finding tied to local general plans that contain a level of service standard, state officials said at a forum on the draft guidelines Friday in San Diego. In response to a question, Chris Calfee, counsel at the Governor's Office of Planning & Research, indicated that General Plan congestion standards won't be counted as significant under CEQA. "Once the guidelines are adopted, then those measures can't be the basis of a significance finding under CEQA," he said. He later indicated that it may be necessary to revise the CEQA checklist to reflect this viewpoint. At the same time, Calfee emphasized: "We are only making changes to the CEQA analysis. Local General Plan policies, zoning codes, things like that, those remain in place. This does not interfere with local police power. Local agencies get to keep their impact fees, their planning processes, as otherwise." Nevertheless, the general impression conveyed by OPR is that the CEQA Guidelines amendments are likely to drive local government policies away from congestion and toward VMT as a standard. The draft guidelines � issued by OPR pursuant to the SB 743 CEQA reform bill passed last year � would replace the congestion-based "level of service" standard with a "vehicle miles traveled" standard. OPR is now taking the show on the road to gauge response. On Friday � as a warmup to the state American Planning Association conference in Anaheim � OPR's Chris Ganson and Calfee presented the proposed guidelines to a crowd of 250 planners, transportation engineers, and advocates at San Diego City Hall. Much of the event consisted of Ganson providing detail on the proposal that has been previously reported in CP&DR . Along the way, however, Ganson provided some interesting detail about why other prospective measures � especially multi-modal level of service � had been rejected in favor of VMT.  He said LOS as a general standard often focuses on the wrong things � moving vehicles instead of people, for example, and solving the program of localized congestion around a particular project without considering the overall impact on the transportation system. "The scale of analysis is too small," he said. "Oftentimes, you relieve a bottleneck and end up with a worse bottleneck downstream, which worsens the whole situation." In other words, he said: "All you did was you moved impact outside of your scope of analysis to somewhere else." Discussing multi-modal level of service � which has often been identified as a possible alternative to vehicle level of service � Ganson said it has many of the same defects as vehicle level of service. "There are a lot of situations in which inserting multimodal LOS could be quite useful, "he said." We found CEQA not to be one of them because it creates some of the same perverse incentives � in infill development it's again going to trigger impacts on transit, bicycling, ped facilities. It looks at crowding and says adding more people is bad but of course what we want is to add more people." Ganson also reiterated that even if congestion itself would not be considered a significant impact, the new guidelines would continue to permit actual environmental impacts of congestion � air quality, for example � to be analyzed, and would also permit analysis of safety concerns, a matter of interest to Caltrans in particular. In a panel discussion after Ganson's presentation, representatives of other agencies discussed the need for additional technical information and better collaboration to make the VMT standard work. Mike Calandra, a senior transportation modeler at SANDAG, emphasized the need for accurate traffic counts in order to accurately estimate VMT and referred interested parties to a SANDAG white paper on the topic. Meanwhile, Marc Birnbaum, senior statewide transportation analysis advisor at Caltrans, said the agency will probably want to work more closely with local agencies in implementing the new standard. "We're not a land use agency, so when it comes to the land use side, we've kind of been beggars trying to seek mitigation, he said. "On the transportation side, we have relied on planning at regional and city and county level to justify our projects. So we're going to have to work a lot closer (with local agencies) to ensure that VMT is addressed earlier."