Among some conservative circles, it's become fashionable to say that liberals "hate America" any time Democrats try to do, well, anything. Notwithstanding the illogic of hating one's own home, I don't think that liberals hate America. I just think they (we) have different ideas about how to improve America. What's become disturbingly evident recently, however, is that the  Wall Street Journal , a conservative-leaning publication that generally likes big, wealthy things, really seems to have it in for California. Over the past year or so, the Journal has published no fewer than three op-eds, each more desperate than the last, lambasting California's land use policies and their supposed drain on the state's economy. The first two came from Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox, both of whom are venerable scholars who, though I don't agree with them, have long staked out their places in the spectrum of urban ideology. Recently, they were joined by Allysia Finley, a WSJ assistant editorial page editor with no apparent experience in land use. I can hear her senior editor saying, "oh, just cook up some crap about California. Readers in Middle America will eat it up."  Borrowing a metaphor from Middle America, Finley's column  "The Reverse-Joad Effect,"   posits that a recent trend of out-migration of lower-income residents from California doesn't just reflect a shaky economy and relatively high real estate prices in the broad sense. Finley has narrowed down the eastward exodus to—drumroll—restrictive land use policies. That is to say, of all the micro- and macro-economic effects that influence migration in and out of the country's largest state, it's land use that deserves the finger pointing. (Finley doesn't actually name any policies, but we'll get to that later.) You don't have to be a State of Jefferson separatist to admit that California has problems. I'm as loyal a California patriot as they come, so I know that our budget is a mess, our schools are distressed, and our cities, through improving, have a long way to go. But I'm still going to defend California, and its land-use policies, against specious reasoning and gross distortions. As I have done in response to Cox and Kotkin in the past, I'd like to extract a few of Finley's gems-though she has far more than either of them did—and offer a few further thoughts. Finley writes: It is ironic that many of the intended beneficiaries of California's liberal government are running for the state line—and that progressive policies appear to be what's driving them away. No, it's not ironic. That's how it's supposed to work. Benefiting from social services doesn't mean that recipients have to stay. In fact, they could have benefited so much that they became prosperous enough to move wherever they choose. Finley cites no studies or surveys to determine why people are leaving (or even that California's government is liberal; maybe she's too young to remember George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, or Arnold Schwarzenegger; maybe she's never even been to California). Even if there's a grain of truth to this, it's not the policies that are driving people away. If anything, it's the consequences of policies—intended and otherwise—that might be driving them away. I don't think anyone is saying, "man, that DU/acre regulation really sticks in my craw; Abilene, here we come." But Finley does't draw connections between, policies, outcomes, and responses.  For starters, zoning laws, which liberals favor to control "suburban sprawl," have constrained California's housing supply and ratcheted up prices. Naturally, high housing prices can turn people away; we'd all like to pay less. But blaming high housing prices on regulation--and not on supply and demand--seems a bit much. 3.4  million  people leave the state, and we start with  zoning laws ? Remind me to write to the authors of every major textbook on immigration and encourage them to update their first chapters. Finley implies that the healthiest states are those where development is allowed to roam fee. But, while suburbia may have been invented in Levittown, it was perfected and executed on its grandest scale in California, with zoning laws that are imposed on a city-by-city basis. California is chock-full of the suburban places that conservatives routinely equate with freedom. Interesting that some of those places are now full of vacant tract homes.  Of course, it's true that liberals generally tend to oppose sprawl. But opposing sprawl doesn't necessarily equate with constraining housing supply. Those liberal policies come in two varieties: first, many liberals favor controls that preserve open space and farmland; second, they often favor policies that promote compact development. Traditionally, these two approaches are supposed to work in tandem in order to ensure an adequate supply of housing in favorable locations while preserving land. Meanwhile, it's the conservatives—policymakers, developers, and, often, residents alike—who favor low-density, urban-fringe development and who enact restrictions against higher densities. We have plenty of that.  The problem is not that suburban  land use  policies don't work – they worked spectacularly. The problem is that  suburbia  doesn't work. It has made the state poorer and has implicitly limited housing options by reducing demand for high-density housing in cities.  That's why California enacted SB 375, the most significant anti-sprawl legislation in the country. Finley might like to know, though, that SB 375 operates on an incentive system. It has no power to actually restrict sprawl in places where cities want to permit it. She might further like to know that SB 375 wasn't adopted until 2008 and has scarcely been implemented. Land restrictions became common in high-income enclaves during the 1970s—coinciding with the burgeoning of California's real-estate bubble—and have increased income-based segregation and inequality. Al Joad, hit the brakes. OK, so at least we know we're not talking about SB 375.  (Finley could have at least cited the nominally liberal law CEQA -- assuming that she's heard of it -- but then she might have to acknowledge that it was signed by, um, Ronald Reagan.) But by alluding to generic liberal "land restrictions" from the 1970s, Finley makes it sound like conservatives have been clamoring to build townhomes and TOD's for the past three decades while it's the liberals who are forcing them into outer-ring McMansions. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Finley objects to segregation, income inequality, and almost any other land-use ill you care to name, then she might want to consider, oh, the single most consequential law in the history of California land use: Proposition 13, enacted in 1978. Prop. 13 – as conservative a law as there is – has contributed to sprawl in at least two ways. Most directly, it creates incentives for homeowners to stay put; thus impeding the free market and forcing the construction of new homes for, say, young families, on the urban fringe. Perhaps more importantly, it decimates cities' abilities to raise revenue, because it all but freezes revenues in older cities. (Meanwhile, never mind that, by some measures, the entire state is a donor state with respect to federal taxes.) Under Prop. 13, when people want good schools and other services, they go to new suburbs where, at least for a little while, brand-new houses sold at market rate generate enough tax revenue to support the services they want. At least until inflation and wear-and-tear catch up with those houses, and the next generation of suburbs appear on the horizon—or maybe they go to another state, with better-funded schools. That's the legacy of "conservative" land use policies. Then again, according to many conservatives (such as Robert Bruegemann  in  Sprawl: A Compact History ), this is what we ought to want -- so I'm not sure what Finley is complaining about. As for the very real problem of " income-based segregation and inequality ": Where in this country, from the hedges of Greenwich to the gates of Plano, do high-income enclaves  not  enact measures to control land use and restrict in-migration of "undesirable" neighbors? And since when are these enclaves usually  liberal ? Housing in California is on average 2.7 times more expensive than in Texas. The median house costs $459 per square foot in San Francisco and $323 in San Jose, but just $84 in Houston, according to chief economist Jed Kolko of the San-Francisco based real-estate firm  Trulia . Finley must have made a hell of a cherry pie after picking this data. First, higher housing per square foot doesn't necessarily equate with higher housing costs. Residents of San Francisco might live just as happily with less space than might their counterparts in Houston. Even so, San Franciscans pay be happy to pay more because they prefer it to Houston. It's a nicer city. It has more amenities. It offers more, higher-paying jobs. Yay, right? Right?? Housing in California is cheaper inland than on the coast, but good luck finding a job. Right. That's because land use policies that promote sprawl have forced people to live farther and farther from cities, to the point where jobs are inaccessible from many places where the housing is. Alternatively, liberal policies promoting higher density enable lower-income people to live closer to job centers.  The median home in Fresno costs $95 per square foot, but the unemployment rate is nearly 15%, compared with 6% in Houston. So, low housing prices are good because homes are affordable or bad because they correlate with weak employment? To say that Finley's logic is circular is an understatement. Her mind is doing donuts in a Walmart parking lot. California's staggering labor and energy costs…have helped kill hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in California's interior. Note: Those are jobs that traditionally served as entry points to the middle class. When did California's "interior," wherever that is, have "hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs"? Note: pollution causes lung cancer and climate change. Comcast announced  in the fall that it is moving 1,000 call-center jobs out of California because of the "high cost of doing business." Facebook , eBay and LegalZoom have opened up Texas offices in the past few years, while PayPal, Yelp and Maxwell Technologies have pushed into Phoenix. So it's bad that genuine California-bred companies—many of which are shining stars on Dow Jones' ticker that still employ the majority of their workers in California—have become so successful that they can open satellite offices? Rents are prohibitive, and Sacramento takes 9.3% of every dollar over $49,000—and 13.3% over $1 million—that an individual or small business owner earns. Finally Finley cites a specific policy, and a liberal-ish one at that. How it relates to land use, I'm not sure. This tax rate places California 13 th  highest among the 50 states (New York is first, Texas is 44th; remind me what  city  Wall Street is in?).  It also takes less of that individual's real estate taxes because of Prop. 13. As for the 13.3% rate for million-dollar earners (one million dollars  per year !), that's the reason that poor people are moving out? If Finley wants poor people to remain in state, shouldn't California raise the top tax rates and lower them at the bottom so as to ease the burden on the poor? By contrast, small businesses in Texas have been sprouting like bluebonnets in the spring to meet the demands of an expanding population. Good for Texas. The population is expanding in Bangladesh too. Does that mean that Bangladesh offers a high quality of life or a favorable business climate? If population growth was an ideal economic development strategy, then we'd just ban birth control and cut taxes on liquor. More people mean more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe and homes to build. We're getting pretty low on Maslow's Hierarchy, aren't we? Ought states promote only those jobs that involve food, homebuilding, and apparel? Or should they promote something more diverse and more lucrative? And don't app developers, farmhands, and actors—i.e. people in every other economic sector—need food, clothing, and shelter too? In his State of the State address this year, Gov. Jerry Brown boasted: "We have the inventors, the dreamers, the entrepreneurs, the venture capitalists…" These are the people that Republicans used to call "job-creators."  Recall, however, that the Okies—poor as they may have been—provided a gigantic pool of labor that fueled California's postwar boom and helped transform the Golden State into the world's eighth-largest economy. Recall, however, that the Oakies were not mere migrants. They were refugees, forced to move westward under a cloud of misery and poverty. No matter how dehumanized the Oakies must have felt, just repeat after me: People are not a commodity. They are not a "pool of labor." They are not automatons to be stored in soulless boxes as night. People are individuals with talents, desires, freedom of movement and freedom of choice. I won't name the political systems that treat them otherwise, but they certainly aren't capitalism.  The Democrats who have had firm control of the state during its years of decline would do well to remember that a society's most valuable asset is always its people, regardless of their wealth or clout. And finally: California residents aren't "the state's people." They're Americans. They're free to work, come, and go as they please. Since few of Finley's arguments are actually valid, it occurs to me that the Journal's contempt is for people, companies, and, by extension, places that actually make things. In the Dakotas and Texas they pull money out of the ground, and on Wall Street many people make money out of little but spreadsheets and lies. In California—awful, depressed, repressive California—we make spacecraft that go to Mars. We make movies and music. We make iPads and iPhones and every computer-related piece of hardware and software imaginable. We make medical devices, and we devise techniques for which those devices are used. We make food. And, if spreadsheets and financiers wet your whistle, we even have venture capitalists who pay for all that stuff. What's great about living in a nation—and having a national economy—is that instead of fomenting petty (and not-so-petty) rivalries, we have the opportunity to complement each other and draw on each other's strengths. So, if Finley and her ilk want to move to shacks in a god-forsaken corner of Texas, that's their prerogative. If they want to live in a dynamic, diverse, wealthy, innovative, and, yes, sometimes turbulent place with other people who feel the same—then California's doors will always be open. And California's planners had better plan accordingly.  Fortunately for us--rich, poor, native, and newcomer alike--they already are. This column has been edited since its original posting.

After a bruising campaign that saw energy company AES spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, Redondo Beach voters have rejected a local ballot initiative that would have rezoned AES's beachfront power plant to parks and commercial uses. AES still must receive California Energy Commission approval to rebuild the plant, which must stop using ocean water to cool its steam turbines no later than 2020. Defeat of Measure A, however, makes CEC approval of continuing power plant operations more likely. A group of local residents – many of whom were also involved in the plan to kill the "Heart of the City" development plan a decade ago – placed Measure A on the ballot. The zone change could have been overruled by the Energy Commission but that would have been unlikely. "We don't understand why anybody would support building industrial blight in the harbor when we're trying to invest hundreds of millions in the revitalization of the harbor," Measure A supporter and City Council candidate Jim Light told the Daily Breeze. Light now faces Measure A opponent Jeff Ginsburg in a runoff election in May for the city council seat in District 1, located near the power plant. Measure A lost by a vote of 53%-47%. The initiative lost in every City Council district in the city except District 2, where the power plant is located. About 54% of the voters in District 2 supported Measure A. Even in District 2, however, mail voters supported the measure while precinct voters opposed it. The City Council and the Chamber of Commerce opposed the measure. The initiative's backers spent about $80,000 on their campaign, while the opponents spent more than $330,000, virtually of which came from AES.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge has – for the second time – ruled against three Peninsula cities who filed suit against the High-Speed Rail Authority under the California Environmental Quality Act. Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto originally filed suit in 2008, claiming that HSR had not adequately analyzed the Altamont Pass alignment before choosing the Pacheco Pass alignment, which will require the rail line to traverse the Peninsula. After Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ordered HSR to make some changes to the EIR, the three cities sued again, arguing this time that because HSR is now considering a "blended" project, the environmental analysis is no longer sufficient. The "blended" project, which was approved by HSR in part because of pressure from the Peninsula cities, would be a two-track system in which the tracks are shared by HSR and the Caltrain commuter rail line. Previously, HSR had proposed a four-track system with HSR and Caltrain running on separate tracks. Kenny ruled that HSR had "fully complied" with his prior rulings. He further concluded that HSR had considered the two-track alternative in the original EIR, even though the four-track alternative was the EIR's focus. He said parts of the EIR dealt with phasing and the possibility of a blended system. He said the EIR's discussion of a blended alternative was sufficient even though the blended system was not explicitly set forth as an alternative. "Specifically, the discussion of the phased or blended system disclosed to the public, and to the decision-makers, what the changed effects of such a system would be," Kenny wrote. "That disclosure served the information purposes of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) whether the blended system in the Caltrain corridor is an interim step toward final construction or whether, as petitioners contend, it may be the final end point for construction." Pull-quote The judge said the EIR's discussion of a blended alternative was sufficient even though the blended system was not explicitly set forth as an alternative. He also rejected the cities' contention that the new emphasis on the blended approach should require the rail authority to recirculate its EIR, triggering a fresh public-review process. The environmental report's discussion of phasing and implementation of the blended system, Kenny wrote, "served the goal of meaningful public participation in the CEQA review process." The rail authority, Kenny wrote, "adequately disclosed to the public how the project would be implemented and described in adequate detail what the environmental consequences of such implementation would be." "Even if the process was not absolutely perfect, it was sufficient to comply with CEQA," Kenny wrote.

Is the California Environmental Quality Act finally on the verge of major reform? Or will CEQA's defenders succeed in limiting the reform to just nibbling around the edges, without attacking the law's basic structure? Up until the resignation last month of Senate Environmental Quality Chair Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, it sure looked like major reform was a possibility. A conservative Democrat from a pro-growth (and oil-producing) region, Rubio had been pushing hard since last summer for major reform that would alter CEQA's fundamental framework. Though Rubio backed down last August when challenged by Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, , he appeared likely to make a serious run at reform this year. Instead he quit in the middle of his term to take a government relationsh job with Chevron. With Rubio gone, Steinberg quickly introduced a placeholder bill. Though short on specifics, SB 731 would seem to suggest a much less aggressive approach to reform. Meanwhile, CEQA's hardiest defenders – including the Planning & Conservation League, other environmental groups, and unions that often use CEQA litigation to challenge non-union retail stores – rallied support around the existing law. Traditionally, the debate over CEQA reform in Sacramento have broken down along partisan lines. Pro-business Republicans, including the homebuilders and the Chamber of Commerce, would say CEQA needed to be repealed or significantly weakened because it put California at a competitive advantage compared to surrounding states. Pro-environment Democrats would hold the line, saying CEQA protected both the environment and the right of citizen and neighborhood groups to protect their interests.  As a result, there has been little CEQA reform in the Legislature over the years. But the CEQA fault lines have shifted in recent years, as some Democrats have begun to call for major reform. Since becoming governor again two years ago, Jerry Brown – an unfettered environmentalist in his first gubernatorial stint 35 years ago – has become a significant critic of CEQA, proposing that the law be streamlined for both infill and renewable energy projects. Brown expressed considerable disappointment at Rubio's resignation. Now the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward the CEQA status quo, at least in the Legislature. So, with Rubio gone, Brown on the warpath, and CEQA advocates on the defensive, what's likely to happen?  It would appears as though CEQA reform could take three directions: the Rubio approach, a greenfield/infill split, or incremental reform. The Rubio Approach: One aspect of CEQA that has always driven critics crazy is the fact that its practitioners can apply shifting and inconsistent standards of environmental protection, which often don't line up with the standards contained in substantive environmental laws, such as the California Endangered Species Act. Rubio had proposed revising CEQA so that if environmental standards in the substantive laws are met, no CEQA analysis is required. On the surface this idea makes sense, though it would probably require the state to revise the standards in other environmental laws so they are consistently strong. But CEQA defenders oppose this idea, partly because it would reduce their ability to use CEQA as a hammer on developers. The Greenfield/Infill Split:  A second emerging idea – one that was discussed at the beginning of the Brown Administration – would be to create two separate CEQAs, one for greenfield projects and one for infill projects. Infill advocates such as Gov. Brown are often steamed that good projects in infill locations get hung up because of CEQA traffic analysis and other procedural CEQA hurdles. A separate infill law could limit the scope of CEQA analysis and make it more difficult to oppose such projects. CEQA defenders don't like the idea of limiting citizen power over infill projects, especially in environmental justice situations. Incremental Reform: This appears to be the approach Steinberg wants to take in SB 731 and, if Steinberg sides with the CEQA defenders, it may be the only approach that is politically feasible. As Steinberg introduced it, SB 731 calls for statewide significance thresholds on noise, aesthetics, parking, and traffic levels of service as well as land use impacts. The bill also calls for a variety of procedural changes, including limiting "late hits" and "document dumps," defining "new information" more specifically, and directing trial judges to focus only on inadequate portions of environmental documents rather than remanding the entire document for review. All these would be welcome reforms – especially more consistency in significance thresholds, which CEQA critics have argued in favor of for the last 20 years. But they wouldn't fundamentally alter the law. CEQA would still be a procedural law, and even the simplifying changes would be implemented in context of a complicated set of procedures. As the debate over implementation of SB 226 has shown , how helpful this is depends a lot on your perspective. If you're a down-in-the-trenches CEQA practitioner, you probably think anything helps. But if you believe that the complicated procedural nature of CEQA is the fundamental problem, then you probably think these changes don't amount to much. At the core of this debate is the basic role that CEQA plays. By proposing that CEQA re-focus on standards of environmental protection, Rubio had put his finger on the thing that people either love or hate about CEQA: It's basically a ‘70s law, focused on process rather than substance. As CEQA lecturers (including me) have had to explain endlessly, the primary goal of CEQA is not to protect the environment. The primary goal is to foster a vigorous debate about the environmental consequences of governmental decisions and fuel that debate with lots of information. The secondary goal – one almost as important to the CEQA diehards – is to empower citizens to challenge their government whenever they think it is appropriate to do so. Over the past 30 years, in California and elsewhere, we have seen a gradual shift away from this mindset in many situations, as politicians and policymakers alike have placed greater emphasis on "getting things done" while substantively protecting the environment and less emphasis on procedure and analysis. Brown, Rubio, and other Democrats would still like to move in that direction. But with Rubio gone, the CEQA diehards appear to have the upper hand for now. Pull-quote The CEQA fault lines have shifted in recent years, as some Democrats have begun to call for major reform.

Like the plot of the Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day, Sacramento politicians are back to the same story on redevelopment this year. It's a re-run of last year, with proponents of redevelopment re-introducing many of the same bills as last year.  Attempts to resurrect redevelopment were a flop in 2012 when Governor Jerry Brown vetoed most redevelopment-related bills. This year, there is hope for a different ending, where Brown and his Democratic allies can find themselves in agreement on future steps to aid economic development at the local level.  Last year's installment ended in late September, when Brown vetoed SB 1156, an attempt to resuscitate redevelopment by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. The measure, known as the sustainable communities bill, tried to bring back redevelopment as an infill development tool. Last fall, though, Brown was in the thick of a battle to raise taxes through Proposition 30, and he turned down the measure along with several others. He said in his veto message that "expanding the scope of infrastructure financing districts is premature" and that he wanted redevelopment wound down and general fund savings achieved.  But in the new session of the legislature, Steinberg signaled redevelopment's importance by introducing the old SB 1156 as the first bill of the session. Now known as SB 1, the bill is identical to last year's version. It passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on March 13 on a 4-2 party line vote, with one Democrat, Ed Hernandez, abstaining. The measure is next headed for a vote in the Senate Transportation and Housing committee, which has not yet scheduled a hearing, according to Brian Weinberger, a consultant to the Governance and Finance Committee. (The bill is being heard by a second committee because the subject matter crosses jurisdictions of both committees, according to Steve Shea, an aide to Steinberg.) With little doubt about its passage in the legislature, SB 1 is expected to land on the governor's desk soon.  In remarks on SB 1 to the committee, Steinberg said "the concerns that led to the veto are being resolved, and by late spring most of the successor agencies are likely to be deemed compliant with the asset dissolution requirements of AB 26X and AB 1484." Steinberg noted that Proposition 30's passage left the state in  "a much stronger fiscal position." He added, "I believe that 2013 will be the year that we can put that chapter behind us and find new ways to move forward and fill the void in local economic development and housing policy."  So the real question is what Governor Brown will do. Will he continue to fight redevelopment? Or reward his party, which is expected to have a veto-proof majority when the bill gets to him? An aide to the governor refused comment on Brown's position on the bill, saying "we don't generally make comments on bills until they are on his desk." Brown has told the newly emboldened State Legislature not to overplay its hand and overspend. Whether that attitude will carry over to redevelopment remains to be seen.  But in Brown's veto message last year on SB 1156, he provided hope to redevelopment's proponents, by saying, "I am committed to working with the Legislature and interested parties on the important task of revitalizing our communities." "I don't think any doors were slammed last year," said Dan Carrigg, legislative director of the League of California Cities.   Steinberg's latest bill prevents redevelopment money from coming from local school districts, a problem that redevelopment agencies faced before redevelopment ended in February 2012. SB 1 also fits in with legislative mandates to promote infill development and low polluting industry in order to reduce global warning. Under SB 1, new redevelopment agencies would be known as sustainable communities investment authorities, and would focus on developments in areas around mass transit, small walkable communities and clean manufacturing. In addition, 20% of the resources of the new agencies will be spent on affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families.  Steinberg's bill would require independent financial audits every five years.  The new law is expected to focus development on urban cores, Carrigg said. However, he said that SB 1 and other new bills on redevelopment before the legislature won't recreate something "as robust as redevelopment." "But cities will get more tools that help create a toolbox to respond to the challenge of urban California,"he said. A Governance and Finance Committee analysis of the bill forsees fewer areas being eligible for redevelopment. "Not all cities and counties have territory within their jurisdictions that meets SB 1's relatively narrow requirements for the formation of project areas," the analysis says. In addition "...SB 1 will generate less tax increment revenue for local governments than was generated by redevelopment."  Carrigg predicts it would take a few years before tax increment areas could be set up and then raise enough funds to finance new projects. The outcome of SB 1 may be tied to a number of other bills on redevelopment that are expected to reach the governor's desk at the same time. Some of the bills are new, and others are similar to ones Brown vetoed last year.  Those bills include:  SB 33 by Lois Wolk, D-Davis, which makes it easier for local governments to form infrastructure financing districts. A similar measure, SB 214, was vetoed by Brown last year. His veto message said the new law would have changed the focus to new tools "instead of winding down redevelopment."   SB 391 by Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), which would generate $500 million in affordable housing funds. In contrast, under redevelopment, $1 billion in money for affordable housing was generated, Carrigg said.  AB 294 by Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), which directs the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to work with local government on transit-oriented development and affordable housing projects. The measure would also allow an infrastructure financing district to use the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund portion of incremental tax revenue.  AB 229 by Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles), which would expand types of local projects that are financed by existing infrastructure financing districts. Brown vetoed the similar AB 2144 in September.  AB 243 by Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento), which would authorize new redevelopment districts, and issuance of debt for those areas with 55% of the vote.    Said Carrigg of the League of California Cities:  "I think we're early in the process.  Things can mature later in the year." Pull-quote: The outcome of SB 1 may be tied to a number of other bills on redevelopment that are expected to reach the governor's desk at the same time.

The Court of Appeal has upheld an environmental impact report dealing with mining in a dry riverbed in Santa Barbara County. Troesh Materials, Inc. submitted an application to the County of Santa Barbara ("County") to operate a new mine within the dry bed of the Cayuma River. The mine would be positioned away from the active streambed and roughly 1,500 feet upstream from an existing, active mine. Potential excavation could proceed to a maximum depth of 90 feet, with an average production of 500,000 cubic yards per year. Save Cayuma Valley, the petitioner, filed a CEQA petition for writ of mandate, which was denied in the trial court. The ensuing appeal involved two topical areas: hydrological and water resource (supply/quality) impacts. As to the first area, the appellate court upheld the County's use of a threshold of significance specific to this proposed project. The County was not compelled to use CEQA's Appendix G thresholds, nor was it obligated to explain why it elected to not use Appendix G thresholds, nor was it obligated to formally adopt the alternative threshold. Addressing appellant's challenge to the impact conclusions, the appellate court applied the substantial evidence test and concluded that ample evidence (based in part on the evidence and experience acquired from the existing mine located 1500 feet away), existed that there would be insignificant impacts resulting from headcutting or scouring. Appellants also criticized the EIR's suggestion of no impacts followed by then the addition of a proposed mitigation measure, arguing internal inconsistency. The EIR acknowledged that there was some uncertainty in the impact analysis, thus, the appellate court found no inconsistency in the use of backstopping mitigation, but simply a conservative CEQA assessment. The appellate court then assessed the challenge to one of the mitigation measures. The dispute centered on a mitigation measure responsive to potential hydrology impacts. Despite the EIR's analysis that the impacts would be not be significant, the EIR also recognized the potential for uncertainty, and on that basis, included a mitigation measure, and with that measure, concluded that there would be a less than significant impact. This measure required semi-annual surveys up and downstream be submitted to the State's Office of Mine Reclamation ("OMR"), the County's Planning and Development Department, and the County's Flood Control District as part of OMR's SMARA compliance review.  The purpose of this review would be to "confer with the County agencies to modify the mining pit layout, width and/or depth to avoid these impacts" should those be detected as part of the review. Although this requirement lacked the detail typically sought in performance based mitigation, the appellate court concluded that as this mitigation requirement was part of the EIR's discussion of hydrologic impacts, the court could rely upon that analysis to establish a context for understanding the mitigation requirement. In other words, the discussion within the EIR provided the missing framework and context to shore up the mitigation requirement. Accordingly, the appellate court rejected appellant's arguments that mitigation lacked the required performance standards to avoid a challenge of deferred mitigation. The final matters of concern involved water supply and water quality. Appellant claimed that it was error for the lead agency to use the same threshold of significance for both direct and cumulative water supply impact, further arguing that the cumulative effects had been ignored.  The appellate court disagreed, concluding that the standard that was used satisfied the required cumulative analysis, and despite the failure to look at non-cumulative effects, the error was rectified by the more rigorous cumulative impact analysis.  The appellate court did agree with the appellant that insufficient evidence supported the conclusion of no impact to groundwater, given that the EIR contained potentially conflicting data as to groundwater levels. The County had required compliance with a mitigation measure designed to protect groundwater contamination by requiring a six foot separation between depth of excavation and groundwater, the effectiveness of this strategy which was uncontested. However, in this particular situation, the appellant could not show that the EIR's unsubstantiated conclusion regarding no impact resulted in prejudicial error. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate was properly denied.   Save Cayuma Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) ___ Cal. App. 4th ___.

A 10-cent-per-plastic-bag fee imposed by Los Angeles County is not subject to Proposition 26 because the revenues are retained by the retailers and not given over to the county, an appellate court has ruled. The County of Los Angeles enacted an ordinance prohibiting retail stores from providing plastic carryout bags and requiring the stores to charge customers 10 cents for each paper bag provided. Among other provisions, the ordinance provided that the money received by the store for recyclable paper carryout bags must be retained by the store and used only for (1) the costs of compliance with the ordinance; (2) the actual costs of providing recyclable paper bags; or (3) the costs of educational materials or other costs of promoting the use of reusable bags. Taxpayers, along with a manufacturer of plastic bags, filed suit alleging that the fee violated Proposition 26 because the 10-cent charge was in fact a tax that had not been approved by voters. Proposition 26 was passed by the California voters in 2010, and was intended to fill in coverage gaps resulting from judicial interpretations of prior tax control initiatives: Propositions 13 and 218. The trial court rejected this argument on the basis that the collected revenues (10 cents for each recyclable paper carryout bag) were retained by the retail establishment, not the government. As such, the 10-cent fee was not subject to Proposition 26. The plaintiffs/petitioners appealed. The appellate decision includes a succinct history of key Proposition 13 and 218 decisions. The court also analyzed Proposition 26 in detail, and acknowledged that the measure was ambiguous on the question of "who gets the funds?" Reading the measure as a whole, the appellate court reached a similar conclusion to that of the trial court: as the enactment did not result in revenue to the county, it was not subject to Proposition 26, and therefore, was not subject to voter approval requirements. < case : name and lexis cite with djdar cite number > case : name and lexis cite with djdar cite number > Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles (February 2, 2013, B240592) ___Cal.App.4th ___.

Southern California may have a reputation as the car capital of the world, but walking and biking is apparently becoming more important. This week, the National Complete Streets Coalition ranked three SoCal cities among the Top 10 best Complete Streets policies nationwide. The beachfront town of Hermosa Beach was #2. The poor Latino city of Huntington Park was #3. And the affluent inland city of Rancho Cucamonga was #10. Overall, the Complete Streets coalition found that more than 100 Complete Streets policies had been adopted in 2012, increasing the national total to almost 500. "complComplete Streets policies encourage the redesign of roadways to accommodate travelers by many modes, not just cars. California's Complete Streets policies may be moving quickly because of the state's Complete Streets law , which requires local plans to incorporate Complete Streets concepts. The Complete Streets policies were ranked by 10 criteria:  Vision and Intent All users modes All projects and phases Clear, accountable exceptions Network Jurisdiction Design Context Sensitivity Performance measures Implementation Steps -- Hermosa Beach, Huntington Park, and Rancho Cucamonga -- as being in

Not long ago, the Census Bureau released some new analyses of commuting, focused especially on "mega-commuting" – that is, commuters who drive more than 50 miles and 90 minutes one way. The numbers are predictably frightening – these folks travel extremely long distances, using up a lot of time, gas, and road capacity on the process. But mega-commuters only make up about 2% of all commuters. The bigger message from the Census data is a much more prosaic – and discouraging – message about ordinary, day-to-day commuting. Planners in California and elsewhere often believe that by changing land use patterns, we can change commuting patterns. But commuting patterns are stubbornly persistent. Once they are established, they never change. They're basically fixed. It's so common that most of the time we don't even notice. In Southern California, for example, we talk constantly about the problem of commuters from Riverside County to Orange and San Diego counties. And these numbers are indeed big – 67,000 to Orange and 36,000 to San Diego. But they are dwarfed by some of the more mature county-to-county commuting relationships. The strongest commuting relationship in the state is between Los Angeles and Orange County, and the cross-commute is almost exactly even – with 181,000 commuters traveling from L.A. to Orange and 178,000 the other way. As Figure 1 show, the commuting relationships between Santa Clara County and Alameda and San Mateo counties—though much smaller and tilted somewhat toward Santa Clara – are similar.  Indeed, even the cross-commutes between San Bernardino and Riverside counties – two counties generally considered bedroom suburbs – dwarf Riverside's connection to Orange and San Diego. Almost 90,000 people commute each day from Riverside to San Bernardino, while 65,000 people go on the other direction. And who would believe that there are just as many Ventura-LA commuters as there are Riverside-Orange commuters? (As more jobs have been created in Ventura County, the Ventura-LA number hasn't declined; instead, the LA-Ventura number has gone up.) So, the moral of the story isn't that better land use and transportation planning will change hardened commuting patterns. Those will probably stay. All California planners can hope for is to create new patterns that new commuters will follow.  Strongest Cross-County Commuting Patterns

Over the past few weeks, issues concerning the Central Valley's future growth and development plans have gained widespread attention throughout the state – even causing Governor Brown to intervene in the Valley's deliberation processes. With the Central Valley region growing at a faster rate than any other region in California, the policy outcomes of the region's "growth wars" will provide the context in which the Valley's cities and counties will be able to accommodate its growing population.  Regardless of how the region decides to grow, the Valley must address the challenges of its rapidly growing population by adopting development policies that meet the needs of future market demands while aiming to preserve its most valuable economic resource: farmland. And based on the results of a recent study, one thing is for certain: Past planning and development practices should no longer be an option for its future.  Instead, Valley leaders should look to Arthur C. Nelson's recent study "A Home for Everyone: San Joaquin Valley Housing Preferences and Opportunities to 2050" for answers. The report comes to a very simple conclusion: Economic and demographic changes in the Valley mean that the predominant large-lot single-family pattern should change, with smaller lots and more multi-family development in the future. Here are some highlights:  Demographic Trends o Over the next four years, the household population will grow by 72%, requiring approximately 700,000 new households by 2050.  o The Hispanic population will become the Valley's new majority population.  Economic Trends o National homeownership rates are projected to further decline. o Incomes are projected to remain stagnated over a 10-year time period. o Energy costs and gas prices will continue to increase. Consumer Preferences o Almost half (48%) of the total housing demand will be for single-family homes on smaller lots of less than 6,000 square feet. o Residents prefer walkable neighborhoods and homes that are closer to jobs and transit. To accommodate the growing household population and meet market demands by 2050, a study from The Concord Group (2012) projected that 45% of all new residential units built before 2050 should be attached units -- apartments, townhomes and condominiums. Currently, the region's supply includes only 5% of these types of residential units.  The Valley's current mismatch between the housing market's supply and demand should signal a red flag to leaders and deter them from enabling growth through large-lot, single family homes that not only fail to meet market demands, but risk the loss of its already over-compromised farmlands. The American Farmland Trust found in a recent study that business as usual development in the Valley would result in a loss of almost 600,000 acres of irreplaceable farmland and a $100-190 billion loss in economic value.  Fortunately, Nelson's valley housing report provides leaders with a smarter development alternative- one that responds to future market demands and preserves valuable farmland. The report recommends that all new attached residential development and nonresidential development could be directed to infill and redevelopment of areas that are already developed. To implement this type of change and prevent the resurgence of past development patterns, the report advises leaders to change their current zoning and development regulations to policies that facilitate mixed use developments and direct new growth to infill and redevelopment areas.

At least forty-two lawsuits have been filed in the past year regarding disputes arising from the end of redevelopment, according to a study by the League of California Cities. League officials there think even more lawsuits have been filed in recent weeks.  The League's analysis found that lawsuits fell into four main categories: true-up payments, ROPS (recognized obligation payment schedules) , constitutional challenges, and housing-related disputes. Thirty-six of the cases were filed by cities and local agencies.  H.D Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, says the many of the cases are "narrowly focused targeted items" involving issues like ROPS.  Palmer says the department's own count from early January is that there have been 17 lawsuits involving enforceable obligations. DOF counts eight lawsuits by nonprofit or private petitioners, he said. The cases have been filed in Sacramento County Superior Court.  In contrast, the League's figures show that six cases were filed by private entities. The League's report also noted that 15 of the 42 cases were already resolved, with mixed results.  "We assumed there would be litigation relating to the dissolution of redevelopment," Palmer said, adding "our preference is not to go the litigation route." Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of Cities, said the savings that were supposed to come from the end of redevelopment are creating the conflicts with the cities and the DOF.  "The Department of Finance is under pressure from the governor's office to produce as much savings as possible," he said, claiming that the administration "significantly overestimated how much they could get out of this program."  Jennifer Farrell, an attorney with Rutan & Tucker, a Costa Mesa law firm which has filed many cases against the Department of Finance, said, "it needs to go to litigation to get their attention." But with another round of ROPS due to the state Department of Finance on March 1 (with results of that reviews released by April 15), can another round of lawsuits be far behind?  Cities may find more resolve in filing lawsuits based on recent victories against the Department of Finance.  "They've settled some of these cases. They've admitted they've been wrong," said McKenzie. Some of the legal matters are resolved quickly without heading to full-bore litigation. For example, in a recent matter involving the city of Duarte, the city sued the Department of Finance on Dec. 18, and a portion of the matter, involving $1.2 million in low- and moderate-income housing funds, was resolved several days later after the Department of Finance dropped its objections. Duarte continues to press on with a larger dispute over $8.3 million in housing funds, also filed on Dec. 18. Among cases that settled, the city of El Cerrito in Contra Costa County settled a case in December that allowed it to skip a $1.7 million true up payment.  But as cases settle, more cases have been filed. The city of Murrieta in Riverside County sued in December over a DOF decision to invalidate two payments--one a $3 million payment from the city to the redevelopment agency and the second a $1.2 million payment to developers on an affordable housing project called Monte Vista.  San Bernardino County announced on January 9 that it would sue over two funding disputes. The first is approximately $10 million for reconstruction of infrastructure in the Cedar Glen area near Lake Arrowhead. Redevelopment funds were used to rebuild roads and water systems after a huge fire there in 2003. The second is for redevelopment of the industrial area of San Sevaine near Fontana.  And in early February, Rancho Cordova – east of Sacramento – sued DOF to recup $6 million in funds the city loaned to the former RDA.  Palmer of the Department of Finance pointed to the San Bernardino County's lawsuit as an example of each entity misunderstanding what the other is doing. Palmer said the San Sevaine project was not denied, and the Cedar Glen project could still be eligible for funding after a more thorough review.   Some of the other cities listed on the League of Cities litigation report include National City, Oceanside, Palmdale, Glendale, Walnut, Pittsburg, San Diego, Fresno, San Jose, Morgan Hill, Apple Valley and Brea. In addition, the League itself filed suit in September challenging the constitutionality of parts of AB 1484. A separate suit by a coalition of cities, including the city of Bellflower, is also challenging some of the same issues, said Patrick Whitnell, general counsel for the California League of Cities. The main issue is over provisions in the law that allow the Department of Finance to withhold sales tax and property tax revenues from local governments that don't meet its payment requests related to redevelopment. A hearing on the League's lawsuit is set for April 19.  In November, the city of Petaluma in Sonoma County sued the Department of Finance for denying its use of $22 million in transportation projects. The first was a denial of $15 million for two Highway 101 interchange projects, and the second project was $7.5 million earmarked for a cross-town connector project.  Both McKenzie and Department of Finance agree that meet-and-confer provisions  passed in 2012 as part of AB 1484 have helped avoid even more lawsuits.  The law provides an appeal process for cities when the department rules against it on such matters as ROPS. Several suits have been filed by housing developers as well.  Rutan & Tucker succeeded in mid-January in a suit on affordable housing in Oxnard, where its private developer client CRFL Family Apartments succeeded in a ruling on a 120- unit development near Highway 101.  Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that the state must recognize a $14.2 million contract for an affordable housing project. The city had pledged that money for a $44 million project in an agreement in 2010 with Oxnard Family Apartments. The project was later transferred to CRFL Family Apartments.  One area of contention between the cities and the Department of Finance is that some of the ROPS were questioned in the third round of review last fall, after escaping notice in early rounds of review by the state. But Palmer said his department had a huge volume of ROPs to review in early 2012 after the Supreme Court's ruling allowing the state government to dissolve redevelopment agencies. He said the department can continue to review ROPs that escaped scrutiny in earlier rounds.  Contacts:  H.D. Palmer, Department of Finance (916)323-0648 Chris McKenzie, California League of Cities (916)658-8200 Patrick Whitnell, general counsel, California League of Cities (916)658-8281   Jennifer Farrell, Rutan & Tucker (714) 641-5100 The California League of Cities report is updated every few weeks.

Two weeks ago, CP&DR reported on a study by the law firm of Holland  & Knight that broke down 95 legal challenges to projects under the California Environmental Quality Act over the past 15 years. The study provided a comprehensive look for the firs ttime - finding, for example, that 60% of the cases challenged "infill" development projects as opposed to "greenfield", and over 70% of the cases were brought forth by local organizations. But what about the outcomes of these cases? Sixty percent of projects challenged may be "infill" type projects, but are they more likely to be shot down than "greenfield" type projects? Similarly, 73% of the cases were filed by local organizations, but to what extent are they victorious? The 15-year time period shows a success rate for plaintiffs of close to 50%, but did this trend hold over time? Seeking these answers, CP&DR broke down the Holland & Knight study to take a closer look at what's really going on. Here are some highlights: * Though more infill projects are challenged, these challenges are much less likely to be successful. Only 31% of infill challenges were successful, compared to 55% of greenfield challenges. * The success rate for legal challenges has been dropping steadily since 1997 - from 70% in the 1997-2002 period to only 34% in the 2007-2012 period. * Legal challenges are most likely to succeed against infrastructure and industrial projects (more than 60%). Challenges were least likely to be successful against commercial projects (less than 30%). * Legal challenges against public projects were more successful than legal challenges against private projects, though the difference was small (50% to 44%). * Local plaintiffs were more likely to succeed than non-local plaintiffs, though again the difference was small (49% to 41%).