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%).

All last year, local government nerds throughout California -- this one included  -- assumed that Jerry Brown would sign a bill to bring back redevelopment if one landed on his desk. So we were all shocked -- shocked! -- when he vetoed every substantive bill the Legislature gave him. (You can read about my surprise here . And based on the comments of some people at the UCLA land use conference on Friday, some of us are still shocked. But maybe we shouldn't have been. Maybe it's pretty simple.  Here's what San Gabriel City Manager said on Friday: "The governor will not sign a bill until he has clawed back every single penny from the successor agencies that he thinks he can get." Looked through this lens, I have to admit, it all makes sense. DOF is squeezing cities for all the former redevelopment funds it can possibly get, and the beancounters there are not done. The budget looks good, but Brown is not the kind of guy to let up once he sets his sights on something. And what leverage does he have? The veto pen. I've floated a lot of theories about this. He's still mad at the cities and wants to punish them. He doesn't want anybody to think he's going to let the old redevelopment system be resurrected in any way, shape or form, so he's waiting for the body to get cold. But maybe Steve's right: He's holding redevelopment revival hostage until he gets all his money. So simple.

The California Environmental Quality Act has long been driven more by the courts than by the Legislature. And 2013 is likely to be a big year in court for EQA. Five pending cases before the California Supreme Court -- and a sixth that might be heard -- could significantly affect how both localities and colleges apply the California Environmental Quality Act. The cases involve such items as infill exemptions, whether a lack of state funding makes a mitigation infeasible, whether lower fire response times are an environmental impact, and when to use a future environmental baseline.  Infill Exemption: Rendered Meaningless? Perhaps the most significant is a challenge to categorical exemptions for infill development and small structures that were used by the City of Berkeley in dealing with construction of a large house on an existing single-family home. The Court of Appeal ruled against the city  in  and if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling it could punch a hole in the infill exemption in particular. The case involved the proposed construction of a large single-family home with a 10-car garage on an existing lot, resulting in a structure of almost 10,000 square feet. The plaintiffs in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley  said that this triggered the "unusual circumstances" exception to the infill exemption. The city noted that there are many other houses of similar size nearby, but the First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. As Cox Castle & Nicholson's Michael Zischke put it, "Under Berkeley Hillside, every potentially significant impact is itself an unusual circumstance" -- which, of course, makes the infill exemption meaningless. State Funding of Mitigation Measures: Infeasible? The Supreme Court has also granted review in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees , a case in which the Court of Appeal rejected California State University's argument that an off-site traffic mitigation associated with a development prject at San Diego State is infeasible because the state Legislature has not appropriated funding for it.  Several local agencies, led by the City of San Diego, sued, claiming that Cal State needed to look at a variety of funding sources. On appeal Cal State relied on City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University , 39 Cal.4th 341 (2006), in which the California Supreme Court concluded that the power of a state agency to mitigate impacts is "ultimately subject to legislative control" and if the legislature doesn't appropriate the money "the power does not exist". However, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that the Supreme Court's language in the City of Marina case is dictum and therefore not binding. The court said Cal State should look to a variety of other possible funding sources for the money. Are Lower Response Times An Environmental Impact? One of the biggest debates around CEQA is whether its breadth reaches to impact on public services such as traffic, schools, and public safety. On the one hand, traffic is a well-established part of CEQA analysis; on the other hand, it's also well established that the impact of development on schools is not an environmental impact, unless it forces the construction of new schools which, in themselves, have an environmental impact. Which leaves public safety. In City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of California State University -- another dispute between a city and Cal State -- Hayward challenged Cal State's environmental impact report for the long-term master plan for Cal State East Bay. The EIR identified the impact on public services and noted that the the campus expansion would require the construction of a new fire station and the hiring of 11 new firefighters. However, the EIR concluded that the fire station's impacts would be less than significant because it would be built in an infill location, as would most of the expansion. Hayward sued, claiming that Cal State should have mitigated the cost impact of the additional firefighters. Relying on Goleta Union School District v. Regents, 37 Cal.App.4th 1025 (1995), the First District ruled against the city. "Although there is undoubtedly a cost involved int he provision of additional emergency services, there is no authority upholding the city's view that CEQA shifts financial responsibility for the provision of adequate fire and emergency response services to the project sponsor. The city has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate fire protection services." The court also upheld a traffic mitigation plan against Hayward's argument that the plan impermissibly punted on the mitigation. The Supreme Court has granted review but has deferred briefing until after the San Diego State case is determined. Can A Lead Agency Use A Future Baseline? Last spring, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled against a group of residents in the West Los Angeles neighborhood of Cheviot Hills who had challenged the use of a future environmental baseline in the environmental impact report for the Expo Line. The ruling muddied the waters on the whole future baseline question, so the Supreme Court will soon hear the case. The Expo Line construction authority's reasoning was that it made no sense to measure the projects environmental impacts against a current environmental baseline when a project won't be constructed for several years. In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the Second District ruled that   Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale , 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 (2010), in which the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that Sunnyvale should not have used a future baseline to estimate traffic mitigations. The Second District also said that the California Supreme Court's ruling in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast AQMD , 48 Cal.4th 310 (2010), did not apply in this case. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that because Conoco already had regulatory permission to emit a certain amount of pollutants, it could use a theoretical future baseline that assumed the permitted pollutant level had been reached.  Is All GIS Data Public? Here's one that is not a CEQA case, but Zischke says may be of interest to CEQA practitioners: When is a GIS database a "public record" subject to release at no cost under the Public Records Act and when is it a "computer mapping system" exempt from that law because it is software and, therefore, for which a government agency can charge a fee. CEQA analyses are often based on GIS analysis. In the case of Sierra Club v. Superior Court , the Sierra Club made a public records request for Orange County's GIS database, which included polygon boundaries for every parcel linked to names and addresses of parcel owners. Like many counties, Orange County has historically charged a fee for this information as a way to recoup cost, though it offered to provide the Sierra Club with a PDF version for free. The appellate court ruled that the GIS database was a computer mapping system exempt from the Public Records Act, meaning the county could charge a fee. Petition for Review Pending: Can An Initiative Be Adopted Without A Vote -- And Without CEQA Review? In December, CP&DR reported on a Fifth District Court of Appeal ruling that a voter initiative and CEQA that appeared to create a conflict between districts. That case is pending before the Supreme Court and review could be granted soon. In Jobs & Small Business Alliance Tuolomne v. Superior Court , Cal.Appl.4th 1006 (2012), the City of Sonora was considering a pending Wal-Mart application -- complete with EIR -- when Wal-Mart filed signatures for an initiative to create a change in the land-use regulations that dispensed with need for discretionary review for the project. Rather than placing the measure before the voters, the Sonora City Council adopted it -- as is their privilege under elections law -- and did not conduct a CEQA analysis on the change, as some previous case law suggests. The Fifth District ruled that this was impemissible and a CEQA analysis was required. However, in 2004, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in another case, Native American Environmental Protection Assn. v. City of San Juan Capistrano , 120 Cap.App.4th 961, that legislative bodies do not have the discretion to conduct a CEQA review on an initiative they adopt rather than put before the voters. Thus, it would appear that a direct conflict between districts has been created.

End of Redevelopment Helps Balance Budget Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has described Governor Brown's budget proposal as "roughly" balanced. Brown was able to save money from major cut backs- like last year's dissolution of redevelopment agencies, and voter-approved tax increases, like Prop 30.  Clearlake Completes Redevelopment Wind-Down Clearlake Redevelopment Oversight Board has approved its state mandated fund report- finding a negative balance of $1,648, city acquired properties totaling a worth of  $1.2 million, and more than $936,000 to be disbursed to the county.  DOF Mandates That Stanislaus County Return $10 Million to State The DOF has decided the former redevelopment funds were not restricted to projects despite an October review that found the $10 million to be restricted for housing projects per the county's 1991 agreement with California Legal Rural Assistance. State officials disagreed with the review and ultimately required $10 million be returned to the county auditor-controller by Dec. 21. Business Deals of Hercules Former Redevelopment Agency Remain Unsettled Disputes between the city and a local fitness business continue as both parties have differing views on amounts owed to the city and on the terms of an oral purchase and financing agreement. The city has also failed to collect money owed from a local restaurant that closed in December. With the restaurant owing the city more than $112,000, several employees are also coming forth with claims of unpaid wages.  HUD Approves Onizuka Redevelopment in Sunnyvale With HUD's approval, Sunnyvale can move forward on redeveloping the former Onizuka air force station. The redevelopment plan includes an affordable housing project and a Foothill-De Anza Community College campus.

Now that DOF has decided 240 redevelopment appeals, the next step shouldn't surprise anybody: The lawsuits are beginning to roll in: Murietta sues over affordable housing, city loan Murrieta has sued DOF over its decision to invalidate two payments – one a $3 million payment to the city from the RDA and the second a $1.2 million payment to developers on an affordable housing project called Monte Vista San Bernardino County sues to get loan repayment San Bernardino has become the rare county to sue DOF, claiming money it provided to a redevelopment project as a loan should not be given to other taxing entities but, rather, repaid to the county. El Cerrito settles DOF lawsuit, will skip "true-up" payment El Cerrito has settled its lawsuit with DOF, which permitted the city to skip a $1.7 million "true-up" payment Meanwhile ... Oakland tries to cover $18.5 million in clawbacks The city always used redevelopment funds aggressively to cover operating costs. Oakland claims 2,000 affordable housing units are at risk.

Almost 60% of lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act challenge environmental review projects in infill locations as opposed to greenfield locations, according to a new analysis of 95 recent cases by two lawyers at Holland & Knight. The new analysis comes on the heels of three other recent studies concluding that CEQA actions are struck down by courts between 40-60% of the time, compared to virtually zero for NEPA. Mixed-use projects and infrastructure projects were challenged more frequently than any other type of project. Most of the EIRs were challenged on the basis of  water supply, traffic, or air quality. The study by veteran CEQA hands Jennifer Hernandez and Daniel Golub also concluded that about 70% of the plaintiffs in these cases were local organizations, most frequently environmental or homeowner groups. About two-thirds of the projects were private development projects, while a third were public projects. The Holland & Knight study is the fourth study by private CEQA practitioners on trends on CEQA litigation – a topic that has been the subject of lots of political spin over the years but very little empirical research In 2011, veteran CEQA lawyer Clem Shute found that over a 40-year period, courts had found CEQA EIRs inadequate more than 40% of the time, compared to 0% -- yes, zero – for NEPA compliance by federal agencies. More recently, the Thomas Law Group – the firm of veteran CEQA lawyer Tina Thomas – found that EIRs were successfully challenged about half the time , while Negative Declarations were successfully challenged 60% of the time. A recent study by Holland & Knight using the same database found that 52% of Categorical Exemptions were struck down in court as well . The latest Holland & Knight report was an analysis not of outcomes but of who sues and over what. It was based on 95 court challenges to environmental impact reports between 1997 and 2012.

As cities around the state are still stinging from the state's decision to deny many of their 240 redevelopment appeals, redevelopment skirmishes still continue around the state -- often about affordable housing projects that cities claim are nearing completion. Here's a sampling: Santa Ana sues DOF over affordable housing project KABC The City of Santa Ana in Orange County is suing the state Department of Finance over DOF's decision not to permit the city to complete construction on a 41-unit low-income housing project the city claims is 75% completed. Meanwhile, Santa Ana's city manager and city attorney are under fire and may be at risk of losing their jobs, though this controversy appears unrelated to the redevelopment situation.  Arcata owes money to contractors even though DOF has demanded it Eureka Times-Standard Meanwhile, the North Coast city of Arcata in Humboldt County claims that much of the money DOF has demanded was already paid to -- or is still owed to -- contractors on the Sandpipe affordable housing project. Tulare County sues Porterville over RDA expansion Porterville Recorder Redevelopment may not exist anymore, but that didn't stop Tulare County from suing Porterville over a 1,500-acre expansion to its redevelopment project area in 2010. Presumably Tulare County is seeking a financial settlement over tax-increment funds collected between June 2010, when the expansion occurred, and February 2012, when redevelopment ended.