Search Results

Californians voted cautiously this week if they chose to vote at all. It would be foolish to look for just one electoral mood in such a large state – but when voters considered ballot measures related to land use, they mainly chose to preserve status quos. This was conservatism in a sense not necessarily pro-business or libertarian, but almost more Tory than American in pattern. The current conditions that California voters chose to protect included existing open spaces, existing public services, and, in some cases, existing development potential. Voters were often willing to accept small new taxes. General-purpose sales taxes were most likely to pass but some special-purpose taxes were approved, especially for schools, infrastructure, transportation, parks and open space. Voters tended to reject dramatic hard-sell appeals or egalitarian political gestures related to land use. Tenant protections were scarce on the ballot and not favored. Anti-development measures tended to succeed when they defended open space but fail when they resisted infill. "No" campaigns often won by raising doubts about hidden consequences of complex measures. At CP&DR we have a selection of initial results on land use ballot measures posted at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3619 and many of the same measures are profiled further at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613. In this article we'll get to some of those, and a few more land use measures that other commenters have mentioned – from an anti-growth measure that failed in Menlo Park, to an expression of strong feelings against roundabouts in Placerville. Not In My Back Forty Open space measures did well, notably the passage of Santa Clara County Measure Q, a tax to preserve open space. Measure P, a much-criticized parks tax in Los Angeles County (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613), failed to reach the required 2/3 vote but won 62.04% of the vote . Anti-development campaigns did well when they focused on preservation of open space, as with the defeats of two eastern Bay Area measures: Dublin's Measure T, which would have countermanded open space measures, mainly on the eastern Doolan Canyon area; and Union City's Measure KK , which would have relaxed development limits for a proposed 63-acre mixed-use project with potential impacts beyond the current proposal. Measures did badly if they were presented as anti-development but had complex provisions that opponents could characterize as stealth upzoning. El Dorado County anti-development measures M, N and O all lost, but the strongest margin -- 75.0% no to 25.0% yes -- was against Measure N, which was criticized as having mixed effects that could support a Sacramento-based developer. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3565.) Similarly, the City of Riverside's Measure L would have approved a specific plan that both promised open space and was criticized as seeking development authorizations , lost by 56.83% "No" to 43.17% "Yes". The Press-Enterprise reported a small grassroots campaign, and skepticism about an out-of-town developer, defeated the measure. In Santa Monica, both Measure D and Measure LC used anti-development rhetoric (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613) in characterizing their measures as limiting potential future development of the Santa Monica Airport, but the winner was Measure LC, supported by conservationists and longtime opponents of airport noise. As the SF Chron 's architecture critic, John King, has noted, on three Bay Area measures, positions against downtown infill development lost: Measure R in Berkeley, which failed, would have imposed especially strict community-benefit requirements to exceed downtown height limits. (See our discussion of Measure R at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613.) Measure M in Menlo Park would have limited the size of commercial projects and would have capped new office space overall. It failed dramatically in Menlo Park's small voting electorate, with 62.25% (4,144 voters) opposed. In working-class San Bruno, near the airport, over two-thirds of voters supported increasing height limits to add density around the Caltrain commuter station. King commented in detail on all three measures in September. The Escondido Country Club Homeowners Organization (ECCHO) handed a setback (likely temporary) to developer Michael Schlesinger in the defeat of the Lakes Specific Plan via Proposition H. That long-running dispute, however, is unlikely to be resolved by one vote. Voters did go for measures that were presented as offering them a chance to undo a specific act by local officials: for example, Measure S to undo a prior 2013 Berkeley redistricting choice; Measure P, an advisory measure opposing the Highway 405 toll lanes in Costa Mesa; Measure S to undo a City Council billboard replacement deal in Santa Clarita, and Dublin's Measure T as mentioned above. Irvine's Measure V, a financial accountability measure on the Irvine Great Park, passed with a steep 88.7% "yes" vote. And then Streetsblog LA and Nelson/Nygaard's Jeffrey Tumlin picked up on the Case of the Placerville Roundabout Menace. As we last discussed in July, some Placerville voters became agitated this summer over a plan to resolve an awkward meeting of streets by installing a roundabout. (For links to the campaign Web site and a Google Terrain map of the intersection, see our July item at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3532.) California voters may be turning Tory in their politics, but not so in their taste for street design. Placerville voted by an initial count of 58.2% to 41.8% to approve Measure K, requiring a public vote for construction of any roundabout in the city. Tax choices Voters' tax and other revenue choices are helpfully tabulated in a report by the California Local Government Finance Almanac. The charts there show specially earmarked sales taxes did not do well overall – just four passed of 13 – but one of the four winners was the large-scale Measure BB for BART to Livermore. A differently structured big transportation proposal, San Francisco's Proposition A , also succeeded (and so did Supervisor Scott Wiener's disputed Measure B to support the Muni system). Measures passed for streets and drains in Monterey, paratransit on the Monterey/Salinas system, and the Fresno Zoo. Measures that failed included one for the Del Norte County Fair, a library measure in Sonoma County, and a streets measure in Turlock. Proposals to raise or extend transient occupancy taxes were surprisingly unpopular: only four passed out of 14. Sales and use taxes did better, almost regardless of the tax increment's amount. Rental affordability measures disfavored Tenant protection and affordable housing measures generally failed when they were substantive rather than symbolic. In San Francisco, the nonbinding Measure K passed, with a policy statement in favor of affordable housing, but Measure G, the anti-speculation tax, was defeated, in a major defeat for San Francisco's embattled pro-tenant lobby. The vote against Measure G also fits a larger pattern in that, like Berkeley's Measure R, it sought to redress inequality by placing what could easily be characterized as arbitrary burdens on a very specifically defined type of real estate activity. Opponents were able to create significant doubt about whether Measure G would be applied fairly to individual property owners' business and family situations. In Santa Monica, Measure FS, to raise registration fees for rent-controlled landlords, won narrowly but Measure H, to increase the transfer tax on million-dollar properties, failed. Its companion Measure HH, an advisory measure to spend the Measure H proceeds, if any, on affordable housing, won narrowly but has no effect because H was defeated. Few grand gestures Voters in general rejected grand gestures if they threatened to have substantive effects. Where anti-fracking measures affected less current business in Mendocino and San Benito Counties, they passed. (An analysis by the Stoel Rives firm says San Benito County does have "significant reserves within its jurisdiction that require unconventional extraction techniques to produce.") Where it mattered the most economically, in oil-rich Santa Barbara County, the anti-fracking measure failed. San Francisco's dueling astroturf measures, Propositions H and I, were subjects of an environmentalist campaign against health risks of artificial turf through the summer and fall, but voters chose to allow the Golden Gate Park playing fields to install astroturf and nighttime lighting. San Francisco Proposition L, the pro-car "Restore Transportation Balance" measure backed by tech billionaire Sean Parker, failed resoundingly. Sacramento's strong-mayor Measure L, another grand gesture in its way, also failed .

Out of the many land use measures on California ballots, we profiled some picks at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3613 , and here we're offering a tracking grid of key measures for use in keeping score. The following is by county in alphabetical order. Key links for your convenience if you don't see a measure listed here: Secretary of State, directory of county elections offices ; Ballotpedia, local ballot measures . Statewide: Measure 1 . Water bond. ( Sacramento Bee early election report here. ) Yes: 66.8%           No: 33.2% Percent Reporting: 100% of precincts "partially reporting" Measure 2 . "Rainy day" fund. Yes: 68.7%           No: 31.3% Percent Reporting: 100% of precincts "partially reporting" Secretary of State's office, election results page: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/ Alameda County Countywide: Measure BB. Would institute a transportation commission sales tax and implement a 30-year 2014 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan , significantly to pay for extending BART to Livermore. Would renew existing half-cent sales tax and add another half-cent for a one-cent transportation funding tax until 2015. (Needs 2/3 majority.) Yes: 69.56%           No: 30.44% Percent Reporting: 100% Berkeley: Measure F. A special parks tax would raise the existing levy by 16.7% for parks funding. (Needs 2/3 majority.) Yes: 74.90%           No: 25.10% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure R . Zoning ordinances for downtown Berkeley construction, including requirements of community benefits in exchange for exceeding maximum height limits. Yes: 26.13%           No: 73.87% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure S . Would cancel redistricting map approved by City Council in 2013. A "Yes" vote approves the redistricting map as adopted by City Council; a "No" vote requires the council to adopt a new redistricting plan, leaving the 2002 districting in place for the interim. Yes: 64.16%           No: 35.84% Percent Reporting: 100% Dublin: Measure T. The "2014 Let Dublin Decide Initiative" would set the stage for annexation of Doolan Canyon and partly override prior conservation measures. Yes: 17.21%           No: 82.79% Percent Reporting: 100% Union City: Measure KK. Complies with Hillside Area Plan by submitting a proposal for 63 acres of senior-focused development to the voters. Yes: 34.86%           No: 65.14% Percent Reporting: 100% Alameda County election results will be posted at: http://www.acgov.org/rov/elections/20141104/ . El Dorado County Cameron Estates: Measure D. Authorizes the city to increase the Cameron Estates Community Services District parcel tax by $100 annually, to a total of $350 per parcel, to fund road improvements and maintenance. (Needed 2/3 to pass.) Yes: 59.67%          No: 40.33%          Percent Reporting: 100% Countywide: Measure M . Would prohibit construction of any housing developments of five parcels or more unless CalTrans certifies that two preconditions exist: first, that the stretch of Highway 50 west of Placerville has traffic levels that do not reach Level of Service F, and, second, that traffic will remain at an LOS above F in the foreseeable future. Would prohibit rezoning of land currently designated as farming or open space for other purposes. Limits up zoning low-density residential areas, creates exemptions for non-residential and ag-related development. Yes: 42.06%          No: 57.94%          Percent Reporting:   100% Measure N . Framed as a competing alternative to Measures M and O. Would extend Measure Y slow-growth restrictions but opponents allege it would change the General Plan to allow more development in some areas. Yes: 25.00%          No: 75.00%          Percent Reporting: 100% Measure O . Would rezone a large portion of the county from "Community Region" to a "Rural" designation, changing the required traffic Level of Service of D instead of E. Yes: 33.20%          No: 66.80%          Percent Reporting:   100% Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (Parts of El Dorado, Placer, Nevada Counties): Measures U and E: Would authorize $62 million in bonds financing to update existing facilities, to be paid by an increase in annual property taxes of $29.75 per $100,000  of assessed value. Measure E results by county (requires 55% to pass): El Dorado County: Yes: 54.63%          No: 45.37% Percent Reporting: 100% Placer County: Yes: 59.05%          No: 40.95%          Percent Reporting: 100% Measure U results by county: Nevada County: Yes: 52.30%           No: 47.70% Percent Reporting: 100% Placer County: Yes: 51.97%          No: 48.03%          Percent Reporting: 100% El Dorado County election results will be posted at: http://elections.edcgov.us/results.fwx Placer County results: http://www.placerelections.com/election-night-results.aspx Nevada County results: http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/elections/Pages/November-4-2014-Election-Information.aspx Humboldt County Measure P . "Genetic Contamination Prevention Ordinance" would define as a public nuisance the act of growing genetically modified organisms in the county, with an exemption for research institutions that contain their work. GMO human foods, animal feeds, and medicines would be allowed into the county. Yes: 59.43%           No: 40.57% Percent Reporting: 100% Humboldt County election results will be posted at: http://www.humboldtgov.org/890/Elections-Voter-Registration Lake County Measure O . The "Medical Marijuana Control Act," one of many marijuana regulation items on local ballots, competing with Measure P. An attempt to limit cultivation to a scale consistent with personal medical use. Yes: 36.5%           No: 63.5% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure P . The "Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act" would recognize a "fundamental self evident right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth," with possible anti-GMO implications in a duty to "take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction". Would preempt the competing Measure O and many regulations imposed on medical marijuana by the currently applicable Measure N. Yes: 32.0%           No: 68.0% Percent Reporting: 100% Lake County election results will be posted at: http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/ROV.htm Los Angeles County Santa Monica: Measure D . Would prohibit new development of Santa Monica Airport property without voter approval. Yes: 41.70%           No: 58.30% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure LC . Competing with Measure D, placed on the ballot by the city Airport Development Council, would also prohibit new development on the site without voter approval, but would except parks and related facilities, and would also "affirm the City Council's authority to manage the Airport and to close all or part of it." Yes: 59.73%           No: 40.27%    Percent Reporting: 100% Measure FS . Would raise registration fees for rent-controlled landlords from $174.96 to amounts of up to $288 per unit per year, allowing half of each unit's fee to be passed through to its tenant. Yes: 51.50%           No: 48.50%   Percent Reporting: 100% Measure H . Would raise the local real estate transfer tax from $3 to $9 per thousand of sale price, only on sale prices of $1 million or more. Yes: 42.20%     No: 57.80% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure HH . Advisory measure whether proceeds from the single-H measure should be spent on affordable housing. Yes: 50.10%           No: 49.90% Percent Reporting: 100% Countywide: Measure P Parcel tax of $23 per year per land parcel, for park funding. Yes: 62.04%           No: 37.96% Percent Reporting: 100% Malibu: Measure R. Would require voter approval for any commercial project of more than 20,000 square feet. Supported by film director Rob Reiner. Yes: 59.27%           No: 40.73% Percent Reporting: 100% Santa Clarita: Measure S. Placed on the ballot by a petition rescind an agreement approved by the Santa Clarita City Council to remove existing billboards and replace them with three digital billboards. A "Yes" vote keeps the deal; sponsors of the petition are on the side of a "No" vote to rescind the deal. Yes: 43.81%           No: 56.19% Percent Reporting: 100% Los Angeles County election results will be posted at: http://www.lavote.net/home/voting-elections/current-elections/election-results . (More direct: http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/downrslt.html-ssi .) Mendocino County Measure S . Fracking and water use initiative. Yes: 67.18%           No: 32.82%   Percent Reporting: 100% Mendocino County election results will be posted at: http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/acr/elections.htm (More direct: http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/acr/current.htm .) Monterey County Marina Measure E . Would make permanent an existing temporary increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax from 10% to 12%. Yes: 73.22%           No: 26.78% Percent Reporting: 100% Monterey County election results will be posted at: http://www.montereycountyelections.us/Election%20Result.htm Orange County Costa Mesa Measure P . Advisory measure opposing the Highway 405 toll lanes. ( A "Yes" vote opposes the toll lanes . See early election results coverage .) Yes: 53.8%           No: 46.2% Percent Reporting: 100% Fountain Valley Measure S . Transient occupancy tax increase Yes: 39.7%           No: 60.3% Percent Reporting: 100% Irvine Measure V . Parks accountability measure related to management of Irvine Great Park. Yes: 88.7%           No: 11.3% Percent Reporting: 100% Newport Beach Measure Y . Amendment of Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element Yes: 30.7%           No: 69.3%    Percent Reporting: 100% Tustin Measure HH . Increase in Hotel Room Tax Yes: 52.5%           No: 47.5%        Percent Reporting: 100% Orange County election results will be posted at: http://www.ocvote.com/results/current-election-results/ Sacramento County: Isleton Measure D . Tax to support "Public Safety and Parks and Recreation projects and services." (Needs 2/3 vote.) Yes: 60.22%           No: 39.78% Percent Reporting: 100% Rancho Cordova Measure H . Half-cent sales tax. Proceeds are not actually restricted, but measure has been promoted as raising money to reduce "blight" on Folsom Boulevard and to assert local control. Yes: 58.79%           No: 41.21% Percent Reporting: 100% City of Sacramento. Measure L. The "Strong mayor" initiative promoted by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. Would give the mayor veto power, power to hire and fire the city manager, and other responsibilities of the city manager. Would subject the mayor to term limits and review by an independent budget analyst. Would return for a public vote in 2020. Yes: 42.78%           No: 57.22%   Percent Reporting: 100% Sacramento County election results will be posted at: http://www.elections.saccounty.net/Pages/default.aspx (More direct: http://www.eresults.saccounty.net/ .) San Benito County Measure H . Vehicle registration fee to fund the Vehicle Abatement Program. (Needs 2/3 vote) Yes: 66.90%           No: 33.10%    Percent Reporting: 100% Measure I . Transient occupancy tax increase from 8% to 12% Yes: 39.28%           No: 60.72% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure J . Anti-fracking measure Yes: 57.36%           No: 42.64 Percent Reporting: 100% Measure L . Hollister transient occupancy tax increase to 12% Yes: 32.51%           No: 67.49%   Percent Reporting: 100% San Benito County election results will be posted at: http://results.sbcvote.us/ San Francisco County Proposition A . $500 million bond measure for roads and transportation. Yes: 71.23%           No: 28.77%   Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition B . Supervisor Scott Wiener's effort to strengthen funding for San Francisco's Muni transit system in proportion to future daytime and nighttime population increases. Yes: 61.14%           No: 38.86%    Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition F . Would approve major redevelopment of the decayed Union Iron Works plant at Pier 70 on the southeast waterfront. Required to comply with the new Proposition B waterfront height limits. Yes: 72.28%           No: 27.72% Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition G . the anti-speculation tax, would increase transfer taxes for most multi-unit residential properties resold within five years of their last purchase or transfer. Yes: 46.01%           No: 53.99%      Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition H . Opposing artificial turf and stadium lighting on Golden Gate Park playing fields. Yes: 45.85%           No: 54.15%   Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition I . In opposition to Proposition H, supporting the Golden Gate Park artificial turf and renovations. Yes: 54.80%           No: 45.20%   Percent Reporting: 100% Measure K . Affordable housing policy statement against displacement of existing city residents and in favor of finding land and money to build new affordable housing. Yes: 65.05%           No: 34.95% Percent Reporting: 100% Proposition L . "Restore Transportation Balance" measure to protect car drivers' parking opportunities, restrict expansion of "demand-responsive pricing" of parking meters, and otherwise shift city priorities to favor car drivers. Yes: 37.67%           No: 62.33% Percent Reporting: 100% San Francisco election results will be posted at: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=4414 San Luis Obispo County Pismo Beach: Measure H . "Area R Development Standards General Plan Amendment." Would increase voter control over the Price Canyon area, outside the town of Pismo Beach but within its sphere of influence. Responds to the "Spanish Springs" golf/residential development proposal. Yes: 65.70%           No: 34.30%    Percent Reporting: 100% San Luis Obispo County election results will be posted at: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/clerk/Elections/ElectionsInfo/110414GeneralElection.htm Santa Barbara County Measure O . Would increase county's transient occupancy tax from 10% to 12.5%. Yes: 41.49%           No: 58.51% Percent Reporting: 100% Measure P . Anti-fracking ballot measure, in a county with an oil industry. Yes: 39.29%           No: 60.71% Percent Reporting: 197 precincts of 250 Santa Barbara County election results will be posted at: http://www.sbcassessor.com/Elections/UpcomingElections.aspx Santa Clara County Measure B . Would increase City of Palo Alto Transient Occupancy Tax from 12% to 14% and dedicate the funding to infrastructure improvements. Yes: 75.61%           No: 24.39%   Percent Reporting: 100% Measure Q . Would raise funds over 15 years to preserve open space across San Jose, four suburban cities, and unincorporated areas. Yes: 67.03%           No: 32.97% Percent Reporting: 100% Santa Clara County election results will be posted at: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/54209/144518/Web01/en/summary.html

In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that in adopting a climate action plan, San Diego County violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not following the mitigation measures the county laid out in the general plan process. The ruling is a significant victory for environmentalists and could portend future rulings from the Fourth District in the facing environmental plaintiffs, especially in the pending environmental challenge to the sustainable communities strategy adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The ruling might also influence the pending City of San Diego Climate Action Plan, in which many of the same issues are at play. (Disclosure: As most CP&DR readers know, the author was until recently the planning director for the City of San Diego and as such was in the middle of the debate on this very issue.) San Diego County adopted its general plan in 2011. The general plan's environmental impact report contained a mitigation measure requiring the county to adopt a climate action plan that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from county operations by 17% between 2006 and 2020 and community emissions by 9% between 2006 and 2020. The county also agreed to adopt significance thresholds to implement the CAP. However, the appellate court found that the actual climate action plan, adopted by the county in 2012, did not fulfill this promise. " hen it approved the CAP and Thresholds project, the County stated that the CAP does not ensure the required GHG emissions reductions," wrote Justice Gilbert Nares for a unanimous three-judge panel. "Rather, the County described the strategies as recommendations." The court also concluded that, in the general plan EIR and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) adopted with it, the county agreed to follow the "trajectory" called for in Executive Order S-3-05, issued by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 but did not do so in the CAP. EO S-3-05 requires state agencies to pursue a goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. Its application to SANDAG's SCS via the environmental review process is also an issue in the SANDAG case. The county's defense consisted largely of an argument that the statute of limitations had passed by the time the Sierra Club filed the lawsuit because the Sierra Club should have challenged the general plan EIR, not the CAP. The court rejected this argument and in so doing gave the county a stern lecture for attempting to consider the CAP, as well as adoption of significance thresholds associated with the CAP, as part of the same "project (for CEQA purposes) as the general plan itself. On this point, the court relied heavily on the Second District's decision in Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 443-444 ( Lincoln Place II ). In that case, the court rejected the City of L.A.'s argument that a tenants' association could not sue to enforce mitigation measures resulting from a tentative vesting map approval because the 180-day window for suing under the Permit Streamlining Act had closed. Although the court concluded that both the CAP and the significance thresholds were separate projects – and relied on that conclusion to strike down the County's defense – it did not order the County to prepare a CEQA analysis for other one. Nor did the court explain in detail its conclusion that the general plan and its EIR committed the county to meeting the "trajectory" of EO S-3-05. Although the EIR provides a description of EO S-3-05 , it acknowledges that AB 32, the state statute calling for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, sets no targets past 2020. Furthermore, the MMRP makes no mention of EO S-3-05 or targets past 2020. AB 32 does contain general language saying that emissions reduction efforts should continue past 2020, and the court does cite general language in the EIR about the ongoing risk of climate change. The court apparently based its conclusion on the idea that, in adopting the CAP and the significance thresholds as plan-level documents, the county sought to truncate or eliminate environmental review based on GHG emissions past 2020, even though the county staff acknowledged that GHG emissions might increase after 2020. In the ruling, the court noted that in appearances before the Board of Supervisors the county staff stated that because EO-S-3-05 was an executive order and not a statute, the county was not required to follow it. The Fourth District's ruling in the county case could portend a similar ruling in the SANDAG case. The environmentalists were successful at the trial level in using this argument, though the case involves a different kind of plan produced by a different type of government agency operating under a different state law (SB 375 as opposed to the general plan law). Judge Taylor's ruling was issued almost two years ago. The case is still pending in the Court of Appeal, though oral arguments occurred in August and a ruling is expected soon. Environmentalists have been aggressive in promoting the same set of arguments during the development of the City of San Diego's CAP. Recent press reports suggest that Mayor Kevin Faulconer and environmentalists are on the same page regarding the proposed CAP , although the post-2020 targets have become softer in recent drafts. The case is Sierra Club v. County of San Diego , D064243, at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D064243.PDF.

CalEPA has expanded its definition of "disadvantaged communities" in the cap-and-trade grantmaking programs under SB 535 to the most environmentally burdened 25% of all census tracts.   CalEPA originally proposed using the most burdened 20% of all census tracts. Although Friday's announcement changed the definition of disadvantaged communities, it continues to propose using  the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 environmental justice mapping tool . As CP&DR reported in September ,  CalEPA officials had noted that for most SB 535 programs 25% is the minimum proportion of benefits required to serve "disadvantaged communities", so in those programs a 25% cutpoint guarantees "disadvantaged communities" no more than their proportional share of the total. On the other hand, 50% of funds must be spent to benefit disadvantaged populations in the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. CP&DR 's previous coverage on how the metric and the AHSC program interact can be found here . The originally proposal for a 20% "cutpoint" had more starkly disproportionate effects by region. It would have denied the "disadvantage" label to many coastal, northern or hilly census tracts that have suffered from environmental injustice and disinvestment, but that have comparatively good air quality, and/or comparatively high absolute incomes. The metric does not incorporate factors that compare individuals' incomes to local costs of living, and it emphasizes types of environmental injustice that are especially severe in the Central Valley and Southern California.  Accordingly there was pressure to either widen the designation pool or change the metric. Activists and legislators from the San Francisco Bay Area had been especially indignant. The expansion from 20% to 25% adds the "disadvantaged" designation to more Bay Area neighborhoods, including parts of Bayview/Hunter's Point in San Francisco. The CalEPA press release said, "In response to comments, CalEPA said it will evaluate suggestions to further refine the information and methodologies used to develop CalEnviroScreen." New materials posted at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/ include a 40-page narrative of the selection process that, from the "Public Input" discussion onward, acknowledges some of the regional concerns, some methodology concerns raised by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District through its complex "Method 6" proposal, and the possibility of including factors like cost of living in the future.

Tax-increment financing isn't coming back anytime soon. But the state government hasn't squeezed as much money out of redevelopment as expected. So what happens next? What tools does the state provide to California's local governments to stimulate new development – especially infill development, which the state is trying to encourage through policies designed to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and achieve other goals? The short answer is not much – at least not compared to redevelopment, which at its peak provided local governments (mostly cities) with $6 billion a year for urban projects. But a more nuanced answer would be that the state is now doing lots of little things – some formal, some informal – to try to give the locals some running room. In vetoing the latest tax-increment revival bill (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3586), Gov. Jerry Brown made it clear – for the third year in a row -- that he has no interest in permitting redevelopment to rise from the grave. There has always been a theory (floated by me among others) that tax-increment revival would be a second-term Jerry Brown thing, but given Brown's animosity toward the League of Cities and his general stubbornness, this seems unlikely. Furthermore, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg – urban development's most effective advocate in the Legislature and one of the few in Sacramento who could go toe-to-toe with Brown – is now termed out, and Redevelopment has no obvious new main legislative champion in the wings. Of course, the Brown Administration is currently ramping up the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, which will expend the Strategic Growth Council's cut of the state cap-and-trade money. That means $130 million in the first year will be pushed out the door, mostly to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects that support smart growth goals. (See coverage in this issue.) And the number could go up to several hundred million dollars annually in the out years. It will be the biggest infusion of cash into urban development that we've seen since Brown took office. But it's still just a fraction of the amount redevelopment provided. Meanwhile, the redevelopment wind-down front is settling down a little. The state is actually winning most of the hundreds of lawsuits filed by cities. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3575.) The cities have consistently argued that they should regain control over a wide variety of redevelopment projects and tax-increment revenue flows – and they have mostly lost. Even so, post-redevelopment experts say the state windfall of $1.7 billion per year that was expected a couple of years ago simply isn't materializing. In part, that's because successor agencies – guided by AB 1484 – have taken a cautious approach to selling former redevelopment agencies' real estate assets. Instead of taking a "fire sale" approach as originally required by the redevelopment dissolution bill, agencies are now preparing "Long-Range Property Management Plans" that focus on the orderly development or sale of assets over time. This will probably produce substantial long-term benefits for all taxing agencies concerned – including the cities that used to have redevelopment agencies – but it hasn't created a lot of short-term cash. As Nossaman lawyer Rick Rayl said at the California Chapter, American Planning Association, conference, last month: "The assets have produced a lot less than anyone ever thought. If you asked Gov. Brown, he might second-guess the whole decision. I don't think it has accomplished what he intended." That I'm not so sure about. It's not like Brown to admit a mistake, especially a high-profile one. But the bottom line is that if the end of redevelopment isn't producing as much cash for the state as Brown thought, it doesn't really matter. Between an improving economy and the temporary tax increase he secured in last year's election, his problem is not how to cover a deficit. It's what to do with a surplus. Which leads me to think that what's really happening – informally, with a law or an executive order or any formal policy direction – is that the Department of Finance is beginning to ease up on its demands to repurpose ex-redevelopment funds. Yes, the hundreds of lawsuits will continue to drag on – many of them are now pending in the appellate court. Yes, long-range property management plans will work their way slowly – very slowly – through the system. And yes, DOF will continue to drive successor agencies crazy with opacity and resistance every day on issues large and small. But DOF also seems to have figured out that, as a general principle, holding things up doesn't do anybody any good – least of all the state general fund. The greatest asset that former redevelopment agencies had in the bank when the program was killed wasn't real estate owned or cash in the bank. It was the potential upside of pending redevelopment projects then in the works. And the longer those holes in the ground sit there, the less money the state, the cities, and the other taxing entities will get in the long run. I'll tell one war story from my time in San Diego to make my point. At the time redevelopment was killed, Center City Development Corp. and Westfield were working on renovating Horton Plaza Park, outside the famous shopping center downtown. The project got caught up in the redevelopment wind-down and it was literally a hole in the ground with a tarp around it the entire time I worked in San Diego. But during that time, the successor agency and DOF successfully worked through two problems that were holding the project up – first, the transfer of the property from Westfield to the successor agency, and, second, the allocation of additional funds to finish the project when the bids came in higher than expected. At the beginning of redevelopment wind-down in 2012, you might not have seen much cooperation from DOF. But eventually DOF apparently realized that the value of the successor agency's real estate assets – including the park itself and whatever benefit might be derived from a long-delayed renovation of Horton Plaza itself – was likely to increase more and faster if the project moved along. All this doesn't mean that Brown will back off of his resistance to tax-increment financing in his second term, and as I said before it's not likely to end the distrustful dance between successor agencies and DOF. But it does mean that – now that the state has the luxury of focusing on long-term asset value rather than short-term cash --  longstanding redevelopment projects throughout the state will have an easier path to completion.

Here's a roundup of recent land use news items  – San Diego Environmental Lawyer Backs Infill The progressive Democratic community in San Diego has split openly over the question of allowing more density near light-rail stops, especially in mostly white middle-class neighborhoods. In particular, environmental attorney Marco Gonzalez – who stood alongside former City Councilmember Donna Frye in calling for Mayor Bob Filner's resignation last year – has now broken with Frye on the density question. At a forum sponsored by the San Diego Housing Federation recently, Gonzalez – brother of Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez – said: "From within the environmental community I thought it was important for us to say, ‘If we're going to fight sprawl, we have to incentivize infill' (dense projects within already-developed areas). So we had to ask ourselves some tough questions, and what I'm doing now at this point in my career is asking those people who used to be my clients, those activists, those community-character-spouting residents, to really address these presumptions." Gonzalez's longtime ally Frye has been a leader in opposing more density in the Clairemont district along the planned Mid-Coast light-rail line. She has been joined by interim Councilmember Ed Harris, a former head of the city lifeguard union, and failed City Council candidate Sarah Boot, both of whom – like Frye – share Gonzalez's natural constituency of coastal environmentalists. City of Marina Opposes Slant Drilling By Water Company The city of Marina continues to oppose an effort by the Cal-American water utility to drill a slanted test well to check if an aquifer under the ocean floor is suitable as a water source for a desalination plant. A news feature in Environment & Energy Publishing quoted local officials and activists as opposing the plan on grounds that the well, once dug, might end up being used for a desalination operation, or might itself worsen saltwater intrusion. The EEnews article linked to comments by the Remy Moose Manley firm on behalf of the Marina Coast Water District, opposing the Cal-Am appeal, alleging in part that the project's Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to consider likely future uses of the well. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary's draft Environmental Assessment Report on the project from last June is here . The California Coastal Commission will take up the well proposal at its November 12 meeting. (See Items 14a and 15a at http://coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html.) For more on the history and context of Monterey's water supply plans, see Larry Sokoloff's report at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3598. $5 Billion For A South Pasadena Tunnel? Caltrans and Los Angeles Metro were reportedly contemplating a monster pair of tunnels to extend the 710 freeway for nearly five miles under South Pasadena – at a cost of $5 billion. The LA Times a bit unfairly noted it would be longer than Boston's "Big Dig" . Longer, maybe. But more trouble? The Big Dig was a nightmare of a highway undergrounding job in a densely built 350-year-old city with four seasons and a high oceanfront water table. In the middle of it, Rep. Barney Frank once suggested that, rather than depress the Central Artery, it would be cheaper to raise Boston. So, five miles under the San Gabriel Valley? Technically speaking, could it be any worse? Politically, though, it could be. Neighborhood groups have been fighting the 710 extension since 1965 . In Brief … A big cluster of Strategic Growth Council grant applications fall due in the next several days, mostly on November 13. The League of California Cities has posted the list more or less as distributed by SGC. A generally favorable feature article in the 7x7 arts and leisure magazine alternates eye-candy renderings of San Francisco's futuristic "Transbay District" project plan with brief accounts of some of the project's challenges. The project would build large office and apartment towers and raised public spaces around the city's old bus station in the eastern South of Market district. Developers hope the site also will become a terminal for the Caltrain and High-Speed Rail. It recently hit a snag when the Board of Supervisors and developers turned out to disagree on the tax structure for a "community benefit district" to which the major developers would contribute. The Los Angeles Times reports a motion before the L.A. City Council would begin local implementation of the Legislature's Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act, but the Board of Supervisors must approve the idea first. Hudson Sangree of the Sacramento Bee posted news features on increased infill development in Sacramento and on plans by developer Michael Heller to convert the Crystal Ice and Cold Storage plant building to retail and office use. The Monterey Herald reported another in a series of delays is holding up the draft EIR on the "Monterey Downs" plan for a mixed-use development at decommissioned Fort Ord. The project would include 1,280 units of housing and a racetrack. The City of Seaside's page for the specific plan on the project is at http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ . The law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge posted an update suggesting people who follow CEQA law and land use should look into efforts by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to update regulatory documents in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. See http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/Sept2014HotSpotsRags_SRP.html.

As the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant program neared its October 31 public comment deadline, the program was showing a more definite sense of institutional purpose, focused on promoting dense transit-oriented urban streetscapes. Would-be grant applicants may be disappointed if they expect AHSC to focus on maximizing affordable housing construction or promoting healthier living in small inland towns. Housing is a major statutory goal of the AHSC program, and the proposed grant criteria do allow some leeway for use in less dense areas. But this is not the comprehensive housing construction and rehabilitation program that housing and economic justice advocates would like to see the state enact. The Strategic Growth Council's presentation materials released in late October for the current, final round of public workshops on the program were full of reminders about AHSC's narrow focus. The materials said the program is able to make only a few grants -- 13 to 23 in the main part of the program for the coming year. The materials emphasized the goal of transit-oriented density in a look at "the big picture vision" through before-and-after renderings of urban street makeovers. These showed how a street could be made more prosperous and welcoming to visitors through denser, less car-oriented development. "Before" images depicted broad, rough-edged commuter arteries, with sparsely placed businesses, unevenly set back from the sidewalk by parking lots, often using old-fashioned or awkwardly hand-lettered signage. "After" images created a cozier, more prosperous look, using a palette of streetcars, bike lanes, trees, pedestrians, and upscale storefronts in better-kept, taller mixed-use buildings that snuggled right up to their sidewalks. In these images, the likes of International Boulevard in Oakland and El Camino Real in Santa Clara began to look more like the likes of Barcelona. The presentation called attention to a proposed requirement that appears in text surrounding Table 4 of the Draft Guidelines released in September . It would provide that housing developments supported by the program must have a transit station within a "walkable route" of half a mile. They would need to contain at least 100 units in a metropolitan area or 50 units elsewhere. Minimum net density for all-housing buildings would range from 20 to 60 units per acre by type of area; for mixed-use projects, minimum floor-to-area ratios would range up the same scale from 1.5 to 3.0. On two major outstanding questions -- identification of "disadvantaged communities" and definition of a role for regional government entities -- the new materials added little beyond the early-October staff report and SGC hearing discussion . On the belated CalEPA designation of "disadvantaged" census tracts that must be "benefited" by half of AHSC funds, the new materials said the choices "will be available in the next few weeks." The SGC Web site now provides a dedicated Web page for the AHSC program and a separate page for its separately administered farmland fragment, the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program (SALC). Workshops seeking to explain and receive comment on the near-final design for the main AHSC program were being held October 23 through 28 , with plans to webcast the October 28 meeting in Sacramento. Workshops on the SALC program were set for October 24 in Oroville, October 29 in Bakersfield, and October 30 in Watsonville . Comments on both program designs are due October 31, respectively to http://sgc.ca.gov/s_ahscwebcommentform.php and ahsc_ag@sgc.ca.gov. The ARB cap-and-trade proceeds page displays 149 comments on the "disadvantaged communities" choice process. Comments submitted to the SGC have not yet been posted online. The late-October AHSC materials said a final draft of the guidelines would be posted December 1 in preparation for the December 11 meeting where the Strategic Growth Council will be asked to approve the whole plan.

The Coastal Commission's October docket in Newport Beach served up a fair slice of Southern California celebrity-involved madness and possibly more items than usual of old business of the it's-never-over variety. The Commission's most widely reported act of the month was to postpone consideration of an appeal on an unpopular proposal by entities linked to U2 guitarist David Evans, known as "The Edge," to build five large new houses in the Santa Monica Mountains. The Malibu Times and LA Times reported the postponement was for lack of adequate notice to stakeholders and the Commission would likely take up the matter again in January. The paper quoted Frank Angel, attorney for the Sweetwater Mesa Homeowners' Association, as calling the continuance "a huge game changer" because the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Plan (LCP) was to take effect the Friday after the October Commission meeting. (On that approval see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3559; http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3474.) In a commentary ahead of the meeting , LA Times columnist Steve Lopez had questioned how Evans managed to get the hearing scheduled just before that effective date. In the staff report , summaries of public comments included celebrity relationship gossip and a mention of a Web site that formerly discussed the project, www.leavesinthewind.com. As of 2011 that site explained the plan as it then stood in some detail, promoting it in terms of environmental responsibility and high-concept design. Rejected in its original form that year, the project has since been reduced and redesigned for a less visible group of sites . The Laguna Beach Independent reported that Mark Christy, proponent of a renovation and rebuilding project at "The Ranch" in Aliso Canyon, brought three busloads of supporters to speak in public comment sessions at the Coastal Commission. It said speakers in Christy's favor included the Mayor Pro Tem and two City Council members. The Newport Beach Independent reported more than 60 supporters of The Ranch appeared, outnumbering participants in the monthly anti-fracking protest. The Commission has had rocky relations with Christy for some time. This month, as reported further at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3595 and in the Coastline Pilot , the Commission determined The Ranch had done unpermitted work on its outdoor landscape, including creation of a 7000-square-foot dance floor. Additional disputes concern whether Christy's proposed additions to the site will cause too much environmental harm, and whether the work he has already done on the mid-century resort buildings constitutes renovation or new construction. And this month the Coastline Pilot published a letter by Christy on an additional issue: the lack of a public trail on the site. He wrote that it wouldn't work for safety reasons because the resort includes a golf course. The Commission granted approval, with conditions , for a plan allowing the City of Los Angeles to sell the last seven house lots it owns on the rim of Potrero Canyon in Pacific Palisades. The plan comes with approvals for filling and grading by the city to stabilize the canyon rim. Proceeds will go into a special restoration fund for the park below the lots. The staff report recounts that the city bought 22 residential lots along the canyon in 1991 following litigation over landslides. Since then the city has been conducting restoration work in the area and selling house lots a few at a time to pay for each next stage of the project. This month's approval allows the city to sell the last seven lots without keeping an earlier promise that it would first complete a new park and riparian "habitat installation." Per the Los Angeles Times ' online archives the original landslide was in 1978 and coverage of city efforts to fix the problem dates back to at least 1985 and 1989 . Caltrans won confirmation of a 2012 approval to move about three miles of Highway 1 inland in San Luis Obispo County near Piedras Blancas. Shoreline erosion and bicycle safety were among the major concerns. The plan also brings the road farther away from a beach that is massively popular with elephant seals, hence decreasing the risk of sofa-sized marine mammals entering the roadway. On reconsideration, the Commission granted permission to the City of Los Angeles to install a seasonal ice rink on Venice Beach . The Commission had denied the permit initially in September because of objections to the city's prior handling of a zipline attraction and maintenance of nearby public bathrooms. San Diego got approval for its LCP amendment to license and regulate food trucks at parks and beaches . The Daily Pilot reported the Commission approved 23 "townhomes" for the former site of a Christian Science church in Newport Beach. The paper wrote, "The site along the 3300 block of Via Lido isn't far from where the former Newport Beach City Hall is to be replaced by a boutique hotel. Officials hope the move will inject life into the area." The Commission was still planning a workshop for December to consider methods of preserving public access to the cheap seaside family vacation. A cheerful mission at first glance, but conflicts over mitigation costs to developers to preserve low-cost access were less than cheerful through the summer, especially in July (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3528). The Commission's meeting agenda, annotated with outcomes, is at http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm14-10.html. News of the Commission during the rest of October was a mix of grants, enforcement actions and appeals. Napster and Facebook billionaire Sean Parker and his wife Alexandra Lenas got the label of "philanthropists" from a Monterey Herald report on their steps to comply with a Coastal Commission settlement. The settlement is in compensation for environmental damage caused at Big Sur by elaborate preparations for the couple's wedding in June 2013. Parker and Lenas agreed to sprinkle $1.2 million among eight environmental and education nonprofits on the Central Coast as part of a $2.5 million settlement payment. Parker also agreed to create a mobile app for the Commission to help coastal visitors to find beach access points. In another resolution of long-running old business, the Commission announced its approval of a "final plan to restore public access" to the Ontario Ridge trail in San Luis Obispo County.  More details from the Tribune here . Commission staff contributed to an Assembly hearing September 25 , primarily on dangers of desalination to sea life. The city of San Clemente got a $90,000 planning grant to work toward finishing its Local Coastal Program (LCP) certification. Newport Beach is applying for a similar grant. More jurisdictions' pending planning grant applications are posted online , awaiting decisions during the next couple of months. KIEM-TV reported the city of Eureka got a $250,000 grant to prepare a risk analysis on sea level rise. The Orange County Register reported Long Beach officials were moving toward approval of the Belmont Beach and Aquatics Center, a pricey remodel of the existing Belmont Plaza Pool for use in diving competitions. Columnist Bob Keisser objected that the new pool would be less ambitious than the old one in the scale of competition events it could host; he was among those calling for a bigger effort to potentially host 2020 Olympic trials. The local Daily Breeze reported the city of Rancho Palos Verdes was working on an amendment to its LCP to comply with a Coastal Commission determination that the current 70-foot flagpole at the Trump National Golf Club violated the existing LCP. San Diego's Friends of the Children's Pool filed suit over the Coastal Commission's decision to reserve the Children's Pool beach for seals during pupping season. Beach access advocates were additionally calling on the city to open sluiceways in the seawall to clean the sand. Sadly for an already-contested resource, the pool was reportedly part of an area closed for safety due to an October 14 sewage spill. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported that Ross Eric Gibson of the La Bahia Coalition filed an appeal with the Coastal Commission against city approval of a plan to partly replace, partly renovate the historic La Bahia Hotel. The project would convert it from a 44-unit apartment building into a 165-room hotel, conference center and day spa.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) won two major takings law victories in late October. Clients championed by the property rights organization defeated a San Francisco law on compensation to tenants evicted under the Ellis Act, and managed to undo a coastal easement requirement that the court said was an unfair permit condition. San Francisco city attorney to appeal San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera announced he would appeal a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer that struck down the city's new ordinance on compensation for tenants evicted under the Ellis Act. From its effective date in June until Breyer blocked it effective October 24, landlords who took an occupied unit off the rental market were required to pay their evicted tenants two years' worth of difference between the lost rent rate and the market-rate rent for a comparable unit in the city. The ruling in Levin v. City and County of San Francisco accepted arguments by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) that the ordinance violated constitutional property rights. The PLF victory press release said the lead plaintiffs in the matter would have had to pay $118,000 to the tenant of the duplex where they live in order to rent their extra unit to friends or family. The SF Chronicle 's Bob Egelko has details of the ruling . He quotes Breyer as calling the compensation amount "an enormous payout untethered in both nature and amount to the social harm actually caused by the property owner's action." A copy of the ruling is available on PLF's Web site . Coastal property owners vindicated On October 23, the Second Appellate District reversed itself on rehearing in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission . The court had agreed as of April 15 to depublish its initial ruling in March and rehear the matter. The new ruling is a victory for the PLF's clients, Sandra Bowman and her sisters, who inherited a large San Luis Obispo County property, partly along the coastline, from their father, Walton Emmick. The sisters have been disputing Coastal Commission efforts to enforce a public access easement as a condition for a coastal development permit (CDP) to improve the dilapidated house and barn on a part of the property a mile inland. As discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3452, the court's earlier ruling backed the Coastal Commission in finding that collateral estoppel barred the sisters from repudiating a public access easement that the county initially required of them as a condition for a CDP. The March decision gave a somewhat confused account of the facts, saying Emmick did renovation work in anticipation of that first CDP although it was issued after his death -- hence that he and his successors accepted the CDP's burdens along with its benefits. Accordingly the March court agreed with the Coastal Commission that the sisters could not take advantage of the county's decision to grant their application for a second CDP without the easement. The new opinion accepted the PLF's version of the facts: that Emmick did renovation work on the property only under county permits that were exempt from the CDP requirement because they did not "change the use or dimensions of the structure." It stated Emmick "did not make the repairs for which he sought authorization" under the initial CDP, hence that neither he nor his successors accepted any benefit under it. However, the court's new opinion was not based solely on this fresh understanding of the facts. It also said the easement exaction was unfair: "There is no rational nexus, no less rough proportionality, between the work on a private residence a mile from the coast and a lateral public access easement." The court found it immaterial whether the requirement was the Commission's or the county's fault. Regardless, the court said collateral estoppel doctrine calls for equitable results. Because of both the reinterpreted fact pattern and the lack of nexus between the renovations and the easement, the court found the equity requirement was not met. In a statement in April, the court had requested letter briefing on the standard of review. It said "the parties appear to agree" that the March ruling misapplied the substantial evidence rule to the administrative mandate question, in that it chose to consider only evidence supporting the prevailing party rather than "all relevant evidence even if it detracts from the administrative decision," as called for in La Costa Beach Homeowners' Assn. v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804. The court asked the parties whether the Commission should be treated as the sole authority to determine credibility of evidence, or, if not, how the La Costa case should apply. In the opinion that followed, the court looked to a phrase in La Costa saying "Courts may reverse an agency's decision only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency." It then based the decision on its own interpretation of the facts. The new, currently effective opinion is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B243015A.PDF.

News Item: the Los Angeles City Council has rescinded a long-standing ordinance requiring all high-rise buildings in the downtown area to have rooftop helipads . When the ordinance was in effect, all downtown buildings were flat-headed in design to accommodate the helipads. The result was a skyline of monotonous uniformity and "architectural mediocrity," according to the New York Times . There is only one way to provide an adequate commentary on this situation: A Greek tragedy. SCENE: LATE NIGHT IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES. A GREEK CHORUS, MADE UP ENTIRELY OF FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS, CHANTS IN UNISON. CHORUS OF FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: Oh, misfortune! Our reign has come to a sorry end. Gone is our skyline, unique in all the world, of uniform flatness. Gone, alas, are the days when ‘copters swarmed us The way butterflies swarm poppy fields. No more to hear The sweet sound of chop-chop-chop-chubba-chubba-chop-chop. Goodbye, copters! Goodbye cops! Farewell, first responders in MedEvacs! For the Chief Fireman has said, in his annoying nasal voice,    ‘Go not to rooftops any more, oh thou office workers of LA! People in emergencies should stay put, and wait for help.'  What kind of poppycock is that? Does this mean That choppers are never more to land on our flat, bald heads, Each with a target for helicopters marked "X" in the center,  Seen by none but birds, planes, God and Google Earth? No more will high-rise buildings look like us, the flat-headed tribe. The next generation won't have that special look -- that is to say, The look of a bunch of wooden boards at the hardware store, Standing upright, that nobody has bought. Enter THE TRANSAMERICA TOWER, a famous pointy-headed building from San Francisco. TRANSAMERICA TOWER: Oh, go ahead and moan, you inane band of overgrown cigar boxes. Snivel, if you want. You're through. The future belongs to sharper shapes. Just as skyscrapers with syringe-like tops were the toast of Manhattan In the Golden Age, so once again pin-head buildings will come to rule Your snoozefest of a skyline. FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: Insult added to injury! You pyramidal monstrosity, come to torment us Just when we're feeling totally like we can't deal. TRANSAMERICA TOWER (being really obnoxious) But deal you must. This is progress, enlightenment, artistic freedom! Face it, anvil-brains, you don't stack up when compared with Tokyo Or all those Chinese cities with their pointy tower things. Boring, boring! FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: You can laugh and scorn, you irresponsible pinhead! You, who never shouldered any social responsibility. Our very heads spoke of preparedness. TRANSAMERICA TOWER: Yes, and for that reason, you get no standout buildings by the Starchitects, Those favorites of Zeus and Hera, who got them jobs with the other gods. FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: What bosh! Know ye not that we are of the International Style? Just as the Seagram Building by Mies van der Rohe, and its wife, the green-skinned Lever House by Skidmore Owings Merrill, The legendary New York pair that gave birth to all the office buildings that came after them, were both flat of brow? What say you of that, you much-derided pinhead! TRANSAMERICA TOWER: Don't remind me of my poor reception when first built! Though I stand by the Bay, I was by designed by an Angeleno, The hard-partying Bill Pereira. Now I am a symbol of San Francisco! Take that, you derivative clump of banalities! ENTER the Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre, a recent building in Baku, Azerbajian by Zaha Hadid. This exquisite building, widely portrayed in published photos during recent months, is elliptically curved in profile. HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURE CENTRE (with a slightly husky voice): Hey boys, stop fighting. You're not just wrong, you're stuck in the past. Look at my beauty and be struck speechless as Buster Keaton. Flat, pointed, who cares? It's irrelevant. FLAT-HEADED BUILDINGS: You look like a woman in a head-scarf Standing in a strong breeze. I think we are in love. TRANSAMERICA BUILDING (to HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTER) You call us irrelevant? You're from Azerbajian, for crying out loud. The client is a dictator who builds what he wants, regardless of cost. Plus, you're a cultural center, not an office building, so you don't count. And you were designed by Zaha Hadid. Her office buildings On the whole, have flat tops! HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTER: All true. I'm just making a point, you pecan-brained dinosaurs. The future can be flat, pointed or free-form like me. The point is that LA can enjoy some variety, and catch up With the skyline of a second-tier Chinese city, maybe, if it tries. As for Tokyo or Dubai, however … oh, just give up now.  CHORUS OF FLAT-TOP BUILDINGS (highly offended): You decadent hussy! Irrational product of extravagance and waste! HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTER: Don't try to fluster me with your bluster, bub. Like the song says, you ain't so big, you're just tall, that's all.

In brief California land use news this week: Curbed and the LA Times reported that the legendary La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association and attorney Robert Silverstein may have reversed the opening of a 22-story, 299-unit residential development in Hollywood. Because of the neighborhood challenge, developer CIM group may have to displace the first 40 tenants who have moved into its Sunset/Gordon tower. A judge found CIM's construction permits invalid after the association objected that demolition of the prior building on the site was improper. Potential applicants for HUD's $1 billion in resiliency money may be interested in a large, varied calendar of webinars discussing the program and its goals. For prior notes on the program see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3587. Environment California held an event in Santa Cruz to remind the public of the November 14 comment deadline on EPA's "Waters of the United States" proposed rule. The comment deadline on the proposed rule has already been extended twice . If approved, the EPA's proposal would extend the definition of waters that the Clean Water Act regulates to include smaller bodies of water and even wetlands. The EPA has given the proposed rule its own Web page at http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters. The Cupertino General Plan is nearing final approval. A recent Mercury News item lays out the remaining short timetable and (unsurprisingly) notes density levels in the housing element as an outstanding issue. Los Angeles County's running conflict over large solar arrays flared up in the San Fernando Valley. The LA Times reported a lawsuit was filed by PHL LLC and Foothill Solar, LLC  alleging the North Valley Area Planning Commission unfairly rejected a project application as incomplete. The San Luis Obispo Tribune reported a conflict over airport zoning "derailed" the city's General Plan update process this week. Two City Council members held up the plan by refusing to join a vote overriding the local Airport Land Use Commission's "safety zone" limits on development at the south end of the city. The General Plan itself can't pass until a deal is reached or the Council changes membership -- but that membership may change at the upcoming November election. The Tribune had editorialized that the airport body was inexplicably over-limiting construction in "the logical place for residential development to occur." The Tribune also reported that environmental advocates sued the Cambria Community Services District under CEQA, alleging the district tried to build "a permanent desalination plant intended for long-term operation under the guise of a temporary emergency facility." In another case of what seem to be frequent small-airport control issues lately, the city of Ontario was in litigation with the City of LA and its Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) entity. The Bakersfield Press-Enterprise reported Ontario alleged LAWA was neglecting the Ontario airport's marketing but also wouldn't cede control to local managers. The SF Business Times reported Mayor Ed Lee has a "housing working group" trying to negotiate incentives to get private developers to add affordable housing to the city. Also this week in San Francisco, the Chron reported the developer of "what will become the highest condo tower west of the Mississippi River" agreed to pay $1.26 million per unit rather than build 11 units of below-market-rate housing. Last summer in San Francisco the MonkeyParking app startup was cease-and-desisted , parodied , and finally left town . Now it's having a similar time in LA County. The League of California Cities spotted news that Santa Monica and Beverly Hills banned the app, which helps people to sell the news that they're about to leave a public parking space. West Hollywood was considering a ban , and the LA City Council's transportation committee has voted to draft an ordinance banning private sales of public parking. The LA Times quoted Councilmember Mike Bonin calling it "the stealing economy masquerading as the sharing economy." Large-scale San Francisco housing development has finally branched out into the low-rise residential Inner Sunset neighborhood. J.K. Dineen reports in the SF Chronicle that Westlake Urban of San Mateo has proposed to replace the 86-unit Kirkham Heights apartment complex with 460 units of housing likely to serve medical staff and students from nearby UCSF. Sacramento Bee water writer Matt Weiser visited the Carlsbad desalination plant for a news feature on the project as a test case. He writes that it's being widely watched to see if its physical, environmental and financial challenges can be met in ways that work for the rest of California. His article makes a helpful companion piece to an earlier, more legalistic Latham and Watkins review of the Carlsbad project as "a case study of permitting and approvals." The Metropolitan Water District raised incentives for SoCal water agencies to recycle, recover or desalinate water. It's now offering $340 per acre-foot . (Item via League of CA Cities.) The Santa Barbara Independent reports the Arroyo Toad may soon no longer be officially endangered. The San Diego U-T reported the city of Escondido rejected a shelter for immigrant children "for reasons including traffic, safety, parking and community character." The San Francisco Planning Commission is expected in November to continue review of a Reasonable Modification Ordinance for disability accommodations. The measure would create a process for an individual with a disability to request reasonable modification to a building to remove a barrier to fair housing access. The LA Daily News reported the City Council gave Anschutz Entertainment Group "an additional six months to find a football team to play in the developer's proposed downtown stadium." Per most recent glance at the CalEPA Environmental Justice page , there's still no word on the designations of "disadvantaged" census tracts that were due by the end of September. As we've noted before, it's a tough, highly political decision . Early this month the Santa Rosa Press Democrat published a thoughtful extended news feature on The Sea Ranch and its lasting effects on regulation of California coastal development.

A new template for land use and preservation is forming across some 1,800 square miles of Los Angeles County's high, dry northeastern backlands. Its first increment could establish some key development permissions by mid-November, especially affecting the large Centennial new-town design, other construction plans, and solar energy arrays. The Antelope Valley (AV) Area Plan is tentatively scheduled for a vote by the LA County Supervisors on November 12. That approval, if granted, will be significant -- especially for the currently rural site along Highway 138 where the Tejon Ranch Co. has for years been laying regulatory groundwork to build a master-planned town it calls Centennial. There are also General Plan revisions afoot in two areas that affect the AV Plan area most: changes to boundaries and rules for Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) and a renewable energy ordinance. (A plan to develop transit-oriented districts (TODs) is part of the same General Plan update process but affects more urban areas. The north edge of its "overview map" is in Pasadena.) The Antelope Valley plan area (see map ) covers rugged northeastern Los Angeles County, from the southeast-slanting San Andreas Fault to the Ventura, Kern and San Bernardino County lines, excluding incorporated areas around Lancaster and Palmdale, and applying as a limited overlay to federal property such as Edwards Air Force Base. It extends south of the fault to include the whole mass of the San Gabriel Mountains (including the new San Gabriel Mountains National Monument ), and the north half or so of the Angeles National Forest above Santa Clarita. The Centennial site is near the current northern limit of suburban development that looks toward Los Angeles. Above it are mountain ridges that, for the present, occupy a gap between the footprints of greater Los Angeles and greater Bakersfield. Mark Child, deputy director of advance planning with the L.A. County Department of Regional Planning, said the proposed SEA designation and governing ordinance changes would most affect the Antelope Valley area rather than other parts of L.A. County, especially now that sensitive habitats in the Santa Monica Mountains are being separately regulated by the new Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Plan and, farther inland, the Santa Monica Mountains North Area Plan. He said some SEAs are affected in the San Gabriel Valley and Puente Hills, but they are small in comparison to the Antelope Valley. Environmental and community activists' concerns have included keeping rural places rural, ensuring "heavy agriculture" upzoning doesn't allow solar arrays as of right (Child said it doesn't), and, especially, limiting density in three "Economic Opportunity Areas" (EOAs) that the AV Area Plan designates for concentrated development. They have also questioned whether enough big-picture environmental regulation is in place to avoid harmful cumulative effects. Major affected landscapes include the western tip of the Mojave Desert with its wild poppy fields and Joshua trees, and the knot of the Coast, Transverse and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges, including condor habitat, where I-5 climbs over Tejon Pass toward LA from the foot of the Central Valley. Landowners, from owners of single-house lots to managers of mining and ranching concerns, have been asking nervously how certain they can be of future requirements under tiered processes that the program-level rules are designed to set up but not resolve. In addition to Centennial and other housing developments, major affected industries and projects under the AV Area Plan and General Plan amendments include aggregate mines, cattle ranchlands, oil and gas wells, and solar energy businesses. For L.A. County's rural lands at present, it isn't easy to parse what will be decided where, how conclusively, and when. There are multiple rulemaking tracks; there are tiering provisions in the proposed rules that defer major decisions selectively, and there's uncertainty yet to resolve on how the new rules will take up the threads of older planning processes. The AV Area Plan and Centennial As previously reported at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3587, the Regional Planning Commission approved the AV Area Plan September 27. Its accompanying Draft EIR remained open for comment until October 6 -- viewed as procedurally possible because the Commission's action September 27 was only a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; the Supervisors bear responsibility for definitely approving the plan and certifying its EIR. which will probably occur at the same time. (Sitting as the Airport Land Use Commission, the Regional Planning Commission approved the plan's compatibility with relevant airport plans.) The AV Area Plan, updating the existing 1986 General Plan component for the area, has been under review since 2008 in what has also been labeled the "Town and Country" planning process. However, new versions of the plan, and an extensive new Draft EIR, were published on a brisk schedule this summer, with the DEIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) posted June 12, revised planning documents posted July 23 and August 22, and the extensive DEIR documents posted August 22. (Comments on the AV Area Plan leading up to the September 27 hearing are labeled as "correspondence" and "supplemental package" documents as part of the meeting materials .) The new plan would encourage the proposed Centennial development by establishing policy statements in favor of upzoning at the intended town site. However, it would not allow building permits to be granted for the new densities as of right. Centennial's proponents would still have to bring a more detailed proposal through a full specific plan review process -- and it's not clear when they will decide the time is ripe for them to follow through. According to Child and Supervising Regional Planner Susan Tae, out of the three "Economic Opportunity Areas" (EOAs), only the west EOA, which includes the Centennial site, has a strict provision to ensure future review is coordinated. Any proposal to build more than five units of housing in the west EOA would trigger a requirement to begin a full specific plan coordinating infrastructure and environmental protections for the whole area. The county could also choose to begin a community plan there in the next five years. The published summary of September 27 changes to the AV Area Plan says affected properties in the west EOA are those of two particular owners: the Tejon Ranch Company and Bruce Burrows. In the west EOA, the AV Area Plan sets as general policy the possibility of zoning levels up to maximum caps described in the Plan's Map 2.1 . The green-veined yellow patches of H5 zoning (five housing units per acre) as shown in the map's upper left corner would be defined as generically appropriate for the east half of the proposed Centennial development site. Later on, the actual zoning changes would need to be adopted legislatively as part of a future specific or community plan, and their exact values would depend on the overall design of the project as then proposed. (In a choice that confused some activists, the DEIR's Figure 3.7, at Page 27 of Chapter 3 , sets out the lower A-2-10 "heavy agriculture" densities that would apply without a specific plan.) The Center for Biological Diversity has objected starting at the NOP stage to the use of any H5 zoning on the Centennial site. As of a Tejon Ranch Co. amended 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last March, the company was still discussing plans for 23,000 units of housing at Centennial. County planning staff say the maximum buildout under zoning envisoned by the AV Area Plan would be less -- more like 17,000 units -- but either would be a long way from the site's current population of zero. The Tejon Ranch Co. as of its March report held a 72.83% interest in the project's proponent entity, Centennial Founders, LLC, with minority partners Tri Pointe Homes (formerly Pardee Homes), Lewis Investment Company and Standard Pacific Corp. . (For prior discussion of Tejon Ranch real estate plans in the context of the Kern Water Bank EIR ruling see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3597.) SEA boundaries changing by stages Proposed new SEA boundaries are important for Centennial and for the AV area plan in general. Although the new SEAs are larger, it's disputed whether they actually increase environmental protection. Where former SEAs required buffer zones to surround them, the new approach is to expand the defined boundaries to include buffer zones within them. Similar changes were already adopted in 2011 for the Santa Clarita Valley area, which includes the Newhall Ranch planned-town site. (See http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/proposed.) The Commission's September 27 action removed the SEA designation from a major area of the Centennial town site, between its east boundary at a farm road incongruously named "300th Street", and the west branch of the California Aqueduct, which forms a north-south divider across the site. (A separate SEA pullback limited barriers to development in the Central Economic Opportunity Area southwest of Edwards. For details see the September 27 summary document .) Child wrote that the west EOA changes "aim to strike a balance between habitat conservation and environmental protection, and economic development that is important to the Antelope Valley and Los Angeles County as a whole. As the most valuable habitat and habitat linkage within this landholding is on the western end where the SEA designation remains, the area removed seems not as critical to the overall viability of SEA protections in the area." But Greg Medeiros, vice president of the Centennial Founders LLC development entity, asked the Commission on October 8 to also remove SEA status from the area west of the Aqueduct, saying, "Both commercial and residential land use remain within the SEA overlay within the west EOA boundary. This commercial development is critical in developing a balanced community that can provide necessary services and jobs." He assured: "Removing the SEA designation does not mean that biological resources will be ignored. Project-level environmental review during site design within the EOAs will require avoidance and mitigation if necessary to comply with both CEQA and Fish and Wildlife permitting requirements." Countywide, the proposed SEA changes have been divided among three different regulatory calendars: Some SEA boundary revisions that form part of the AV Area Plan will be before the Supervisors for approval November 12. SEA boundary changes elsewhere in the county go to the Regional Planning Commission as part of a General Plan update item December 10. Revisions to the current Draft 6 of the SEA Ordinance, which calls for protective measures to be determined in part by environmental reviews of each building site, were taken off calendar as of the Commission's October 8 meeting to allow more discussion. The issues taken off calendar as "ordinance" matters include issues such as whether existing uses will be grandfathered. For example, at the October 8 hearing, Jeff Mace of ERA Energy asked if his company's 3000 acres of oil and gas wells and grazing land would be subject to new SEA requirements with effects such as new fencing requirements. Some landowners saw the proposed environmental review process as a source of uncertainty. At the hearing, land use consultant Peter Gonzalez said he couldn't clearly advise a landowner on building rights in an SEA zone if a county biologist's review still had to determine each parcel's level of sensitivity under the proposed SEA ordinance. Marta Golding Brown, representing the Building Industry Association for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, told the Commission that the proposed mitigation ratios were excessive in requiring up to four acres open space for one acre of disturbed land, and the SEA boundaries themselves were oversized: "The SEA expansion virtually walls off all unbuilt or remaining lands in the jurisdiction. As a result, future population growth will need to be accommodated by dramatically increasing densities in the existing developed areas." She urged the Commission to combine SEA and CEQA mitigation processes in a single procedure and closed with the comment, "Please reduce the SEA overlays in the county to those areas having biota to protect." Environmental advocates weren't happy with the proposed SEA ordinance either: some said it had the unintended effect of elevating mitigation into a first choice for developers instead of encouraging them to avoid doing harm in the first place. Gary George of Audubon California told the Commission, "It's kind of a free pass straight to compensatory mitigation." Another environmental concern was whether single-family homes ought to be exempted from SEA requirements, or whether they, too, should be required to reduce their footprints. High SEAs A perennial concern in northwestern LA County has been whether the SEAs in the high desert and mountains provide sufficient "connectivity" or "linkages" for wildlife to travel among the several types of habitat that converge in the area, especially where I-5 traverses the Grapevine. (A slightly dated but informative "connectivity and construction" map from April gives a sense of the principles guiding SEA designations.) Child said a key purpose of updating the boundaries was to allow for linkages -- not necessarily to maintain land in "pristine" condition, but to allow for wildlife movement -- for example, by maintaining a corridor of grassland that might not itself be valuable habitat, but that would allow wildlife to move between developed areas. For the Centennial site an added uncertainty for activists is whether currently envisioned planning processes will make use of the work already done in an SEA-related environmental advisory process on a prior Centennial specific plan effort that was begun in 2008 but then deferred. As suggested by a 2008 Center for Biological Diversity press release , the SEATAC was sympathetic to critics who questioned not just how development might be made more eco-friendly at Centennial, but why any new project had to be built on the site.  The September 8, 2008, minutes of a SEATAC meeting on Centennial, still available on the county's site , shows a level of concerned review that gets literally into the weeds. The board discusses protection of grasslands, creekside habitat, watersheds and linkages, concerns about "leapfrog" developments surrounded by open space, the fortunes of species including badgers, lizards, owls, pumas, and the Tehachapi Pocket Mouse, a request to hear more about the futures of antelopes and raptors, and possible relocation of the Pacific Crest Trail onto the Tejon Ranch lands. Child wrote: "The future level and scope of environmental/biological review in this area would not be less careful than the review by SEATAC in 2008. The project is still subject to CEQA requirements and the County's consultation with responsible and trustee agencies would ensure that the project identifies and mitigates for any and all potential environmental impacts, including biota. Comments received from SEATAC regarding the project specifically, and the general region as important habitat land, would still be applied in the review of the project." Tae wrote that where SEATAC review is currently required for all SEA Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), the new ordinance would direct some projects to the county biologist, and others to SEATAC, with SEATAC "considered the higher review". Centennial's design was publicized more specifically before about 2008. The project stressed its environmental smart growth aspirations, discussing ways the project could be environmentally responsible and partly self-contained, even if residents commuted to jobs elsewhere. Now Centennial's main link from the Tejon Ranch Web site is a "Coming Soon" placeholder page. More detailed prior materials on the plan , including previews of the town's design , have been taken offline since last September . The Centennial Scout, a weblog formerly maintained for Centennial Founders, LLC by its community development manager, last posted in August 2011. It remains uncertain when the Centennial Founders management may decide the time is right to go ahead with their specific plan. So it's clearly enough in the project's interest to lock in as many permissions as possible for the 20-year duration of a General Plan update. In the meantime, the Ranch's interest sounds warmer with respect to its more recently proposed Grapevine development in Kern County. The Tejon Ranch Co.'s amended 10-K as filed in March 2014 stated, "California regulatory dynamics may impact the future ability to entitle new development so we began the land planning and entitlement process for Grapevine during 2013 to take advantage of the existing favorable pro-business and political climate in Kern County." The Tejon Ranch is the subject of a 2008 settlement in which five environmental groups, including the Sierra Club but not the Center for Biological Diversity, agreed not to oppose future development on the ranch in return for a conservation program affecting much of the Tejon Ranch land. Opposition to Centennial and other projects has been less widely expressed in the six years since then. The March amended 10-K stated, "The Conservation Agreement we entered into with five major environmental organizations in 2008 is designed to minimize the opposition from environmental groups to these projects and eliminate or reduce the time spent in litigation once governmental approvals are received. Litigation by environmental groups has been a primary cause of delay and loss of financial value for real estate development projects in California." Solar up next On a slower schedule, hearings are expected this winter on a renewable energy land use ordinance for projects such as solar arrays. Tae wrote that the draft EIR would likely appear in November, with the Regional Planning Commission to take it up in January. Tae and Child wrote that the ordinance has to reach the Supervisors by March to help the county qualify for a grant out of the Renewable Resource Trust Fund related to Assembly Bill X1-13. Child said there had been anxieties that a large-scale upzoning of about 190,000 acres to A-2, "heavy agriculture," in the Antelope Valley Area Plan would allow large solar arrays as of right. In fact he said that while A-2 zoning is a prerequisite for solar arrays, the ordinance would regulate such approvals and they would require conditional use permits to go through. The county's public tally of proposed utility-scale renewable energy projects to date shows most such projects are solar; there have been a few wind turbine schemes. The renewable energy ordinance review will need to interact with the California and federal EIR/EIS for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan , which was posted for review September 26. Major solar energy developers are among the commenters on early stages of the energy ordinance.