Search Results

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

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.  Chart headline: Strongest Cross-County Commuting Relationships Source: U.S. Census

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CEQA reform landscape – which looked pretty robust all winter – was turned upside down on Friday. First, state Sen. Michael Rubio – chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality and the leading advocate for strong CEQA reform in the legislature – abruptly resigned to take a government relations job with Chevron. Then, a few hours later, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg introduced a placeholder CEQA reform bill that hinted at less-than-sweeping reform. However, the bill does call for statewide significance thresholds for land use impacts – a potentially significant shift. Without a CEQA champion in the Legislature, it seems likely that some CEQA reform will be passed this year. Instead, it is likely to nibble around the edges of CEQA processes – an approach that critics sometimes say creates a more complicated law, not a simpler one. Gov. Jerry Brown said Saturday he was counting on Rubio to carry the ball on CEQA reform this year and was disappointed that he was resigning. The bill, SB 731 ,  does contain language that supports an annual $30 million in funding to the Strategic Growth Council in order to continue the local planning grant program currently funded by Proposition 84 funds.  Steinberg acknowledged that SB 731 is a placeholder. Currently, the bill is barely one page long and contains very general "intent" language. The bill currently calls for statewide significance thresholds on noise, aesthetics, parking, and traffic levels of service as well as land use impacts. The bill also calls for a variety of procedural changes, including limiting "late hits" and "document dumps," defining "new information" more specifically, and directing trial judges to focus only on inadequate portions of environmental documents rather than remanding the entire document for review. Considered an up-and-coming star among conservative Democrats, the 35-year-old Rubio served on the Kern County Board of Supervisors before he was elected to the Senate in 2010. Last August, he made headlines by proposing major CEQA reforms late in the legislative session. . Within 24 hours he held a press conference with Steinberg backing off the reforms and promising to reintroduce legislation in 2013. He was expected to lead the charge for CEQA reforms this year. He said he resigned because the legislative position leaves him with little time to spend with his young family. The Chevron job certainly pays many times his $95,000-a-year legislative salary. It is unclear whether his ability -- or lack thereof -- to move CEQA and other reforms through the legislature was also a factor.

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.

Streetcars are the hottest thing in the downtown revitalization business these days. They're in operation in Portland and Seattle and in planning and construction stage in places like Washington, D.C., Oklahoma City, Cincinnati, Fort Lauderdale and Kansas City. And don't worry – California will get its share of streetcars as well, especially Southern California. The Downtown Los Angeles streetcar appears all but certain to be open by around 2016, and three Orange County cities – Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Fullerton – are exploring the idea. At last week's New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Kansas City, one of L.A.'s leading streetcar advocates – Shiraz Tangri, a lawyer for Alston & Bird and the general counsel for LA Streetcar Inc. – laid out the game plan for how the downtown streetcar will be built. A critical piece of the puzzle was put into place last fall, when downtown voters approved a Mello-Roos District to help finance the streetcar. It's one of the few cases in California history that a Mello has been successfully adopted in an urban location – which, all by itself, may be a harbinger of things to come. At first glance, streetcars would not seem to have much of a place in the 21st Century. These self-propelled single-car vehicles are much slower even than light-rail trains and they typically run in the street with regular traffic. Yet they're catching on all over the country as a more efficient downtown circulator than the typical bus or shuttle – and one that will generate new real estate development along the way. That's clearly what's happened in Portland, where the streetcar connects downtown with the hopping Pearl District and with the South Waterfront, where it connects to an aerial tram to Oregon Health Sciences University, which is located atop a nearby hill. Other cities are trying to replicate the Portland story. Virtually all streetcar projects seek to connect disparate destinations in or near downtowns. They're all starting with only a few miles of service and compared to other rail transit investments they're cheap -- $100 million or so on average. But, as Tangri pointed out in his presentation in Kansas City, no city in the country is better poised to use the streetcar well than L.A. "It's a history project and an identity project," he said of the L.A. streetcar. "We should be the most pedestrian-friendly city in the world. We have a great climate. It is incredibly dense." Downtown Los Angeles is already experiencing an amazing renaissance. The opening of the Staples Center in 1999 and the city's pathbreaking adaptive reuse ordinance shortly thereafter kickstarted a rejuvenation that has increased downtown's population from 10,000 to 50,000. Downtown is the hub of a burgeoning regional transit system that is likely to double in size over the next decade, thanks largely to Measure R.  Even so, as Tangri pointed out in his Kansas City talk, Downtown L.A. is big – it's a long way from Staples to the hip lofts east of City Hall – and it can be tough to get around. Furthermore, some parts of Downtown have not shared in the rebirth. For example, along Broadway – once Downtown's premiere shopping street – the upper floors of 12-story buildings remain mostly empty even as neighborhoods all around have new life. (Tangri says there is 1 million square feet of vacant space on Broadway.) Indeed, Broadway is the focal point of the streetcar project; Councilmember Jose Huizar has assigned the same staff member to be the point person for both the streetcar and Broadway. Like so many other streetcar projects around the country, the L.A. project is being put together entirely outside the traditional public transit structure. (L.A. Metro is supportive but has nothing to do with the project.) And as Tangri and others often point out, when business leaders promote – and pay for – a transit project, it's going to have different a completely different goal: economic development rather than mobility. "We talk a lot about transit-oriented development," he said, "But this is development-oriented transit." Though some cities around the country are relying on state and federal funds to help pay for their projects, L.A. – like other cities, including Kansas City – is relying almost entirely on what amounts to a parcel tax.  Among other things, the Mello is levied as a gradient – those close to the line pay more. And, as Tangri and other streetcar experts frequently say, you've got to link those places that are hot in the real estate market with those that aren't. It's a way of extending the hot market to new locations. The Mello-Roos victory last November is an especially interesting and important aspect of the L.A. streetcar effort. Originally a Proposition 13 workaround, Mellos have traditionally been used only in greenfield locations because they require two-thirds voter approval. In areas with few voters, the vote is among property owners only, which means developers and local governments have typically negotiated an infrastructure finance deal and than the developer (often the sole landowner) votes the Mello district into existence. Cities have usually stayed away from urban Mellos because they fear voters won't go for the extra tax. In Downtown L.A., though, all those new hipsters helped the cause. Whereas many property owners may have been reluctant to tax themselves for the streetcar, the new downtown residents – the voters – were more than willing deliver the two-thirds vote for the additional tax, which of course falls in the property owners and not – at least not directly – on those residents who are renters. The streetcar vote could flip traditional California thinking about urban Mellos on its head. Tangri said the streetcar should begin construction next year and open in 2016. This is a similar timetable for many other streetcar projects around the country.

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.