Search Results

California's rethinking process for transportation impact assessments under SB 743 is still waiting for a formal proposal from state officials. The July 1, 2014 deadline for publication of a new draft standard from Governor Brown's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) came and went without the expected new document. Siddharth Nag, OPR's legislative coordinator and legal counsel, wrote in response to an inquiry: "The draft is not quite ready for release, but we hope it will be in coming weeks." He confirmed it would be possible to sign up for immediate notification of the draft's release by joining a listserv linked from OPR's SB 743 Web site at http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php. The American Planning Association San Diego had scheduled a presentation on the revision process, but circulated an email about possible rescheduling that said, "We have been informed by OPR that the revised transportation metric guidelines will not be available in time for our event scheduled for July 11, 2014 (The legally required release date was July 1, 2014.)" A SPUR San Jose event on the issue was still scheduled for July 17 as of this writing. (See http://www.spur.org/events/2014-07-17/what-auto-los-reform-means-san-jose.) To date, the main public OPR statement on the subject is a "preliminary evaluation" of possible new metrics that the office issued last December at http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PreliminaryEvaluationTransportationMetrics.pdf. In that text, OPR staff said they were posting the document early to invite preliminary comment though no proposal was required until July. Almost a hundred public comment responses are posted at http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/SB743_PublicComments_INDEX.pdf. Last year's SB 743 legislation required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to post an initial draft by July 1, 2014 of an alternative standard to measure transportation impacts under CEQA. The new standard must depart from the Level of Service (LOS) approach, which has been criticized as outdated, crude and even harmful because it focuses on avoiding auto traffic congestion. In its posted materials about the mandate, OPR begins by arguing a case against the LOS standard, saying LOS-based project reviews and mitigation designs work to the detriment of other transportation goals such as improving access by foot, bicycle or bus or reducing overall travel distances. Per the law's text (at http://bit.ly/1lM4qY8), OPR's July 1 deadline was to propose "criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, the office shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section." The December "preliminary evaluation" prominently considered switching over to the "Vehicle Miles Traveled" (VMT) standard, saying travel distances were easier to predict than congestion levels and that mitigation approaches focused on reducing VMT would do more to promote bicycle, foot and mass transit methods of travel. The VMT choice is thought to be the most likely, but the December document also invited discussion of other standards: Automobile Trips Generated, Multi-Modal Level of Service (including LOS ratings for transit, walking and biking), Fuel Use,  and Motor Vehicle Hours Traveled. Further, it suggested some areas could be placed categorically under a "presumption of less than significant transportation impact" category to allow new development in central areas already well served by transit. A June 26 explanatory article by the SPUR organization, posted at http://www.spur.org/blog/2014-06-26/can-new-law-free-cities-car-oriented-development, says some cities including San Francisco and San Jose are already moving away from the LOS standard. It suggests smaller and more rural cities may however seek to retain LOS because it suits more rural areas better and replacement approaches may be expensive to adopt. The SPUR article and OPR's SB 743 Web page identify the CEQA Guidelines Listserv as the place to subscribe for notification of the new standard. The sign-in form is available in the OPR listserv menu at http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_e-lists.php. The same list allows subscription to an additional listserv for SB 743, described as providing "information about Alternatives to LOS," but it's not clear how the two lists may overlap.

In San Francisco parking news in June, a startup tried to auction public parking spaces, activists sought CEQA review of a proposal to re-authorize free parking on Sundays, new data appeared on variable-rate parking, and drivers peeved at "transit first" policies were collecting signatures for a November ballot measure. No, really: in late June the City Attorney's office told a startup company, MonkeyParking, to stop auctioning public parking access to the public: http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70046. CityLab 's Eric Jaffe looked at some new data on the city's SFPark variable-rate meter system and found that in many ways it successfully rations parking by raising its price, reducing the amount of circling in search of spaces. However, he presented additional data from academic researchers Daniel Chatman and Michael Manville suggesting that, while the meters did successfully control overall occupancy by discouraging those willing to pay less, the result didn't guarantee that a space would be open when someone willing to pay for it wanted one: http://bit.ly/1mpUJOe. In a separate SFMTA proposal that a spokesman described as "part of our efforts to make parking in San Francisco more efficient overall," the city was considering charging at meters even if drivers or their passengers had disability placards: http://bit.ly/1luEAlO. And remember the CEQA appeal of the repeal of Sunday parking meter charges? The dispute is still going. As of mid-June the Planning Department and SFMTA argued that allowing free parking on Sundays wasn't a CEQA-reviewable decision, as recounted by Aaron Bialick of SF Streetsblog at http://bit.ly/1mg7FHD. The Board of Supervisors took the same position June 17 by voting to endorse CEQA exemption for the whole SFMTA two-year budget, including the Sunday meter repeal. For Bialick's account of the meeting see http://bit.ly/1qMvzKh. The legislative tracking page for the item is at http://bit.ly/1jFiAVN. Whether court action will follow remains to be seen. The Sunday parking issue, together with other SF parking restrictions, was becoming a cause not just for bike, pedestrian and environmental activists but for a car drivers' pushback group, Restoring Transportation Balance in San Francisco. It has been greeted with sarcasm from several quarters (including SF Streetsblog at http://bit.ly/1mSrCEo), but the conservative Potrero View neighborhood paper was cheering for the group at http://www.potreroview.net/feat10582.html and the group itself, with a home page at http://www.restorebalance14.org/, was working to gather signatures by July 7 for a local ballot initiative petition. The initiative would mandate free Sunday parking, condition new and variable-rate meters on a local neighborhood petition process, freeze city parking rates for five years, and increase representation for "motorists" in SFMTA governance. (A similar fed-up drivers' group in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Parking Freedom Initiative, was working toward creation of a ballot measure according to its Web site at http://www.parkinglosangeles.org. While it appears there's no definite ballot measure text yet, KPCC reports the group has begun to get some policy traction with Mayor Eric Garcetti: http://bit.ly/1jFmjm8) After all of which, you'd be surprised how many street parking spaces there really are in San Francisco. Aaron Bialick decided to count them. He found that, lined up end to end, they would run 900 miles, exceeding the length of California's coastline: http://bit.ly/TzKE6G.

With a budget passed, California's Legislature has turned to policy committee reviews of bills and to negotiations over a water bond facing a July 3 deadline to be finalized for November voters. So this roundup takes a look at June legislative developments other than the budget that are of interest in land use and city planning. As discussed in last week's coverage, especially http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3509, a budget bill has been passed and signed, and it includes some policy measures such as a new power for the Coastal Commission to impose fines for violations of coastal access rights. (See SB 861 at http://bit.ly/1na4EDS.) Six measures are now on the November 2014 ballot, including the water bond bill placed on the ballot in 2012 and Governor Brown's bill for a state "rainy day fund" reserve. For current versions of the November ballot measures, see http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm and news coverage at http://lat.ms/1iNQQmC. Thus far the Legislature has failed to agree on a new water bond proposal to replace the 2012 version, as discussed in last week's news briefs at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3518. But an advocacy analysis by the California Economic Summit said negotiations for a different water bond were still in progress. See http://bit.ly/1qdJRV0. The LA Times was reporting negotiators meant to propose a new replacement bond package to the Assembly Appropriations Committee July 1. See http://lat.ms/1pG7LLb. As a function of legislative deadlines, every bill that is still officially making progress in the current session has been passed by its house of origin and by a policy committee in the other house. So, for example, AB 1537, to redefine Marin County as "suburban", has been passed both by the full Assembly and by the State Senate's Transportation and Housing Committee. Following is a review of June fates of bills relevant to land use and city planning. (For descriptive notes on many of the bills' provisions see our prior discussions at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3498 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3503.) Bill standings, end of June 2014: SB 1439 , the Ellis Act restriction bill to slow San Francisco evictions, was defeated narrowly in the Assembly housing committee and Sen. Mark Leno, its sponsor, announced he would not press the bill farther this session. For more see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3518. SB 2372 , the business property transfer restriction earlier viewed as a breakthrough toward possible Prop 13 reform, is still formally a live bill but may have lost liberal supporters. SB 1021 , also a property tax tweak at the edge of Prop 13's application, failed in committee. See our separate report at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3521. AB 1537 , to redefine Marin County as "suburban" rather than "metropolitan" for housing element purposes, passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee 8-1 on June 25. It goes to Appropriations next. The bill would reduce the default housing density for Marin County local housing elements from 30 units per acre to 20 units per acre. The Marin IJ at http://bit.ly/1x2WZi6 and the latest legislative summary at http://bit.ly/1lrbdAY cited an argument for the bill that default densities of 30 units per acre were interfering with negotiations to build affordable housing at all. Arguments against the bill include that housing element planning processes are free to adopt other densities, and that exemption from the 30-unit default density might set a bad precedent of relaxing standards designed to promote affordability. (On that last issue see Ethan Elkind's May 27 commentary at http://bit.ly/1qLpvln.) As argued by former Marin Assembly member Vivien Bronshvag, the measure is pushback against ABAG requirements viewed as imposed arbitrarily on a regional rather than locally suited basis: http://bit.ly/1mM1que. The Sustainable Cities Collective reported at http://bit.ly/TIxhAw that although Marin County housing stock grew by just 0.25%, Marin County towns gained population by about 1% in 2013 (excluding unincorporated areas, which grew more slowly). For more background from May see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3503. SB 968 , for public access to the disputed Martins Beach, was approved 7-1 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee June 26, but in significantly weakened form. The Mercury News reported that the original bill called for the State Lands Commission to make a forced purchase of the access road if owner Vinod Khosla wouldn't open it, but the current bill only calls on the commission to consider buying it. The news report attributed the change to lobbying by former Assembly member Rusty Areias, now with California Strategies and representing Khosla. See http://bit.ly/UJxiVZ.The bill's author, Sen. Jerry Hill of San Mateo, told the paper, "This keeps the bill alive and keeps the conversation going." (For legislative history see the CACities page at http://bit.ly/1vqgONB -- the official page may not be fully updated.) The case has drawn wide attention meanwhile, including a recent feature news writeup in the New York Times at http://nyti.ms/1z3t0s7. The Surfrider Foundation's lawsuit in San Mateo County Superior Court on the same issue is currently set for trial July 16. Briefs in the matter can be viewed at http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/civil/default.asp under Case No. CIV 520336. One particularly remarked brief, filed by attorneys for Khosla's LLCs in early June, reaches back to an 1859 land case interpreting application to the site of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for authority against Surfrider's claim of access rights under the Coastal Act. SB 270 , to ban single-use carryout bags, has amended the provision mentioned at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3481 that encourages local governments to pass their own plastic-bag bans before the state-level one comes down. The current bill withholds state-level preemption from local plastic bag ordinances that go to a first reading before September 1, 2014 and are adopted by September 1, 2015. Localities recently banning plastic bags include: The city of LA, where a prior ordinance just took effect for small grocers: http://lat.ms/1lFAEU6 Davis passed a ban in late June, and Sacramento Bee coverage notes bans now exist in 110 California jurisdictions, including bans within the year by Chico, Truckee, South Lake Tahoe, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs and Nevada City: http://bit.ly/1vpVcRl The League of California Cities has been noting cities working on bans, including Encinitas: http://bit.ly/1pFDGeG and Martinez: http://martinezgazette.com/archives/15028 The city of San Jose and creekside cleanup activists each say they're seeing less plastic bag litter since the city's bag ban took effect in 2012. See http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=1526.  AB 2130 was signed by Governor Brown just three days before the mandatory effective date of a public health bill that would have required all food handlers to wear protective gloves -- even bartenders and sushi chefs. Assemblyman Richard Pan brought the measure to undo his own earlier bill. See http://bit.ly/VBch0d. For last year's tongue-in-cheek commentary and background from Josh Stephens, see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3438. SB 69 , to replace Vehicle License Fee revenue for four newly created municipalities, including Jurupa Valley, was still moving and still appeared to have a chance. For details on this compensation bill for new towns stranded by 2011 budget cuts, see our recent news feature at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3515. AB 1521 , similar to SB 69, would replace funding that was expected as of 2011 for recent annexations to existing cities. Itw as approved by its first Senate committee but with a revised funding formula. See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3516 and, for the recent amendments, http://bit.ly/1qCEuQQ. AB 1513 was still moving through the Legislature on a public safety track but tenant advocates feared it could be bad for tenants' rights in housing. The bill would create a pilot program in Lancaster and Palmdale allowing an owner of residential property labeled as "vacant" to resume possession of it "by declaration" in an expedited, police-enforced 48-hour process. The process would place the burden on occupants of the property to prove they had rights to be there. It's presented as an anti-squatter measure but tenant advocates fear it could be used to short-circuit the procedural guarantees of the eviction process in conventional landlord-tenant relations. See the final item in prior legislative briefs at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3498 for some concerns on this unusual bill. The June 23 Senate committee analysis explains the concerns further with some intensity, breaking into anxious block capitals at several moments. See http://bit.ly/1iooOZ2. AB 2145 , to change rules on community choice aggregation for clean electrical power, dropped a provision that would have required individual electricity customers to opt in to clean power rather than being automatically enrolled. The Santa Rosa Press Democrat at http://bit.ly/1mfIsgE attributes the change especially to advocates for the existing Sonoma Clean Power community-choice aggregation utility. The opponents' site at http://www.no2145.org celebrated removal of the provision but criticized others that remained, and looked toward a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in August. The bill, sponsored by the Coalition of California Utility Employees, is supported by PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, significant organized labor groups and a few chambers of commerce. The opponents (a longer list) are mainly city governments, small utilities and environmental groups. The state legislative page for the bill is at http://bit.ly/1p5rUqk. SB 1199 , to designate almost 37 miles of the Mokelumne River as "wild and scenic," passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee June 23 in a version previously amended to adjust the affected area around EBMUD's Pardee Reservoir and to defer to upstream water districts' rights and projects. These amendments did not resolve a further question about the bill's future that was raised earlier this season in a news analysis by East Bay Express co-editor Robert Gammon (http://bit.ly/1qduHzh). Writing back in May, Gammon suggested that EBMUD might push to condition the scenic designation on what he termed a "poison pill": a requirement for a community approval process (in addition to legislative approval) that would fail if agreement couldn't be won from conservative local officials upstream. The bill appeared to have achieved Assembly Natural Resources passage June 23 without picking up such provisions. A June 24 statement on the vote by the Foothill Conservancy, which has campaigned for scenic designation, was celebratory in tone but said sponsor Loni Hancock "has pledged to work with the opponents of the bill on amendments to address their concerns." See http://bit.ly/1iUn3Ja. AB 2293 , to impose added insurance requirements on "ride-sharing" services, passed the Senate Insurance Committee June 25 in what Patrick Hoge of the SF Business Times called a "significant defeat" for the Uber and Lyft services. The bill would require Internet-dispatched car services, defined as "Transportation Network Companies," to carry defined levels of liability insurance coverage for drivers while they have their phone apps turned on waiting for calls, in addition to coverage already required by law for drivers who have actually accepted calls. The legislation responds in part to a tragedy last New Year's Eve in San Francisco, when an Uber driver who was between calls struck and killed a six-year-old girl, Sophia Liu. Witnesses at the June 25 hearing included Sophia Liu's mother, Huan Kuang, who was also injured in the crash. Outside, cab drivers picketed in support of more regulation. For details see http://bit.ly/1x90bZo and http://bit.ly/1z3ZD9c. The Insurance Committee legislative analysis of June 23 at http://bit.ly/1iPRGjl is especially detailed. KQED has a more detailed but earlier discussion at http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/06/17/2014/Uber-Lyft-Insurance-crack-down. It includes description of AB 612 , a bill on permit conditions for drivers such as drug testing that would imitate current requirements for taxi drivers. Bills also in play The following bills were also passed by their policy committees, hence are still alive in the session. Many of these were previously profiled in our May and June legislative analyses. (Bill information, including legislative analyses, is at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.) SB 1424 , City of Martinez tidelands transfer. SB 2135 , affordable housing priority for surplus public land AB 2104 , overriding HOA landscaping rules to save water AB 2493 , post-Redevelopment release of $750 million in project funds to cities. SB 1129 , post-Redevelopment cleanup AB 2280 , re-create some elements of Redevelopment with a housing emphasis AB 1404 , allow and require San Francisco Redevelopment's successor agency to rebuild over 5000 affordable housing units lost to the city through "urban renewal" demolitions 1955-1975 AB 2417 , provide CEQA exemptions for "purple pipe" distribution of recycled water AB 1739 & SB 1168 , groundwater management: see ACWA comment at http://bit.ly/UJPNtd AB 2453 , Paso Robles water district governance by a locally controversial "hybrid" board structure SB 1077 , pilot program imposing auto tax based on miles traveled AB 1999 , state historic rehabilitation tax credit -- see League of CA Cities tracking page at http://bit.ly/1r9uezM Gut-and-amends Two bills that were originally written for post-Redevelopment purposes are now gut-and-amends directed toward other goals: AB 2292 was originally proposed as a quasi-Redevelopment bill, to expand infrastructure financing districts (IFDs) specifically for Oakland's Coliseum City, Howard Terminal and Oakland Army Base sites, all of which were already development targets. However, the June 11 State Senate Governance and Finance Committee approval was for an amended bill that replaced all references to the three sites with authorization for IFDs to fund broadband communications network facilities. AB 2549 , originally to create a local commission on Milpitas' post-Redevelopment funding losses, passed the Governance and Finance Committee as a gambling control measure.

Two bills and a lawsuit that sought to limit Proposition 13's restriction of commercial property taxes were failed or flagging as of late June. The Sacramento Bee 's Dan Walters reported at http://bit.ly/UMvc7E that AB 2372 was losing momentum as it entered the State Senate. The bill had been hailed earlier as a breakthrough compromise to close a Prop 13 commercial property tax loophole. But Walters wrote that lobbyist Lenny Goldberg, representing the California Tax Reform Association, pulled support from the measure June 25, the same day it passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Goldberg, he wrote, had been a key party to a compromise announced in May that brought together perennial opponents and defenders of Prop 13 to support the bill. The bill, by Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, and Raul Bocanegra, D-San Fernando Valley, would block a method of avoiding reassessment for property tax purposes when business real estate changes hands: instead of transferring the property formally to a new owner, control over the owning entity is divided among a new group of people or entities, invoking an existing definition of corporate reorganization that currently exempts such transactions from reassessment. The bill would impose reassessment if 90% or more of the ownership interests changed hands within three years -- though successive amendments have narrowed its application. For prior coverage see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3494 and the Socketsite real estate blog at http://bit.ly/1qpbGeF. Walters quoted Goldberg's withdrawal letter to Assembly sponsor Tom Ammiano as saying the bill did not "provide real reform" because it would not apply retroactively to the kinds of exemption it was meant to stop and would allow too many other ways around reassessment. Walters suggested that, if the measure failed, it might strengthen the possibility of a ballot initiative for a "split roll" giving different tax treatment to residential and commercial properties. Also in June, the LA County Assessor's challenge to a version of this type of transaction was defeated in Ocean Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles . The Second District Court of Appeal found on June 3 that reassessment was not triggered when three entities closely linked to Michael Dell of the Dell computer company acquired ownership of the LLC that holds the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica. (The June 23 committee analysis of AB 2372 at http://bit.ly/1i0mbN1 mentions that outcome specifically, saying "more than $1 million" in tax liability was saved.) The Second District issued orders slightly revising the decision and publishing it as of June 24. See http://bit.ly/1m0Wn8C. For a detailed analysis of the case -- written on the assumption that AB 2372 was likely to pass --  see the Pillsbury law firm's site at http://bit.ly/1k3I7Id. SB 1021, a measure allowing limited higher commercial parcel taxes that was criticized by opponents as a "split roll" proposal, still had prospects when Walters' article on AB 2372 went to press, but the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee rejected it 4-1 the same day. On June 26 the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association crowed on Twitter, "Yesterday SB 1021 was defeated... changed how education parcel taxes are assessed for tens of thousands of properties. Victory for #prop13." (https://twitter.com/HJTA/status/482283390432198656). For the bill's formal history see http://bit.ly/TIgFcl. For more detail and links see our prior coverage at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3494.

A coalition of San Francisco tenants' groups has won the needed four votes from county Supervisors to place an "anti-speculation tax" initiative on the city and county municipal ballot in November. The initiative, which would impose a 24-percent tax on investors who sell rental housing within five years of purchase, is the latest attempt of long-time city residents to beat back the waves of rising rents and housing values in what has become the nation's most expensive housing market. The anti-speculation tax may carry an extra emotional charge for some of its supporters: a similar proposal was one of the last projects of legendary gay rights activist and San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk before he was assassinated in 1978. The umbrella group campaigning for this November's ballot measure, known as the Anti-Displacement Coalition, includes the San Francisco Tenants' Union, Causa Justa/Just Cause, Eviction Defense Collaborative, Housing Rights Committee, and the Chinatown Community Development Center. However sympathetically we may view the frustrations of working-class and middle-class people facing rapidly rising housing prices, it seems unlikely that either the initiative process or other political efforts can control gentrification and runaway real estate speculation. Part of the reason is the law and another part concerns the nature of cities and investment cycles.  Although nobody can predict elections, it is plausible, if far from certain, that the anti-tax initiative could squeak through in November. The city population has a plurality of renters, most of whom are unable to move from their rent-controlled units into other rental properties; in San Francisco, a one-bedroom unit can command $3,500 in monthly rent. Even for a non-lawyer like the present writer, the anti-speculation tax seems unworkable. One does not have to be a glassy-eyed supporter of property rights to realize that a 24-percent tax on a private investment is onerous. Even if foes of gentrification can see a clear public purpose in punishing short-term investors, the law probably does not. Then there's the equity issue: Why would housing investors be subject to a punitive tax, while owners of other forms of investment real estate would not share a similar burden? How would the law handle cases of mixed-use developments that combine housing with retail, office, childcare and health clinics? For example, would the law require the owner to pay a full 24 percent of the sale proceeds of a mixed-use property? Or could the owner negotiate a partial payment, based on some arcane formula, such as the percentage of the total square footage devoted to housing, perhaps, or the percentage of income that the rental housing units contribute to the total cash flow? And then there would be loopholes for people who inherited property and wanted to liquidate their estates within five years. What would stop those heirs from forming limited partnerships with real estate investors? And so on. Even if the law survived a constitutional challenge, which is unlikely, it would be full of loopholes as a piece of French lace. The deeper problem is the nature of cities. Cities are dynamic places where change is axiomatic. The dirty secret is that cities live on money. Successful cities are those that are able to attract a steady flow of investment in private homes, rental housing, commercial space and public areas. In a sense, cities are fossil records of the periods of greatest investment, because those periods are when the greatest amounts of construction and re-construction occur. And current levels of investment, like it or not, make the difference between San Francisco and Detroit. In a perfect world, cities would experience just enough investment to maintain property values while discouraging neighborhoods from deteriorating into slums. But investment is not rational, and the current phenomenon of investment in Bay Area housing is a case in point. This is an overheated housing bubble. Bubbles do not last. Real estate is cyclical by its nature: Bust follows boom every four or five years; the prolonged recession in recent years was a rare exception. Long-time Bay Area residents will recall that the Dot-Com Boom, the boom that promised to change the rules of the economy forever (alas for days gone by!) was followed by the Tech Wreck. That collapse in values left many offices and storefronts suddenly empty South of Market, together with tens of millions of square feet of office space in throughout the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. People lost their jobs or could no longer afford to live in the Bay Area. At one point, San Francisco residential vacancies approached 10 percent. The same fate awaits the current tech-driven housing bubble. Something will inevitably spoil the run-up in prices. For starters, technology is mercurial. Apple, Google, Oracle and Adobe, inconceivable as it sounds, may all lose market share and pull back at some time in the future. Intel and Microsoft, formerly viewed as bulletproof, have already lost ground; Blackberry and Nokia, market leaders in their time, are much diminished. Does anyone remember that Cisco Systems was the highest cap stock at one point? Beyond the fortunes of technology, a national or global recession could dampen the market. So could, God forbid, the unexpected shifting of continental plates. The only certainty is that the market will cool and values will drop somewhat. It's true that San Francisco has been Manhattanized and that the social cost is high. So far, it's proven difficult or impossible to legislate a certain kind of urban quality, at least in America. The law seems largely indifferent to urban quality, which can mean different things to different people. (Personally, I'm attracted to messiness, crowding and near-insoluble infrastructure problems, but I realize this is a personal taste.) Alas, the trickle-down theory, justly maligned in macro-economics, may be applicable to cities: Where there's money, there are exciting shopping streets, exciting new buildings and preservation, and hot new districts. And bountiful tax proceeds bring in public money for museums and parks. In short, cycles of reinvestment and disinvestment are the cost of remaining a money-center city. As in nature, the presence of too many nutrients for one species may cause one part of an ecosystem to grow too quickly, to the detriment of a balanced system. That overgrowth, in turn, brings about a correction over time. The process, which may appear chaotic from short range, may look more orderly from a distance. It's true that the San Francisco of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo has become a theme park for the rich. I'm not particularly happy about it. On the other hand, I haven't booked a hotel room in Detroit for a long time.

"Walkable urban places" or "WalkUPs" became an instant buzz word with the release in June of a new report by LOCUS, the real estate development and investor advocacy organization of Smart Growth America. As discussed on the CityLab (formerly Atlantic Cities ) site at http://bit.ly/T7maRu, the report said 558 WalkUPs exist in the 30 largest U.S. metro areas. It focused on demand for more such areas, saying they tend to have higher GDPs per capita and house more young college graduates, and office space within them "commands a 74 percent rent-per-square-foot premium over rents in drivable suburban areas." The report is at http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/locus/foot-traffic-ahead/. San Jose approves Diridon Plan for Caltrain/HSR hub The San Jose City Council has approved a plan for a 250-acre transit terminal complex in downtown San Jose, intended most immediately to anchor the Caltrain from San Francisco, and eventually to welcome both a BART extension and the statewide High-Speed Rail line. The plan calls for massive office, commercial, residential and hotel space. The plan is at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1743. Streetsblog SF reported at http://bit.ly/TetxX8 that the final version adopted requirements that press the nearby SAP Center sports arena to reduce spectators' reliance on cars, and included, as a goal, the much-debated restoration of nearby Los Gatos Creek as a public amenity. The Silicon Valley Business Journal has details at http://bit.ly/1vUIE6G. Statute of limitations bars college tree-cutting protest California's First District Court of Appeal ruled June 17 that community college administrators were within their rights to have more than 200 trees cut down on the College of San Mateo campus. In an opinion heavy on procedural history, the court found the challenge brought by Citizens for a Green San Mateo was time-barred because the group did not raise it until they saw the trees being cut, by which time 30-day and 180-day deadlines to object under Public Resources Code  § 21167 had passed. The case is Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo Community College District . The online docket is at http://bit.ly/1pydQF3, opinion at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A137612.PDF. San Mateo Daily Journal coverage is at http://bit.ly/1jdLiN8 and detailed legal discussion by Miller Starr Regalia's "CEQA Developments" blog is at http://bit.ly/1l7f8CW. SF utility boxes exempted from CEQA The First District issued a publication order May 30 for its April ruling upholding CEQA exemptions for 726 AT&T utility boxes to be installed on San Francisco sidewalks. The case is San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco , opinion at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A136546.PDF. Water bond vote fails; reconsideration likely With the June 26 deadline for legislative ballot measures approaching, the SB 848 water bond proposal by Sen. Lois Wolk failed to obtain a two-thirds majority in the California Senate on June 23. The LA Times has details at http://lat.ms/Tsj5vF. The day before, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg told interviewer Conan Nolan on the LA area's KNBC-TV (http://bit.ly/1sy3xq9) that polling showed a bond measure would fail with voters if it funded a north-south transfer of California water through the Delta tunnel project, so he was advocating for Wolk's measure, which funded other types of projects. The Association of California Water Agencies predicted reconsideration and further negotiations would follow. See http://bit.ly/1pcBYkE. Online, the Maven's Notebook weblog and its linked Twitter account are following the issue closely. Capitola may adopt General Plan update The city council in the coastal town of Capitola holds a hearing July 26 to consider adoption of its proposed General Plan Update. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports at http://bit.ly/1v2yv5F that emphases include the 41st and Bay Avenue commercial corridors, tensions between new and old development, parking and sustainability. See http://www.plancapitola.com/ for details. Stockton starts General Plan update process Stockton's City Council has authorized the start of a two-year general plan update process as the city recovers from its 2012 bankruptcy. Officials said the focus would be on economic development downtown and in the south of the city. See http://bit.ly/1l7AyQk for details from the Stockton Record and http://bit.ly/1nCyJwb for the city's planning process documents. SB 1129 post-redevelopment cleanup bill still in play The Assembly Local Government Committee has passed Sen. Steinberg's SB 1129, a bill to help successor agencies make new commitments to projects and use bond proceeds once they have received findings of completion from the state. For the League of California Cities analysis and tracking page, see bit.ly/R32Jc8. The official bill tracking page is at http://bit.ly/1yKvf3y. San Francisco's Ellis Act bill fails in committee After squeaking through the State Senate, Sen. Mark Leno's SB 1439 bill to restrict San Francisco evictions under the Ellis Act was defeated June 18 in the Assembly. On June 24, Leno publicly said he would abandon the bill for the current session but would probably bring it back next year. (See http://bit.ly/1lnX507.) The bill had appeared to enjoy massive support from venture capital investor Ron Conway and members of his Sf.Citi tech industry civic coalition, as shown by the long lists of tech business endorsements appearing in legislative analyses at http://bit.ly/Pp54wc. The bill was generally opposed by rental landlords' organizations and the California Building Industry Association. For more details see the San Francisco Chronicle at http://bit.ly/1q5rfrV. Milpitas settling its redevelopment disputes The city of Milpitas is reportedly near settling its especially difficult post-redevelopment disputes with the State Department of Finance. The City Council approved a settlement June 17 calling for the city to pay over $41 million to the state and make sales and transfers of properties whose ownership had been uncertain in light of disputed relations among the state, city, and successor agency. The Mercury News has details at http://bit.ly/1lOzeHS. New challenges to Sacramento arena plan With some previous lawsuits recently disposed of, new opposition to the Sacramento arena proposal has surfaced. The Sacramento Bee reports at http://bit.ly/TfUHN6 that opponents brought a CEQA challenge to the project in early June, questioning the constitutionality of SB 743, which provides special environmental review concessions to the project. The Bee reported at http://bit.ly/1nCDLc8 that housing and environmental advocates were considering a separate lawsuit to seek larger mitigation contributions to housing, transit and small business.

Citing to sweeping, venerable core case law on the civil rights of individuals in public places, the Ninth Circuit on June 19 overturned Los Angeles' Municipal Code Sec. 85.02 statute against use of vehicles for habitation. The ruling in Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles potentially reduces city governments' control over the uses and appearance of public spaces. On the other hand it enhances the ability of people who have lost conventional housing to use their vehicles for some of the purposes of a home, rather than face the riskier, more stereotypically "homeless" situations of lugging possessions by hand on city streets or relying fully on institutional shelters and services. The Ninth Circuit opinion, by Judge Harry Pregerson, found the Los Angeles ordinance unconstitutionally vague on the grounds that "Plaintiffs are left guessing as to what behavior would subject them to citation and arrest by an officer," and that the ordinance encouraged arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against homeless people. The opinion reviewed the circumstances of four plaintiffs cited and arrested for allegedly living in their cars during a Venice-area enforcement campaign in fall 2010. (Seven plaintiffs are named in the caption, but a footnote explains that some received parking tickets while parked with disability placards, and the parties agreed those tickets were a mistake.) In all of the described cases, the cited parties kept possessions in their vehicles, but two slept in their vehicles at night only while parked on private property by permission. A third, warned against sleeping in his car, "then began sleeping on the sidewalk, which is legal," and at times slept in a shelter. The fourth, when arrested, insisted he was not sleeping, but was told "that sleeping is not the only criteria for violating Section 85.02." The opinion further recounted evidence of conflicting understandings among city officers about the meaning of the ordinance. It said that while legitimate health and safety issues were raised about the conditions in which vehicle campers were living, "some of the conduct plaintiffs were engaged in when arrested -- eating, talking on the phone, or escaping the rain in their vehicles -- mimics the everyday conduct of many Los Angeles residents." It concluded that the law "is so vague that it fails to give notice of the conduct it actually prohibits," and as interpreted by city police, was "incompatible with the concept of an evenhanded administration of the law to the poor and to the rich that is fundamental to a democratic society." The opinion quoted at length from Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville , the exceptionally literary 1970 Supreme Court opinion by Justice William O. Douglas that overturned, as void for vagueness, old-style vagrancy laws that formerly authorized arrest for statuses such as unemployment and for ill-defined offenses such as "loitering". Pregerson was joined in the opinion by Judges Marsha S. Berzon and Morgan Christen. Their decision overturned a 2011 district court ruling that had backed the city and arresting officers in cross-motions for summary judgment. As a threshold matter, the Ninth Circuit found it proper to consider the plaintiffs' vagueness challenge to the ordinance, raised in the Plaintiffs' motion, although they did not raise the vagueness aspect of their constitutional argument until after filing their first amended complaint. The local district court had refused to consider the merits of the vagueness challenge. Mark Ryavec, head of the Venice Stakeholders Association, and a campaigner against campers on Venice streets, complained to the Los Angeles Times , "It leaves people who are mentally ill, criminally inclined or lethal on your doorstep and removes any possibility the police can do anything about it." The decision does not necessarily grant blanket permission to sleep in vehicles in all circumstances. Vehicular residents are potentially affected by many laws, including parking restrictions, vehicle codes, and disorderly-conduct statutes that prohibit many kinds of living activities on public property. It remains to be seen how much Desertrain may hold back the use of such additional measures. However, the case has already been recognized as having important effects throughout California. William Abrams, a consulting professor at Stanford who has represented vehicular residents in Palo Alto, told a local paper he thought the holding "will apply completely if we were to have to go to court" over Palo Alto's ordinance against vehicle sleeping. Activist attorney Carol Sobel, who represented the plaintiffs, told the KPCC radio station that since her clients did not sleep in their vehicles on public property, the case for them was principally about the ability to use vehicles on a public street in the daytime without being singled out for having certain kinds of property in their vehicles. She said in the radio interview that all four of her clients had been arrested under the invalidated statute, which was defined as a misdemeanor, and two lost their vehicles to towing. Asked whether tolerating vehicle habitation created sanitation concerns, or whether it reduced pressure to provide real housing, she said the answer to needs for sanitation and for housing wasn't to put people in jail. Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer told the press he would not appeal the decision but would seek to redraft the ordinance instead. He told the LA Times, "We need to make a break from the past ... and commit ourselves to grappling with the issues that create homelessness in the first place." Links: Ninth Circuit Desertrain opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/06/19/11-56957.pdf Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville : http://laws.findlaw.com/us/405/156.html LA Times : http://lat.ms/1nRqyz4, http://lat.ms/T3Akmm KPCC (SoCal Public Radio): http://bit.ly/1j4mW8G AP: http://bit.ly/1nwDyHr Guardian (UK) : http://bit.ly/1roYtQq Palo Alto Weekly : http://bit.ly/1lKKzsw Wall Street Journal : http://on.wsj.com/1rd9DYp

A companion measure to SB 69 is making its way through the State Legislature to help cities that, like Jurupa Valley , were hit by the 2011 budget cuts just when they had agreed to serve new areas, though with respect to annexations rather than incorporations. AB 1521, sponsored by Assemblyman Steve Fox (D-Palmdale), would benefit cities that, as of 2011, had recently completed annexations of inhabited county lands and had been expecting state support for their increased service levels. It would commit state General Fund money to reinstate fee allocations that previously came from vehicle license fee (VLF) funds. Lobbyist Jason Gonsalves, who represents several Riverside County cities, said the new legislation would provide $4 million a year to cities to pay for service costs in those recently annexed areas. AB 1521 differs from SB 69 in offering a future source of revenue for ongoing costs, as opposed to SB's 69 narrow focus on making up for past cuts to four Riverside County cities. "It's not to restore funding lost, but to give them a way to cover services in areas they annexed," Gonsalves said. VLF funds were taken from the cities in 2011 when the state sought new sources of revenue to pay for prison realignment. At the time, many of the affected cities responded by cutting public safety costs. A legislative analysis of the new bill said $4 million in cuts affected a number of cities, including Chico, San Ramon, Santa Clarita, Temecula, Fontana, San Jose, Porterville, Tulare and Visalia, that had annexed inhabited areas. The measure might also encourage other cities to do infill annexations, Gonsalves said. Although it would raise funding for cities throughout the state, AB 1521 hasn't won the support of the influential California State Association of Counties. According to legislative summaries it does have support from several city governments and county LAFCOs, and from the League of California Cities. AB 1521 passed the Assembly in May and goes to a State Senate Governance and Finance Committee hearing on June 25.

California's youngest city, which has fought for survival since its formation, is still in critical condition, but lately there are signs it has moved off life support.     Jurupa Valley, a Riverside County city of 95,000, was expecting death by disincorporation earlier this year because it could not replace a lost source of funding for new towns. But the city has been able to postpone plans to disincorporate for another year due to increased tax revenue and budgetary changes. And hopes have emerged for its longer-term future via state-level efforts.     The City Council voted to disincorporate in January 2014, with the expectation that within two years they would complete the first official unmaking of a California city since the 1970s. (See prior CP&DR coverage in the December monthly issue and online at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3427.) But now, city officials are saying they have enough money to last until the third quarter of 2016, when the city's payments for services are due to Riverside County.     The city is still looking to Sacramento for its longer-term salvation, hoping state legislators will approve a key bill and that Governor Jerry Brown will sign it into law. Local efforts to win Brown over have begun, including organizing schoolchildren to write to the Governor's dog.     What does all this mean for other California communities that want to incorporate? It means that the state hasn't completely righted itself following financial troubles that hit hard in 2011, and while something may be done for existing new towns, there is still not enough funding to help new cities get started.     "There's no mechanism to incorporate unless residents want to vote to immediately tax themselves," said Jurupa Valley City Councilwoman Laura Roughton.     In the halcyon days of old, cities could count on state Vehicle License Fees (VLF) to help pay some of their initial costs as they were created, before they developed their own tax bases to fund services. Those funds were wiped out for new towns in 2011 when Brown had the money diverted to prison realignment via that session's SB 89.     Jurupa Valley was hit hardest in 2011. The effective date of its referendum vote for incorporation fell two days after SB 89 went into effect, taking away expected revenue. "The rules were changed midgame, and it's amazing that it all happened," said Roughton. "The other three cities all got at least one payment. We didn't get any."     If the current appeal to Sacramento feels like deja vu, there are good reasons. It's similar to an earlier legislative dance involving the Governor. Jurupa Valley and other new towns also sought state rescue money in 2012 under AB 1098, which Brown vetoed. A further attempt via SB 56 died in the Legislature in 2013. Nothing is certain this year either but the current proposal comes out of a different financial picture and is limited to aiding a few existing new towns -- factors that may give it a better chance of becoming law.     Roughton said cityhood has been good for Jurupa Valley, despite all the financial hurdles. The city controls local land use, and its streets are cleaner, she noted.     Formation of cities helps the state meet other goals, such as providing affordable housing and creating density, said Dan Carrigg, legislative director of the League of California Cities. Incorporated cities also provide public safety improvements and planned communities, said Chuck Dalldorf, spokesman for Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside. Roth sponsored SB 56 and is the sponsor of the current bill to aid new towns, SB 69.     "If there's not a solution (to funding new cities), it's unlikely there will be incorporation again in California," Carrigg said.      Four cities in Riverside County, including Jurupa Valley, incorporated around the time when VLF funding was cut off in 2011. They were left with huge debts, and had to cut services deeply. The other three cities, Eastvale, Menifee, and Wildomar, have also been active in the last few years' efforts to recover money from the state that they planned on using for incorporation.     This year the state's fiscal health has improved, and passage of Proposition 30 in 2012 injected $6 billion into the state's budget annually. Government leaders in Riverside County pointed to those events as reasons they might get state money to help them out of their financial mess.     A related reason has to do with reduced competition for funds.     In 2011, SB 89 created new claims on the VLF money by taking it away from new cities and giving it to counties to handle prison realignment, where state prisoners were returned to county jails as a way to decrease overcrowding. So when the AB 1098 proposal in 2012 sought to transfer VLF revenue back to new cities, it created competition for the same money that counties needed for realignment. Groups such as the California State Association of Counties opposed the bill. "We were concerned about undermining realignment revenues," said Jean Hurst, a lobbyist for CSAC.     But as of the November 2012 election, Proposition 30 wrote into law that the VLF money would go to counties, Hurst said. The ballot measure allocated VLF funds to "public safety services" including realignment, so any fresh effort to help new cities had to be made separately from the use of VLF funds. SB 69 proposes to help the new cities out of the state's General Fund, and CSAC is among its supporters.     Another key change between SB 69 and AB 1098 is that it provides money only to cities that incorporated before 2012. The bill would divide about $15 million in start-up costs among Jurupa Valley and the other three newly incorporated Riverside County cities.     As initially conceived, Roth's bill, SB 69, was written to provide funds for all newly incorporated cities that would formerly have been entitled to draw on vehicle license fees for their initial costs. That would have given all future new cities in California the same claims on VLF-substitute funding as the newest Riverside County cities. But recent negotiations narrowed the bill to apply only to cities that incorporated before 2012.     "It was strictly a cost issue," said Roth spokesman Dalldorf. "We'll have to do that after the four-cities bill."     Roughton said Jurupa Valley expects to have more revenue because sales tax projections are higher, and new residences are selling again in the city. Among other things, a new Walmart opened in the city in June.     The city is also taking tentative steps that show it might be around for a while. A new budget adopted in June adds $2 million in new spending for what Roughton describes as "things... cities are required to do."     New spending has been approved for studies the city is required to perform on developer fees, an interim general plan, and examining whether the city should hire its own staff (until now, all city employees have been contractors). The city also plans to increase spending on traffic officers, following several recent local traffic fatalities.     Jurupa Valley received a two-year extension from the state Office of Planning and Research on its general plan, which was due on at the end of 2013. The city is now funding what is being called an interim general plan. It should direct growth for three or four years, according to Roughton. The interim general plan needs to be completed at the end of 2015.     Despite the Jurupa Valley City Council vote to start disincorporation in January,  there has been little followup on the process, other than a few meetings with Riverside County officials, Roughton said.     Hurst of CSAC said Riverside County officials have been helpful to the new cities. "They're essentially floating them while this gets resolved in the legislature," she said.     Roughton said the city has not been able to secure a meeting with Governor Brown, but Brown did acknowledge the four newly incorporated cities' dilemma when he visited the county earlier in the year. He asked his staff to look into the concerns.     In the meantime, Roughton is trying to raise the Governor's awareness of Jurupa Valley issues by getting local school children to write to his dog. "It's all very positive," she said. "We've tried a 'Letters to Sutter Brown' campaign to Governor Brown's dog." The letters "invited Sutter to come and visit. We have a dog park."      Roughton said unlike other cities in the state, Jurupa Valley can't declare bankruptcy. "We don't have any unfunded pensions. We don't have any debts that can be unstructured."     SB 69 will next be heard in the Assembly's Local Government Committee on June 25. Links: CP&DR on Jurupa Valley's 2011 incorporation: http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2901 SB 89, passed 2011: http://bit.ly/1nuB1i6 AB 1098, vetoed September 2012: http://bit.ly/1lJNoKl League of CA Cities response with link to Gov. Brown's veto message: http://bit.ly/1ps1r5m Prop 30, passed November 2012: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2012/general/propositions/30/analysis.htm SB 56, died in Legislature, 2013: http://bit.ly/1p6N6Q3 SB 69, currently pending: http://bit.ly/1lhtBAX SB 1521, currently pending: http://bit.ly/1qCEuQQ

Last Friday in San Diego, Gov. Jerry Brown signed the first cap-and-trade appropriation bill as part of the state budget. This means that the Strategic Growth Council will now have $130 million to dole out next year for smart growth planning and related activities – many times more than ever before – and that number is expected to grow rapidly in the years ahead. Coming on top of the SGC's recent award of $16 million in local planning grants, the cap-and-trade appropriation news means it's a good time to take a look at how the SGC has doled out its money over the last few years and what the impact has really been. Up to now, SGC's grants program has been funded primarily by the $90 million for planning contained in Proposition 84, the 2005 initiative that was advertised as the "Safe Drinking Water Act." (The $16 million allocated by the SGC at its meeting on June was the last of the $90 million, so the cap-and-trade money came along just in time.) The SGC was created after Proposition 84 passed. The Legislature subsequently assigned it to distribute the funds in a way that encourages creation of "sustainable communities" under AB 32 -- that is, communities expected to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under California's 2006 climate change law, which calls for significant GHG reductions by 2020. The planning funds were doled out in three rounds – 2010, 2012, and 2014 – and in each case the SGC sliced the pie a different way. In 2010, for example, there was a set-aside for metropolitan planning organizations to do modeling. In 2012, there was a category for regional cooperation. In 2014, there was an environmental justice set-aside. (Disclosure: The City of San Diego, where I work, won one of the biggest grants in Round 1 and got one out of the two it applied for in Round 3.) A separate program funded planning and construction of "urban greening" projects. Two external events over the past few years made the SGC grant program more important than it otherwise would have been. The first was the economic crash of 2008, which caused local governments' general funds to shrink and thus made it more difficult for cities and counties to fund their planning efforts. The second was the end of redevelopment in 2012, which robbed local governments – mostly cities – of a funding source they had often used to do plans in specific neighborhoods. Looking at the patterns, there's no question that SGC grants have been used to fund local plans that the cities and counties might otherwise have funded on their own. This was especially true in the first and second grantmaking rounds, before general funds began to recover from the 2008 downturn. (Many of these planning efforts were also funded by similar grant programs from the state's biggest metropolitan planning organizations, which have used either federal or local transportation funds for these programs.) But in the most recent round, something interesting happened: Cities and counties weren't seeking to use SGC grants to replace lost redevelopment planning funds, as one might expect. Instead, local governments and their nonprofit partners are focusing on implementation of previous plans – especially climate action plans – as well as transportation projects. Transportation plans received many grant awards in 2014 after getting virtually none in the first two rounds. The big question, of course, is whether the SGC funds have encouraged cities and counties to undertake planning efforts focused on infill and transit-oriented development efforts that they might otherwise not have undertaken with their own money. That's the whole point of a grant program, after all – to give somebody  money to do something they might not otherwise have done in order to achieve your objective. It's hard to know what cities and counties might otherwise have done if they had more money of their own. Even in the wake of the big economic downturn in 2008, an awful lot of local governments in California continued to start up general plan updates with money that they had squirreled away – but, of course, they had to focus on GHG reductions because of AB 32 and other state laws requiring them to do so. All three rounds of grants have focused on a few basic themes, including: 1. District and corridor plans tied to transit-oriented or infill development. 2. Climate action plans or other efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3. General Plan updates focusing on such topics as GHG reduction and healthy communities. General plan updates and district or corridor plans are, of course, the bread-and-butter of local planning in California. And at the time of the first round, most cities and counties in California had realized they had to do some kind of climate action plan in order to comply with new state laws and emerging practices under the California Environmental Quality Act. But here's what's interesting: While the district and corridor plans continued apace among grantees in SGC's third round, the general plan updates and climate action plans slowed down. That's probably because, by 2014, most cities and counties had updated their general plans to reflect the new emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions. In place of General Plan updates and Climate Action Plans, cities and counties – and, in many cases, nonprofit partners working with them – focused on different things in Round 3, including: 1. Implementation of climate action plans and GHG reduction strategies. 2. Transportation plans and projects 3. Energy projects. For example, a number of cities – including Goleta near UC Santa Barbara and the ever-hip City of West Hollywood – got grants to focus on bicycle and pedestrian projects. Several others got grants to focus on various aspects of energy. These were often partnerships at the county level, including in Santa Clara, Sonoma, Butte, Monterey, and Madera Counties. The energy projects ranged from examining community choice aggregation (the ability to use small-scale, community-based energy production to break the hold of big utilities on the energy system) to experimenting with fuel cell technology. The focus on transportation and energy makes sense. Now that most local governments have big-picture plans in place for GHG emissions reduction, they actually have to produce – by switching to alternative energy sources, or by encouraging their residents to switch from driving to walking or bicycling. The shift to walking and biking – what has become known as "active transportation" – is an especially important component in meeting 2020 GHG targets because people can switch modes tomorrow, rather than waiting for big transit projects or major transit-oriented development. But in the long run, GHG reductions after 2020 are likely to depend in large part on those longer-range plans – more transit stops and more development around those stops. That's why cities and counties are still getting a lot of money from the SGC – and from the MPOs in their own grant programs – for district and corridor plans. The built environment takes a long time to change. So as SGC embarks on its huge new program with cap-and-trade money, it will be interesting to see whether this trend continues. Will SGC fund primarily implementation-type plans, such as zoning ordinances and bike/ped plans? Will there be yet more general fund updates to fund? Will corridor and district plans still be popular? Or will SGC push the locals deeper into implementation? Assuming it has hundreds of millions of dollars available in the years ahead, SGC may place a greater focus on actual construction of hard infrastructure, such as bikeways and the public realm components of transit-oriented development projects. After all, with the end of redevelopment these projects are very hard to pay for. Even though the cap-and-trade money is a drop in the bucket compared to redevelopment, the SGC may very well get pushed in the direction of using cap-and-trade money to build public realm amenities and infrastructure, not just funding plans.

Amid a dramatic show of organized public anger, Oakland Planning Commission approved the West Oakland Specific Plan on June 11. City staff, principally planner Ed Manasse, set out the plan's provisions for transit-oriented development, denser use of underused and blighted lots, separation of housing from heavy industry, concessions to second units and home businesses, and more specifically categorized rezoning -- amid shouted objections and boos from a crowd who had marched to the meeting in a protest demonstration. As chair Chris Pattillo reassured, "We can hear you," Manasse attempted to tell activists they had been heard over the course of a six-year negotiation process, even presenting a slide with critics' "Wreck the WOSP!" slogan and broken-insect cartoon. He said, "We've expanded the social equity and affordable housing recommendations, we have additional career pathway strategies for local residents, increased small business opportunities for local residents, youth development education and training, neighborhood retail, and we have additional protections for residents from displacement." "So we heard you," he said. "We know your concerns, we know that there's a lot of people that think that the neighborhood would be better off without a plan at all. That this project is somehow a secret conspiracy, a massive development project and that we are in fact encouraging gentrification and displacement. The plan is exactly the opposite to every – all of that and what we we are trying to do is to explain how that is not the case." The crowd wasn't buying it. The crowd granted applause to speakers, whether activist or business-oriented, who said the plan was not ready for approval, unclear about funding sources for some goals, arbitrarily specific about some requirements and rezonings, and too accepting of upscale condominium development. Robbie Clarke of Causa Justa/Just Cause was among those cheered for saying the plan's stated goals did not translate clearly enough into up-front guarantees of affordable housing and jobs that would be genuinely available to existing residents. Dominique Tan of the East Bay Housing Organizations said activists understood that goals such as inclusionary zoning requirements for developers to fund affordable housing needed to be imposed citywide, not one plan at a time, but she said they needed to happen soon because developers were continuing to build without such concessions. Elaine Brown, a former leader of West Oakland's own Black Panther Party, made an appearance to urge a one-year delay in the plan. She singled out "high in density, expensive housing units that would suck all the air out of" disadvantaged local residents' futures, and called for a plan that would be less friendly to developers and less willing to cause displacement. Strong though less voluble concern appeared for existing small businesses, especially where zoning changes were proposed. Discussion later in the meeting, as some of the public fury subsided, included calls for a proposed tube to enclose the elevated BART train to reduce noise, and even for moving the BART line underground.   The San Francisco Chronicle reported on the scene at http://bit.ly/1pylP54 and noted two arrests at the meeting. Late that night, according to the East Bay Express , a security camera showed masked people in black breaking the windows of the new Kilovolt Coffee shop in West Oakland. http://bit.ly/1lv1k9K. The plan goes to City Council hearings and votes in July. The plan materials are at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurServices/Plans/index.htm. The agenda and archived video of the dramatic June 11 meeting are at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurOrganization/PlanningZoning/o/Commissions/.

Based on archaeological findings, Native American heritage claims, a "Deny the Ridge" campaign and broad public objections, the Coastal Commission on June 12 discouraged property owner Signal Landmark into withdrawing its "Ridge Project" proposal to build 22 houses on Bolsa Chica Mesa in Huntington Beach. With the Commission leaning toward a "no" vote on the Land Use Plan revision needed for the project, Signal Landmark withdrew its project application, meaning any future construction plan for the site must start again with the local city council. The action preserves natural habitats and protects ancient artifacts -- and by many accounts, gravesites too -- at a prehistoric village complex occupied as much as 9,000 years ago. Heard in the Huntington Beach City Council chambers, the agenda item was well attended and drew fervent speakers in opposition to the project. Signal Landmark, working with developer Hearthside Homes, had offered to mitigate construction on the five-acre "Ridge" site through an agreement to preserve open space on the adjacent six-acre "Goodell Property," which it had an option to buy, plus disputed cultural mitigation proposals. Objectors' letters described the Ridge and Goodell properties as the last two privately owned open-space parcels remaining out of a 30-acre area that, as a whole, showed archaeological signs of supporting dense settlements and receiving hundreds of burials in the distant past. Signal Landmark has already obtained permits for two nearby housing complexes, known as Sandover (16 units, completed) and Brightwater (347 units approved, some as yet unbuilt). The Ridge property, if built up, would extend housing development into an unbuilt area north of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. A Commission staff letter in the June agenda materials (at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/6/Th9a-6-2014.pdf) said that when a staff report last December suggested the Ridge site had diminished cultural and habitat value, and recommended accepting the Goodell/Ridge land swap arrangement, arguments to the contrary poured in from scholars, public agencies, environmental activists, Native American organizations and cultural preservation offices. Among these were expert opinions on the site's archaeological importance and its value as habitat for raptors and other species, potentially including burrowing owls. Additional issues raised and disputed included the width of buffers necessary around environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and potential drainage effects on an ESHA area of eucalyptus. In this changing light, the staff began to place stricter conditions on their recommendation and the Commission postponed consideration of the matter at the city's request. (See http://lat.ms/1iDEb0b and http://bit.ly/1qnZU46.) Commission staff later shifted their recommendation to oppose the project outright. The richest discoveries of ancient settlement remains and burials have been outside the subject property at sites known as ORA-83 and ORA-85. ORA-83 is also called the "Cogged Stone Site" for its unique gearlike stone carvings, and is on the National Register of Historic Places. Project opponents' letters said all of ORA-85 and most of ORA-83 had already been destroyed by development although a cemetery area of ORA-83 was preserved. Disputed was whether a village site on the subject property, known as ORA-86, had value comparable to the other two sites, or whether the whole area including all three sites should be viewed as a single unit. Many critics of the project said yes, including members and supporters of several bands of Mission Indians, especially the Gabrielino/Tongva and Juaneño/Acjachemen, for whom the site has special cultural and spiritual significance. The local "Orange Juice Blog" headed its report of the proposal's withdrawal, "Most of HB Rejoices!" (http://bit.ly/1lNcZkv) The Bolsa Chica Land Trust site announced simply, "Withdrawn!" (http://www.bolsachicalandtrust.org). Garcia, as Mayor of Long Beach, must leave Coastal Commission Robert Garcia, mayor-elect of Long Beach, must resign his Coastal Commission seat by September 13, according to the state Attorney General's office and the Coastal Commission. The Long Beach Press-Telegram (at http://bit.ly/1q7RPhE) and the Long Beach Reporter have the story in detail, and the typographically eccentric Long Beach Reporter site has posted copies of the relevant letters, by Assistant AG John Saurenman and the Commission's executive director, Dr. Charles Lester, at http://www.lbreport.com/news/jun14/coastcom1.htm. From the letters, the Attorney General's conclusion appears to be that, because Garcia is one of the six members appointed under Public Resources Code Sec. 30301(e), he must be a currently serving county supervisor or a city council member in the Coastal Commission district he represents. As Mayor, he would be neither. Previews June, relatively speaking, was a lull in Coastal Commission business, making it possible to look back and ahead. The meeting looked forward to several expected challenges: The Commission voted to postpone consideration of implementing ordinances to finalize the Marin County Local Coastal Plan (LCP), delaying action for up to a year without setting a definite next hearing date. This spring's other big unfinished LCP, for the Santa Monica Mountains, is expected to be finalized in July through consideration and approval of its implementing ordinances. The Commission also postponed action until August on San Diego's proposed LCP revision, which includes an amendment to the La Jolla Land Use Plan and a limit on access to Children's Pool Beach during seal pupping season. The Commission's Dr. Lester warned that an extra day of hearings might have to be scheduled then to accommodate the interested speakers on the subject. Public interest is high because it pits public use of the pool at the site against concern for seals using the beach as a haulout. A four-day schedule would likely run Tuesday through Friday if one had to be arranged instead of the usual three-day agenda. One speaker on the postponement, Cheri Jacobs Aspenleiter of the RAMP disability rights group, offered a hint of the debate to expect in August. She said she swam in salt water as therapy for a spinal injury -- either by swimming in the public saltwater pool onshore, which she said is immensely valued by people who swim for therapy, or by snorkeling along the coast, where, she said, she had noticed an overpopulation of seals and underpopulation of food species such as garibaldis and mussels. (See http://bit.ly/1q8moU8 on RAMP's campaign to improve disability access to the pool.) A further look toward the future was implicit in the Commission's field trip to the Banning Ranch in Newport Beach, a site of continuing active oil drilling, of mitigation work to fix damage to coastal scrub and, significantly, of a proposal for a 1,375-unit housing development. Since the development is locally opposed, it is expected to come before the Commission at some point. See http://lat.ms/1oAAtfO. Legislation The Commission heard warm public testimony in favor of AB 1102, a measure to protect beach fire rings against removal without a coastal development permit. Even the mayor of Huntington Beach, Matthew Harper, put in a good word for beach bonfires in welcoming the Commission. He said wood fires were necessary on the beach -- not charcoal, which is less warm, or bottled gas, which leaves canisters to break and rust. He called it a beach access issue: "It's too cold to go to the beach after dark unless you have a good beach bonfire to keep it nice and warm for you." The proposal, which is now before the State Senate, responds to a procedural wrangle of litigation and local legislation, described in the most recent bill analysis posted at http://bit.ly/1lxoEiu. On a less cozy note, the Commission briefly discussed AB 976, to give the Commission power to impose fines. That bill last formally moved in 2013, but similar legislation did pass as of June 15 in the Legislature's Natural Resources budget trailer bill, SB 861. (See http://bit.ly/1na4EDS.) Staff at the meeting said fines imposed under the measure would be used to remediate the types of problems caused by the respective violations -- if not always the exact violations occasioning the fines -- and about half of such problems involved public access. As the Sacramento Bee 's Jeremy White noted online, the Natural Resources budget bill also creates a California Climate Resilience Account to address climate change and transfers regulation of drinking water from the State Department of Public Health to the State Water Resources Control Board. "Issue of 'Substantial Issue'" is an Issue Two procedural arguments from the May session spilled into June: one about the power of neighbors to appeal to the Commission, and the other about the power of Commissioners to shut down consideration of appeals. Early in the June session, the result was a tense, technical "discussion item" debate led by Commissioner Jana Zimmer. A big piece of the discussion had to do with what Zimmer termed "the issue of 'substantial issue'." That controversy arose from a debate during the May 15 Commission session (Item 14a) on whether Pullman Ditch, an intermittent stream in a suburbanized patch of Half Moon Bay waterfront, harbored rare Red-Legged Frogs or San Francisco Garter Snakes. Conclusions about the species' presence or absence in turn affected whether property owner Mark Stoloski could build four more houses near the ditch. In response to neighbors' appeal of the Stoloski project, Commission staff recommended that the Commission grant a finding of "substantial issue", which would mean finding that the appeal had sufficient merit to go forward to de novo review. (If staff had recommended against a finding of "substantial issue" they would have made a presentation rebutting the presumption that a substantial issue existed.) Skeptical about the imputed presence in the ditch of rare frogs that had not been directly seen at the site, Commissioner Zimmer raised a procedural question about a long-term standard practice for deciding if enough doubt exists among Commissioners to bother discussing the merits of a recommended "substantial issue" finding. Traditionally, the Commission chair asks for a show of at hands to determine if at least three Commissioners object to a finding of substantial issue in accordance with the staff recommendation. If three hands go up, the chair invites discussion and a vote on the question. Zimmer asked if questions could be posed on an appeal before the call for the show of hands -- significant because that would make it possible for one or two Commissioners who disagreed with a "substantial issue" staff recommendation to highlight flaws in an appeal for other commissioners before any of them took definite positions supporting or opposing de novo review. Zimmer noted Commission rules did not formally provide for the three-hand approach. She was supported on the right to ask preliminary questions by Commissioner Dayna Bochco, who expressed visible exasperation over the variably reported conditions of Half Moon Bay's frogs and ditches. Others chimed in as well. After some fuss it emerged that questions could indeed be asked before the show of hands, and Zimmer asked a few, but Commissioner Kinsey and the staff counsel urged the Stoloski hearing forward to the call for the show of hands -- three of them went up easily -- and thence to a hearing and vote on the presence or absence of "substantial issue." The appeal in the Stoloski matter was rejected by a 9-2 vote of the Commission, hence done with on the spot without a de novo review. In June the Commissioners returned to appeals procedure in a "discussion only" agenda item near the start of the June meeting (June 11 item 6d). Staff had meantime prepared a legal memo outlining Commission appeal procedure (which Zimmer suggested be distributed to all new commissioners) at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/6/W6d-6-2014.pdf. Several Commissioners reported Stanley Lamport of Cox, Castle & Nicholson, who had represented Stoloski in the Half Moon Bay matter, had weighed in with them ex parte to argue that, although the "no substantial issue" finding is an exception to a presumption in favor of a "substantial issue" finding, that didn't mean the "substantial issue" finding was actually presumed. ("Don't you just love lawyers?" asked Bochco.) Zimmer suggested making it standard procedure to seek questions from Commissioners before calling for the show of three hands. The staff memo set out appeal procedure in another area that saw controversy at the May meeting: the definition of areas where a local resident can appeal a project directly to the Commission as of right. The question came up in May because the Marin LCP converted several types of development on West Marin farmland into principally permitted uses, which are ordinarily not appealable directly to the Commission. Appeals as of right are available within specified distances of riparian or sensitive habitats and between the ocean and the nearest coastal road, whether the permits involved are "principally permitted uses" or not. The clarifying discussion in June, however, wasn't nearly as complex as the original extension of "principally permitted use" definitions had been in Marin in May. The most difficult June procedural discussion concerned the logistical difficulty of providing two Commissioners' signatures to support appeals that are recommended by Commission staff (or by any one Commissioner), as opposed to appeals brought by project proponents or members of the public. The problem -- or one of them -- is that the Commission has only a ten-working-day deadline to appeal any land-use decision by local authorities exercising LCP-delegated coastal permit authority. Commissioners complained that they were sometimes called to provide signatures at the last minute for appeals that they did not have time to read in detail before signing. Zimmer noted she had been constrained as a lawyer from placing a document before a court without feeling a personal sense that its allegations had a basis, and she felt the same about placing appeals before the Commission on staff's assurances. Commissioner Effie Turnbull-Sanders asked if staff could simply initiate their own appeals rather than make last-minute calls on Commissioners: "It may be a little bit of makework if we're called the day that an appeal is due and we're actually briefed by staff" who are better-informed, she said. Commissioner Wendy Mitchell took up the suggestion even though following it through would require a legislative Coastal Act amendment. Commissioner Gregory Cox leaned harder on the problem of logistical pressures on Commissioners to rubber-stamp appeals they had not fully reviewed: "To me it just doesn't sound right." He asked, could staff possibly discuss de minimis project changes with proponents to bring them into compliance without formal procedure? Procedurally a vote couldn't be taken on any of the questions raised, but they remained in the air, presumably deferred to the next legislative session if any. Which left an additional question in the air: whether, if invited to adjust Commission procedure, the Legislature might develop intentions of its own. Otherwise -- Santa Cruz appellant Mark Saito complained of his neighbor's construction permit, "Basically my view is being handed to my neighbor." He suggested that a cypress tree in his own back yard would be more protected if it happened to stand between the houses, so "I know this doesn't concern the Coastal Commission but it seems like the tree has more rights than I do as a neighbor." The Commission made a finding of "no substantial issue," meaning his appeal failed, and neighbors Hassan and Tooran Khayam-Bashi would be getting their permit. During a string of permit appeals on houses in Venice,  among the very last agenda items of June 13, a young father stood up to speak at public comment, surrounded by his wife and young children. He said he came from a family that had lived many generations in Venice but his own family was having to move to Inglewood. He worked in food service, he said, and for people working at food-service wages, "we can't even afford to eat a meal in our own community." He said, "We're getting pushed out and I don't think it's fair." It was not clear if he advocated any particular action on the item at hand. The item was No. 10c: to demolish a single-family house that would be tied to the adjacent lot and refitted with a two-car garage, a "second floor recreation room," a pool and landscaping. The house on the adjacent lot would get a remodel as well. The proposal was approved. The June meeting's agenda, most of it now annotated with vote results, is at http://coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html. It will move to a June 2014 archive link at http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtgpast.html later this month.