Search Results

A rule proposed March 25 by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers could broaden the definition of "waters of the United States" subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Among much else, that could expand the areas where developers need Section 404 permits from the Corps to go forward, in a parallel permitting process in addition to local government. The Association of California Water Agencies says the rule apparently would place "most intermittent and ephemeral streams as well as wetlands located near rivers and streams" under Clean Water Act protection. (See http://www.acwa.com/news/water-news/proposed-rule-clarifies-clean-water-act-protections.) The firm of Alston & Bird LLP has posted its analysis at http://bit.ly/Pdlybx. As of April 1 the proposed rule had not yet been posted for comment purposes on the Federal Register site nor Regulations.gov, but a preview of the document is available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/wus_proposed_rule_20140325_prepublication.pdf. Tax legislation could end the Jurupa Valley trap The League of California Cities is backing two bills, SB 69 (See http://http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB69/2013) and AB 1521 (http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1521/2013), to undo the sudden funding disadvantage that pushed the newly incorporated city of Jurupa Valley toward disincorporation this winter. The bills are based on the prior SB 56 and are designed to restore funding to newly incorporated towns from vehicle license fees As CP&DR reported in January (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3427), the legislature first sent vehicle license fee (VLF) money to help new towns like Jurupa Valley with their new municipal governments, then took much of it away with SB 89. The two new bills propose to restore incentives for new cities to form and for existing cities to annex territory, which the League writes has been absent since a state budget maneuver, the VLF-property tax swap of 2004, left cities unable to count directly on substantial VLF revenues. The new bills would change property tax and/or VLF distribution formulas to favor recently incorporated or annexed areas. See http://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2014/March/Legislation-Proposes-New-City-Incorporation,-Annex. The Central Valley is sinking from groundwater loss. National Geographic and California newspapers reported this week on news from USGS that ground levels have sunk, in places alarmingly, near the Delta-Mendota Canal in the San Joaquin Valley. The USGS announcement is at http://bit.ly/1htGt4e. National Geographic has an extensive writeup at http://bit.ly/1dKrNcg quoting one researcher for the news that "one 2-square-mile... area... is subsiding almost a foot.. annually." Further recent reports on groundwater as a crisis in the San Joaquin Valley appear in the San Jose Mercury News at http://bit.ly/O7KD6l and the Hanford Sentinel at http://bit.ly/1mGeGkR. Online hotel-booking services held not to owe San Diego hotel tax The Second District Court of Appeal ruled twice in March that "online travel companies" (OTCs) such as Priceline, Expedia and Travelocity do not owe San Diego's transient occupancy tax on fees they collect for serving as middlemen between hotels and guests. The decision focused on tax amounts that cities may lose through cases when the OTC pays wholesale room rates to hotels, charges retail rates to guests, and keeps the difference. The court referred to the text of the San Diego tax ordinance, and compared prior rulings in the same group of coordinated cases for Anaheim and Santa Monica, to find tax was only due on room rent charged by the business that provides the lodging. Hence, the court found, tax is only due to the city on the wholesale rate that the hotel operator is paid, even if the hotel guest might have spent more. It added in a footnote that the 1912 case of Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. City of Los Angeles , 163 Cal. 621, "does not support a ruling that hotels may delegate to OTCs all of their responsibilities under the ordinance, nor does it suggest that the OTCs may be audited or held liable for nonpayment of any under the circumstances before us." The matter was originally heard in Los Angeles Superior Court. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second District issued a unanimous initial opinion March 5 that it did not order formally published (at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B243800.PDF). The panel then agreed to revisit the matter, but after rehearing issued a nearly identical opinion March 27 (at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B243800A.PDF). Airbnb to pay hotel taxes in San Francisco and Portland Under pressures from city officials that included partway-drafted regulatory legislation, Airbnb announced March 31 that it would collect and pay San Francisco's 14 percent hotel tax on behalf of hosts in the city who list housing through the Airbnb service. Carolyn Said of the San Francisco Chronicle explains details at http://bit.ly/1mGqOlH. She further writes that the company made a similar announcement in Portland, Oregon last week and has offered $21 million in tax payments in New York. The San Francisco announcement followed the San Diego hotel tax decision by four days but it was not mentioned in the Airbnb weblog post announcing the decision (at http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/san-francisco-taxes-airbnb-community/). Storm water Industrial General Permit up for final adoption April 1 The State Water Resources Control Board meets April 1 to consider adoption of the updated statewide Industrial General Permit for "storm water discharges associated with industrial activity". The General Permit covers entities in California including oil, gas and mining facilities, landfills, recyclers, feedlots, factories and food processors, airports, certain vehicle maintenance shops, and sewer systems. If granted, the approval would update a prior document, long since expired, that has been in effect by default since 1997. The new proposed permit would apply National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards under the Clean Water Act. It would require specified levels of effort, depending on circumstances and type of pollutant, to keep runoff within limits based variously on the contents of the effluent and the carrying capacities of the bodies of water receiving the runoff. Unlike the prior 1997 General Permit, it would require minimum Best Management Practices statewide along with other new standards. On March 28, the Friday before its Tuesday approval meeting, the board released responses to commenters that reflected some tension over the scope and timing of the third and last comment opportunity on the draft Permit: comment had been allowed only from February 19 to March 4, and only on the latest round of revisions. Several more substantive comments questioned the new definitions of Best Management Practices and of Numeric Action Levels (NALs), which are thresholds for pollution conditions including pH, suspended solids, oil and grease, and individual chemicals and metals. NAL exceedances trigger stricter levels of regulation and requirements to present plans for improvement. A unique comment from the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California prompted the board to warn dischargers that local mosquito control ordinances would apply to stormwater facilities where water might be left standing. The meeting notice, comments, staff response chart, and other relevant documents are at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.shtml.

Monterey County voters in June may decide as many as three ballot measures regarding the county general plan. The Board of Supervisors approved a new general plan on January 3. At the same time, the board agreed to ask voters whether they want to keep the new plan. The board also consented to placing on the ballot a general plan initiative backed by environmental and homeowner organizations. The county had originally refused to put the initiative on the ballot (see f, October 2006; , May 2006). Meanwhile, backers of the initiative have gathered signatures to force a referendum on the new general plan. They said a referendum is necessary to prevent the new plan from taking effect prior to the June election so that there is not a window for developers to take advantage of the new plan. The plan opponents also said the referendum would present voters with a more straightforward question than the Board of Supervisors had crafted. The county adopted the updated general plan after seven years of planning and three discarded drafts (see , July 2004). The new plan designates a number of growth areas, mostly near cities and existing unincorporated communities. Supporters say the plan will help the county accommodate needed housing. Opponents say the plan sacrifices important farmland and encourages sprawl. The newly adopted plan is available at www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/gpu . A controversial Carmel Valley subdivision is back in court six years after a state appellate court rejected an earlier environmental impact report for the project. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the September Ranch project in December. The project calls for 73 market-rate houses, 15 inclusionary units and seven units of workforce housing on about 100 acres. The remainder of the nearly 900-acre site will remain as an equestrian center and open space. In 2001, the Sixth District Court of Appeal used the September Ranch project to make an important ruling regarding baseline conditions for environmental studies. The issue concerned how much water had historically been used for farming on the site, and, therefore, how much water would be available for what was then a 109-unit project. The amount of agricultural water use increased during the 3 1/2 years the development application was under consideration, and the final EIR relied on the higher volume of water used during the end of the process. The court ruled in , 87 Cal.App. 4th 99, that “baseline conditions are normally to be determined at the time environmental review is begun” (see , April 2001). The EIR for the newly approved project says that water for September Ranch is available from a recently discovered aquifer that is separate from the overburdened Carmel Valley aquifer. Project opponents submitted information disputing the analysis, but the county concluded that disagreement among experts was not enough to force changes in the EIR. In January, three environmental groups filed two separate lawsuits challenging the EIR’s water analysis. Impacts to traffic, historic sites and the Monterey pine forest are also issues. The flood-control situation in Sacramento continues to evolve rapidly as local, state and federal officials grapple with the city’s inadequate protection from high water. The Federal Emergency Management Agency revealed in January that it would require all property owners in Sacramento’s Natomas Basin with federally backed loans to purchase flood insurance before the end of the year. The mandate will remain in place until Natomas, the City of Sacramento’s primary growth area, has at least 100-year flood protection. Also in January, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency began detailing proposed assessment district changes that would expand the district’s territory and raise existing assessments. Property owners are scheduled to vote on the assessments by mail in March. The revised assessment district would encompass all of Natomas, including undeveloped portions in Sacramento and Sutter counties, where property owners would pay $76 annually. The Flood Control Agency plan is intended to raise $326 million over 30 years to help Natomas achieve 100-year flood protection by 2010, and for the entire area to get 200-year flood protection in following years. The money would match more than $2 billion that local officials hope to receive from the federal and state governments. These moves follow a state Department of Water Resources request to Sacramento last fall for a growth moratorium in Natomas, a request the city has rebuffed. The state’s request was spurred by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ announcement that Natomas lacked 100-year flood protection because seepage is weakening levees. A San Francisco Superior Court Judge has issued a ruling that builds on a 2004 appellate court decision aiding redevelopment agencies in cleaning up brownfields. Judge John Munter ruled that five manufacturers or distributors of dry cleaning chemicals and one dry cleaner are liable for the future costs of cleaning up contamination from the Modesto Steam Laundry & Cleaning operation. In 2004, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that companies that made or distributed solvents may be held liable for cleanup under the Polanco Act and returned the case to Superior Court (see , August 2004). The City of Modesto and its redevelopment agency contend that dry cleaners disposed of solvent waste by dumping it into the sewer system, from which contaminants leached into soil and groundwater. Last year, a San Francisco jury held the five manufacturers and distributors liable for $3.2 million for harming the city’s drinking water, and Munter assessed punitive damages of $13 million. The latest ruling assesses liability for future costs and also awards the Modesto Redevelopment Agency $430,000 for work already done at a brownfield site. “It’s good news for cities who are seeking to clean up contamination in redevelopment areas because it enlarges the pool of potentially responsible parties,” agency attorney Michael Axline, of Miller, Axline & Sawyer, told the . An appeal of Judge Munter’s ruling is likely. The cases are , No. 9993345, and , No. 999643. The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency have released the “Goods Movement Action Plan,” which is intended to guide allocation of $3.1 billion contained in the $19.9 billion Proposition 1B that voters approved last November. State and regional officials have been working on the plan for two years to address transportation and environmental problems caused by ever-increasing traffic at shipping ports, especially the port at Los Angeles and Long Beach (see , June 2006). The plan does not necessarily dictate how the money should be spent, rather it provides about 200 “candidate actions” to improve infrastructure, protect public and environmental health, upgrade security and lessen community impacts. The California Transportation Commission, the Air Resources Board and the California Maritime Transportation Security Council will make the ultimate spending decisions. The Goods Movement Action Plan is available at www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm . The issue of historic preservation will apparently return to the City of Berkeley ballot, as opponents of a revised landmarks preservation ordinance have submitted petitions to force a referendum. The city eased its preservation regulations in December, one month after voters rejected a measure that would have locked in existing regulations that were some of the most stringent in the state. But preservation advocates said the revisions favored developers and now want voters to decide again. Unless the city calls a special election, the referendum will appear on the ballot in 2008. An organization representing mobile home and travel trailer owners on the shores of Lake Berryessa have sued the Bureau of Reclamation over a plan adopted last year that calls for the mobile homes and trailers to be removed. The federal court lawsuit filed by the group Berryessa For All contends that the bureau’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The agency adopted the plan in June 2006 with the goal of boosting short-term visitor use at the reservoir in the hills of eastern Napa County. The plan calls for removing more than 1,000 trailers located in seven “resorts” whose leases expire between this year and 2009. The government hopes to lure new concessionaires to develop facilities that may include cabins, motels and campgrounds (see , October 2006). Owners of mobile homes and travel trailers contend they were not given a fair shake during the plan preparation process, which lasted for six years.

The Capitol Area Development Agency (CADA) was seemingly exempt from the dissolution of redevelopment agencies last year. However, in the face of state budget cuts, officials plan to cease the agency's development operations and sell off its properties to subsidize the state budget. CADA still hopes to retain its role in supporting development and managing affordable housing projects.  Enviros Rally at Capitol to Save CEQA Sacramento Bee Labor unions, tribal organizations, and a coalition of environmental groups gathered on Tuesday to protest against the state's prospect to reform CEQA. Protesters claim that any attack on the law is also an attack on the state's workers, families and communities. In addition, the pro-CEQA coalition has released a report that highlights how the law benefits the state to counter common claims that the law is used to prevent development projects that are good for the environment and the state's economy. Oakley Pushes Through Redevelopment Project Contra Costa Times Oakley city officials have approved the original development plan for the former CentroMart building downtown. The building was purchased with redevelopment funds last May after Oakley's redevelopment agency had been dissolved, meaning the state had to authorize its transaction. Council's vote last Tuesday upheld the project's inclusion of a discount variety store and grocery store debunking rumors of relocating the community's library to the CentroMart site.  St ate Orders San Bernardino to Pay Over $500 Million in Mishandled Redevelopment Funds Modesto Bee The state's Controller, John Chiang, identified that San Bernardino mishandled its redevelopment funds by illegally transferring funds to its EDC and wrongly holding onto the remaining $420.5 million. The (now) former City Manager claims that the report's finding are false, and although the city later admitted its transfer of funds to the EDC, it claimed the transaction was legal. The state is requiring the bankrupt city to repay these funds, leaving the city at a loss for how it will be able to transfer money it does not have-possibly resulting in criminal charges for the city.    LA Council Approves Downtown Streetcar Plan LA Downtown News The Los Angeles City Council approved a 30-year operational plan that will commit $294 million for LA's downtown streetcar. The maintenance funds for the streetcar will come from fares, ad revenue and the county's Measure R sales tax- after the streetcar is built. To finance the construction, the city will be using a voter approved special tax and (hopefully) federal funds. The project's draft EIR is expected for release this summer and construction could begin as early as 2014.   Could SF Become the Next Big Cruise City? Mercury News San Francisco's new James R. Herman Cruise Terminal could be just what the city needs to get the cruise industry's attention and attract new megaships to city's port. America Cup, who currently occupies the new terminal space, has pledged over $100 million to the city for port and harbor improvements and will illuminate the terminal with a series of ship races beginning this summer. The grand plans for the terminal's interior will be completed in early 2014.

Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins has gotten to Governor Brown's desk with a new version of a bill to smooth recurring problems in the dissolution of local redevelopment agencies. A statement from Atkins' office  said the bill is similar to last year's AB 662 but drops a provision on amendments to project contracts that led Brown to veto it. The revised bill contains continuity provisions that would allow projects begun under redevelopment agencies to be carried forward. They include infrastructure financing districts, reimbursement of expenses taken on by housing authorities, and authorization to use bond proceeds on already-approved projects.  Proponents qualify Los Gatos ballot measure to authorize new Netflix HQ Los Gatos will vote June 3 on the "Albright Way Initiative" to allow construction of a new headquarters for Netflix. Developer John Shenk received town council approval to exceed 35-foot height limits on the project, which calls for four office buildings and a parking garage, but the project has been blocked by litigation. The ballot measure would confirm the prior approval but it was disputed whether the lengthy proposal might also add permissions beyond what the council granted. Critics said it would allow the town's community development director to be the only approving authority for any subsequent changes to the project. The San Jose Mercury News has coverage here . A city staff report and many public comment letters appear in the town council's February 3 agenda packet . The staff report said the DA reviewed complaints about allegedly misleading claims by petition gatherers, including that Netflix might leave the area or that there would be "no money for schools," and concluded such statements could not be proven false, hence did not amount to violations of law. The town's page on the initiative is here .  San Francisco to vote on requiring waterfront height variances by referendum Emboldened by their "No Wall on the Waterfront" win last November, San Francisco neighborhood and open-space activists have qualified a new ballot measure to require a citywide vote on any proposal for a waterfront project to exceed currently zoned height limits. The measure presumably will go to a vote June 3, 2014. (Ballotpedia has more here . The proponents' site  provides the measure's text.)  The lawsuit met almost immediately with a lawsuit from and other opponents, who claim that the waterfront is the state's turf, not the city's.  The proposal ties into raging citywide debates on whether residential high-rise construction will reduce housing costs by expanding supply or raise them by skewing the housing stock toward luxury, and on whether large-scale construction serves or marginalizes existing neighbors and public spaces. Projects at issue include a proposal to bring the Golden State Warriors basketball team to a new waterfront arena and a large planned redevelopment of post-industrial Pier 70 in the Dogpatch neighborhood. November's "wall on the waterfront" measure defeated the 8 Washington residential development with backing from many tenant activist groups although, as proposed, the project would have contributed $11 million in mitigation fees toward affordable housing. More coverage of the 8 Washington debate is  here . On the new ballot measure, SF Weekly 's Joe Eskenazi has a news analysis with emphasis on the role of former mayor Art Agnos in organizing, especially against the Warriors proposal. San Clemente has a General Plan San Clemente adopted a General Plan on February 4. The adoption included a zoning change to allow senior housing on a six-acre Shorecliffs Golf Course parcel previously zoned for hotel or timeshare use.  The package included a bicycle and pedestrian master plan, a climate action plan, and even an endorsement of skateboards as "an efficient and legitimate transportation mode." Criticism at the adoption meeting came primarily from residents and management of the Capistrano Shores Mobile Home Park. City officials offered assurances that the park's designation would not change under the Plan. Park residents had previously expressed alarm over Coastal Plan drafts they viewed as seeking to dismantle their neighborhood for open space.  The council now turns to implementation steps: revising zoning and the Housing Element, and preparing a Local Coastal Program to receive delegated permitting authority from the Coastal Commission. The city's Web page on the plan is here at http://san-clemente.org/sc/GP2Column.aspx?PageID=1000. Details on the approval meeting are here  and, in Council minutes here . E scondido Approves 99-Cent Store Interpreting its unusual ordinance that restricts the location of  "fixed-price" discount stores," Escondido has voted to permit a 99-Cent Store in the downtown area. Old Navy recently left the downtown area, and a debate ensued as to whether to permit a discount store in its place.  99-Cent Stores are often dismissed as being too downscale for many retail districts and creating problems for neighbors � for example, shopping carts sometimes stack up at nearby bus stops. But as retailing has changed over the past few years resistance has lessened. The Escondido Planning Commission denied the project , claiming that it violated the Downtown Specific Plan, which calls for creative and arts-related uses of downtown spaces.  But the City Council overturned the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote.

The City of Davis has adopted an ordinance that requires housing developers to provide a percentage of new units to people making 120% to 180% of median income. The ordinance also creates a lottery for the new units favoring local workers, and limits the resale prices. Most inclusionary housing ordinances target low- and moderate-income families — people making up to 120% of median. Davis already has such an ordinance, but city officials want to ensure that people with good jobs in Davis can live in the city, where few homes are available for less than $600,000. The ordinance targets individuals making about $51,000 to $76,000 a year, or families of four bringing in $72,000 to $109,000 annually. The middle-income housing ordinance adopted in December by the City Council requires developers of projects with 26 to 35 units to provide 10% of units for people making 120% to 180% of median, developers of projects with 36 to 49 units to designate 15% of units, and projects with at least 50 units to include 20% of units for middle-income families. Those requirements are on top of the 20% inclusionary requirement for low- and moderate-income families. The city will use a lottery to select potential buyers. Local employees can get four tickets, disabled people will get two tickets and anyone may get one ticket. City officials want local workers to get the housing units, but there are legal problems with excluding others, said Principal Planner Bob Wolcott. The weighted lottery is a compromise. The ordinance also caps annual increases in resale prices at 5% per year to ensure that the units remain affordable to the target population for a long time, Wolcott said. The lottery and resale price limitations were at least as controversial as the basic concept of a middle-income housing requirement. “It’s all tied in with the council asking some questions about why we want to grow and how much,” Wolcott said, noting the city has settled on an approximately 1% annual growth rate based on a study of local workers’ housing needs. SunCal Companies has acquired the 167-acre campus of the former Oak Knoll Naval Medical Center in the Oakland hills for $100.5 million. Although planning is still in the early stages, SunCal is considering a mixed-use project that takes advantage of the site’s bay views and close proximity to transit, SunCal spokesman Steve Greyshock said. “The potential for this property is just enormous,” he commented. The auction of the hospital, which closed in 1996, is the third major sale of surplus military land in California to developers during the last few years. In early 2005, Lennar purchased 3,700 acres of the former El Toro Marine Corps base in Orange County. Prior to that, three developers bought 235 acres of the former Marine Corps base in Tustin. Over the strong objection of military officials, the commission looking for a new San Diego airport site has chosen to examine Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, North Island Naval Station and Camp Pendleton. At a December meeting of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, representatives from all three bases urged the panel not to consider the bases. They said a joint-use airport or a separate civilian airport on one of the bases would jeopardize military operations and base security. “Absolutely, positively not doable at Camp Pendleton,” community liaison Larry Reynolds told the authority’s board. However, board members pointed out that the state legislation creating the authority included a provision for the study of both civilian and military sites. The panel is charged with finding a way to handle passenger and cargo growth because Lindbergh Field is highly constrained. Thus far, the panel has narrowed civilian options to three: a site near Campo just north of the Mexico border in eastern San Diego County, a site along Interstate 8 in Imperial County, and expansion of Lindbergh. The panel plans to make a recommendation this spring, with voters scheduled to decide in November 2006. The City of Los Angeles has made peace with three neighboring cities, Los Angeles County and a citizens advocacy group regarding an overhaul of Los Angeles International Airport. At the behest of new Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the city dropped most parts of a controversial modernization plan. In exchange, the county, the cities of El Segundo, Inglewood and Culver City, and a citizens group called Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion agreed to drop lawsuits against Los Angeles. Los Angeles has spent more than a decade and approximately $150 million planning airport expansion and modernization. Cities near the airport and their residents have fought vigorously, saying the plans would result in too much noise, traffic congestion and air pollution. They have advocated spreading out air traffic to other Southern California airports. According to the settlement agreement announced in December, Los Angeles will work with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Southern California Association of Governments, air carriers and others to increase flights at Ontario and Palmdale airports, both of which Los Angeles owns. The settlement also calls for the city to close two airport gates per year for five years once the airport hits 75 million passengers in a year. The closures would result in a total of 153 gates at LAX, which now handles about 62 million passengers a year. The FAA prohibits airports from capping the number of passengers, but closing gates allows the city to limit passenger numbers. Under Mayor Richard Riordan, the city adopted a plan to accommodate up to 89 million passengers a year at LAX. The settlement permits Los Angeles to proceed with some projects, including moving a southern runway to decrease the chance of airplane collisions, rebuilding the international terminal to accommodate the largest Airbus planes, and installing a new baggage system. A former Los Angeles County Planning Department employee has been sentenced to four years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of falsification of public records. Emmett Taylor was fired in 2000 after investigators alleged that he had collected $500,000 in “consulting fees” in exchange for issuing certificates of compliance — documents that verify the legality of a parcel. The certificates are most often sought by a landowner whose property was the subject of a very old subdivision map. Taylor was arrested in 2002 and charged with 97 criminal counts. Eventually, the district attorney’s office identified 347 illegal parcels for which Taylor had issued certificates, mostly near Malibu and Agua Dulce. Taylor, who may be eligible for a work release program, was also ordered to pay $1.53 million in restitution. Development of the third phase of the giant Mountain House project near Tracy has been approved by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Phase three, to be built by three developers and San Joaquin Delta College, will include 2,400 housing units, a 150-acre business park, a 100-acre community college campus, and a large community park. Approval of the third phase nearly got stymied by a demand from Trimark Communities, Mountain House’s master developer, that Delta College pay $15 million that Trimark had fronted for infrastructure. Delta refused to pay, but housing developer Gerry Kamilos agreed to cover the college’s portion of infrastructure costs. Although Mountain House was originally approved in 1995, buildout of the 14,000-unit project is less than 10% complete. The Port of San Diego has selected a developer for a project that port officials say could become an iconic gateway to the city. The Port Commission selected Federal Viejas LLC — a partnership of a San Diego County Indian tribe and Federal Development of Washington, D.C. — to develop the Embarcadero Circle project. On a parking lot at Broadway and Pacific Highway, the Federal Viejas proposes a cruise ship terminal, a 500-room, 27-story Marriott hotel, a 250-room, 16-story Ritz-Carlton, concert facilities, restaurants, shops and a parking structure with 3,000 spaces. The project is expected to cost at least $500 million. The Port Commission rejected three other proposals, including a larger one from Douglas Manchester. Port officials said they already have approval from the Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission for a project of the scope envisioned by Federal Viejas. Manchester’s larger project would have re-opened the state review process. Santa Clarita property owners have rejected the proposed creation of an open space and parkland preservation district. In a vote-by-mail election, 53% of 17,257 property owners who returned ballots voted against the district. The district would have assessed single-family homes $25 a year, with assessments rising based on inflation. City officials estimated the assessments would have raised about $1.5 million annually for purchasing open space, creating wildlife corridors and renovating existing parks. City officials also hinted that the district might provide a method to limit growth in unincorporated areas around the city. Creation of the open space district failed despite the lack of organized opposition. Meanwhile, Santa Clarita’s 15-year fight over a proposed sand and gravel quarry just outside of town is moving to the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission. The city has filed an application with LAFCO to annex 1,885 acres in Soledad Canyon, off Highway 14. The territory includes the site where Cemex, Inc., wants to operate a quarry, a project that the city has fought from every angle because of traffic, air quality and aesthetic concerns. Several years ago, LAFCO denied Santa Clarita’s application to add to the territory to the city’s sphere of influence. The city lost the latest legal round in late November when a federal district court upheld the Interior Department’s environmental impact statement for the proposed quarry. Even though the city owns some of the land involved, the BLM owns the mineral rights and has leased them to Cemex. Santa Clarita said it would appeal the district court’s decision. State litigation is pending in the Second District Court of Appeal.

The State Water Resources Control Board is circulating a statewide version of proposed amendments to tighten existing statewide trash control rules. The proposals, released June 10, are at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/documentation.shtml. The proposal applies to all California surface waters except for the Los Angeles rivers and streams that, uniquely in the state, already have trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for trash. Even those would be reconsidered under the statewide rules. The League of California Cities has more links and commentary at http://bit.ly/1kuJWyo. A workshop on the proposal was scheduled for July 16 in Sacramento. Comments are due August 5, also the date of a hearing when the board will take public comment without voting. State Supreme Court grants review in Newhall Ranch case The State Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the March 2014 Newhall Ranch ruling, Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife . The March decision by the Second District Court of Appeal (No. B245141) intrigued some smart people with its detailed unpublished discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. As discussed previously at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3505, writers Thomas Henry and Bao Vu wrote a technically careful blog post at http://bit.ly/1hxBDWz comparing standards for GHG reduction set in the case to those apparently set by the recent AB 32 scoping plan update, suggesting that the scoping plan might be more lenient. The Miller Starr Regalia blog has details of the grant of review at http://bit.ly/U9hhYj. San Diego compromise could raise development fees A deal between housing and business advocates could bring about a rare increase in the fee San Diego charges to commercial developers to support subsidized housing. Writer Andrew Keatts in the Voice of San Diego says the increase would only return the fee to 1.5% of 1990-denominated construction costs, which is where it started 24 years ago. The City Council was forced to undo a vote that last year raised the fee to 1.5% of total development costs. The replacement compromise plan goes to its first City Council committee meeting July 17. For details and links to the plan see the Voice of San Diego at http://bit.ly/1nvkFUF, San Diego CityBeat at http://bit.ly/1t27r78, and the U-T at http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/09/linkage-fee-double-reform/. Fresno General Plan revision draft out for review The city of Fresno is circulating the final draft of its 2035 general plan revision with comments due August 18. The Fresno Bee reports the plan seeks to increase density and allow housing growth in many kinds of neighborhoods while also addressing the city's problems, with poverty-related disparities among neighborhoods at the top of the list. http://bit.ly/1mghM9N For past coverage of Fresno's growth plans and related negotiations see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3417. The plan draft is at http://www.fresno.gov/News/PressReleases/2014/2035gpdraft.htm. Treasure Island EIR upheld The First District Court of Appeal upheld the EIR supporting a $1.5 billion development plan for Treasure Island, the man-made former World's Fair site at the middle of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The case is Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco , available at http://bit.ly/1t2f0dW. For more detail see legal writer Bob Egelko's report in the SF Chronicle at http://bit.ly/W9AGKk. There's more technical legal analysis from Parissa Ebrahimzadeh of Stoel Rives at http://bit.ly/1rfXXXY and Art Coon of Miller Starr Regalia at http://bit.ly/WgZ6lE. The court rejected the challengers' claim that the EIR for the project should have been prepared as a program-level EIR (i.e., with subsidiary EIRs for individual projects to follow later), but that it instead was improperly prepared as an insufficiently detailed project-level EIR. The court found the substance mattered more than the title, and the actual detail in the document was enough to qualify the EIR as adequate. The project calls for up to 8,000 housing units, plus hotel, office and commercial space. It's important that, as the court noted, the EIR requires the Navy to finish its toxic cleanup work on every land parcel before transferring it to the Treasure Island Development Authority for new use. Plans to build dense housing on Treasure Island, and decisions to house poor people there in recent years, have been criticized based on concerns about incomplete cleanup of hazards left by prior military uses, from mold to asbestos to radioactivity. (See http://bit.ly/1wtS7jP and http://bit.ly/O0JZHG.) Perhaps surprisingly, rising sea levels are less of a concern for this low-lying, mainly artificial island in the Bay. The court decision does not mention sea levels at all, and the June report by San Francisco's Civil Grand Jury said Treasure Island's development plans had taken sea level rise into account better than many other parts of the city. The grand jury report is available via http://bit.ly/1zHWFrk. Conservatives' challenge to Plan Bay Area rejected An Alameda County judge has rejected a challenge to Plan Bay Area by the conservative group Bay Area Citizens, which is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation. Judge Evelio Grillo rejected the challengers' claim that only fuel improvements, not denser housing, would be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Egelko has details at http://bit.ly/1wtG0TV, and Planetizen has links with context for the case at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70187. The decision follows the recent settlement of an environmental challenge to the plan as reported at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-69937. The Bay Area Citizens group will presumably appeal. Otherwise, Planetizen reports, only one lawsuit against Plan Bay Area now remains, by a group with an address in Santa Rosa called the Post Sustainability Institute. The group's Web site warns strenuously against "UN Agenda 21" and "Communitarianism," frequently in capital letters. San Francisco passes open space plan A revised Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) for the San Francisco General Plan passed the Board of Supervisors 8 to 3 on first reading July 8. It was headed for final passage July 15. The San Francisco Parks Alliance supported the measure, praising it for "up-to-date priority areas for land acquisition; local biodiversity in natural areas; living alleys, POPOS (privately owned public open spaces), and parklets; a plan to connect existing open spaces through "Green Connections"; and more community engagement." http://conta.cc/W9cKXo The proposal drew criticism from a neighborhood advocates' coalition for insufficiently protecting open space from new construction, especially in areas where it's scarce, for lacking a measure of adequately met recreational needs, and for overemphasizing native species at the expense of existing greenery. See http://bit.ly/1r3fPDX and http://sfforest.net/2014/06/10/watch-out-for-rose-action-alert/. The plan is at http://openspace.sfplanning.org/. Khosla goes back to court this week on Martins Beach The multiply postponed trial on public access to Martins Beach resumes with final arguments July 16 in San Mateo County Superior court. The Mercury News at http://bit.ly/WgKVwU looks at the major contentions: principally, the Surfrider Foundation's claim that billionare property owner Vinod Khosla violated Coastal Act access laws by ending fee-based access to the beach; and Khosla's that he merely exercised his property rights to keep the gate closed. At the Coastal Commission's July 9 session, Commissioner Martha McClure confirmed with staff that the Coastal Commission's legislative representative was still advocating for public access to Martin's Beach at the Commission's direction. McClure expressed dismay that SB 968, which initially called for the state lands commission to acquire the land by eminent domain had been "what I would consider watered down," in that it would merely "authorize the State Lands to take a look at it, and acquire it if possible." She said,"Every time I think public access, I think of that locked gate." She urged the Commission's representative to say, "Put the teeth back in that puppy, we need public access to Martins Beach." (For the bill text see http://bit.ly/1nv7q6c; for background see http://bit.ly/UJxiVZ.) With court arguments about to start on the morning of July 16, the plaintiff Surfrider Foundation was promising updates on legal director Angela Howe's Twitter at https://twitter.com/angtex. Are Sacramento's downtown developments fair? In June a Bee columnist called the Sacramento Coalition for Shared Prosperity lawsuit "greed" at http://bit.ly/1oXViiv. But two supporters of the group's social equity claims against the Kings explain at http://bit.ly/1zHKbjq and http://bit.ly/1nHc0TI how a Community Benefits Agreement could serve denser, more affordable downtown hosing in Sacramento. On a similar note, Planetizen highlighted Rachel Dovey's critique in Next City of downtown development projects that she argued are likely to exclude residents of the poorer downtown Sacramento that remains each day after office workers go home. http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70227 Costa Mesa will vote on a city charter Costa Mesa's City Council has definitely placed a city charter proposal on the November ballot. This is a second try: a similar charter proposal, Measure V, was defeated in 2012. See http://bit.ly/1mgfUhj and, for a prior mention with links, http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3467. The charter description is linked from the city site at http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1675, as are materials from March 18, April 22 and July 1 meetings on the issue. In other news: Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 577, which rescinds a 1991 ban on light rail in the San Fernando Valley. See www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70260. California Lawyer has an in-depth story at  at http://bit.ly/1l2f3Bi on the San Jose litigation against Major League Baseball over its anomalous exemption from antitrust laws. The city of Agoura Hills is still considering an annexation although its budget lost half a million dollars to the dissolution of its redevelopment agency: http://bit.ly/1zHLOxs

The State Supreme Court denied review October 22 in the major case of Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (Treasure Island Community Development) . As discussed in the CP&DR July 2014 issue , the ruling upheld the massive environmental impact report for a $1.5 billion development plan on Treasure Island, the man-made island at the middle of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. As legal precedent the case is important for its holding that an EIR's original status as program-level or project-level doesn't matter as much as whether, practically speaking, it provides enough information to support necessary decisions. No rent control end run via Costa-Hawkins in LA California's Second Appellate District blocked an attempted end-run around Los Angeles rent control in Burien v. Wiley. The ruling was by the Second District's Division Five, in an opinion by Justice Sandy Kriegler joined by Justices Paul Turner and Richard Mosk. In Kriegler's summary, the case concerned a rent-controlled apartment building on Sawtelle Boulevard that received its original certificate of occupancy in 1972. The landlord converted it to condominiums and obtained a fresh certificate of occupancy in 2009. He then sought to exempt the building from rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Act by claiming an exemption for units with certificates of occupancy issued after 1995. The tenant who objected, James Wiley, would have faced a rent increase from $1,401 to $3000 per month. The court found "the exemption can only apply to certificates of occupancy that precede residential use of the unit." The case is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B250182.PDF. In other legal news -- Alaine Patti-Jelsvik, an attorney with the Counsel Press filing service, posted a detailed commentary on the new California Rule of Court 8.701 , which implements SB 743, saying it "severely shortened and tightened... filing and service requirements and procedure for appellate relief in CEQA cases." The Point Reyes oyster war that you thought was already over had one more battle in early October. On October 6 the Marin Independent-Journal reported that Marin County officials asked the Coastal Commission to confirm the Drakes Bay Oyster business was shut down by federal courts without a consistency determination from the Commission. (Steve Kinsey, a Marin County Supervisor who is also chair of the Commission, criticized the Commission's role in the matter to the paper, while Amy Trainer of the Environmental Action Coalition told the paper there was no action requiring a consistency review, because the oyster beds' lease had simply expired.) But then, on the same day the I-J wrote that news, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported the oyster operation announced it had reached a settlement agreeing to shut down after all. The owners announced they would remove their oyster farm from federal wilderness property in Drakes Estero and would open a retail oyster business in nearby Tomales Bay. For prior coverage see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3547. The Supreme Court rejected a depublication request in the case of Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo Community College District . The case was a June ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that said a community group raised its objection too late to be heard against the cutting of more than 200 mature trees on the College of San Mateo campus. For coverage see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3518 and a discussion of the timing issue by William Abbott on his firm's land use weblog .

LA's Metro agency approved a new 96th Street station on its Crenshaw rail line to serve the LAX airport more directly than the previously planned Century/Aviation station. LA Curbed calls the design "a very fancy stop with all the extras." See http://bit.ly/1rSKRNK. For a clearer view of the logistics see the agency's diagram at http://bit.ly/1lSMxWp. Cal Supremes to review Property Reserve case The California Supreme Court agreed to review the Property Reserve appellate ruling on whether the state must bring an eminent domain action to get access to private property for geological testing for a future project. See http://bit.ly/V6KCDR for the Nossaman firm's take on what's at stake in the appeal. On the prior decision, issued in March by the Third District Court of Appeal, see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3448. The current California Supreme Court docket is at http://bit.ly/1lNkZlN. (A prior California Supreme Court review on the same case was concluded in 2011.) Two review denials may disappoint conservatives The U.S. Supreme Court turned down California conservatives two ways in late June. It refused to take up an appeal of last year's Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the low-carbon fuel standard that operates alongside AB 32 in California's cap-and-trade program: see http://bit.ly/1nX5Vi2 for a news account of reactions to the denial of review, and http://bit.ly/1sTMQFy for the Stoel Rives firm's legal analysis. The high court also refused to hear an appeal by Kevin Lunny, owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Co., of an order to shut down his oyster beds on Point Reyes National Seashore property. See http://bit.ly/1z3eVLn. Ocean Beach Community Plan approval postponed A big San Diego City Council hearing set for June 30 on the Ocean Beach Community Plan was called off because the Coastal Commission offered 43 last-minute change proposals. The local OB Rag published the text of the Commission's six-page memo at http://obrag.org/?p=84919. The Coastal Commission proposals include several emphasizing effects of sea level rise on bluffs and beaches. More detail from the Times of San Diego is at http://bit.ly/1luPKHg. The community plan page is at http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/oceanbeach/. Wintersburg structures rated among most endangered The National Trust for Historic Preservation has listed the Wintersburg Village structures in Huntington Beach as among the 11 most endangered historic places in the U.S., raising its profile and hence possibly improving its chances of preservation. The site was an early center of Japanese American settlement in Orange County, and one of the few land parcels that Japanese owners managed to acquire before passage of the 1913 Alien Land Law. (See http://bit.ly/TyTNeP.) The six surviving Wintersburg structures include a Presbyterian mission church and the farmhouse established by the pioneering Furuta family. The Huntington Beach City Council has voted to allow demolition of the structures but the property's current owner, a waste company known as Rainbow Environmental Services, may yet arrive at a way to preserve them. See http://bit.ly/1qeqYRQ. JK Yamamoto has more detail in the Rafu Shimpo at http://bit.ly/1pSvELb. San Francisco Grand Jury's port report: worth a read San Francisco's grand jury issued three reports in late June: criticizing the Port of San Francisco for over-friendliness to private developers; expressing concern over the extent of preparation for rising sea levels; and criticizing ethical disclosure standards applied to public officials and candidates. See http://civilgrandjury.sfgov.org/report.html for all the reports. The Port of San Francisco report is worth a read for reasons other than criticism: it provides a useful summary of recent proposals and ongoing plans for San Francisco waterfront construction and mentions steps the city took toward use of infrastructure financing districts in the context of the now-abandoned Golden State Warriors development plan. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3510.) In other news: The lawsuit by environmental groups against Plan Bay Area settled in late June in an agreement that includes emphasis on safer methods of moving truck and train cargoes through neighborhoods. The link-rich Planetizen writeup at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-69937 includes mentions of overlapping concerns between environmentalist and right/libertarian challengers to the plan. The annual "State of the Nation's Housing" report by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies says most of California has some of the highest housing cost burdens in the U.S. See http://bit.ly/1k9tjb1 for the Sacramento Bee 's California-centric take. The report itself is at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing. The Sacramento advocates who last week were seeking more social and housing benefits from the Kings arena project (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3518) went ahead and filed their suit. See http://bit.ly/1pSBUCy for the Bee account. The complaint seeks to overturn the EIR as having insufficiently disclosed, analyzed and mitigated several kinds of impacts, including inconsistency with the city's housing element. It also asks the court to declare SB 743 unconstitutional because of special provisions it contains that purport to streamline review of the arena project. An extended post-Redevelopment dispute over the 700 block of K street in Sacramento settled in late June with an agreement between the city and the state, allowing a start on long-delayed rebuilding plans for the block. See http://bit.ly/1mElp9w. A new lawsuit against the high-speed rail project, this time by a San Rafael environmental group, TRANSDEF, alleged the project wouldn't provide net greenhouse gas reductions for a decade. For news reports see http://bit.ly/1pGoH41 and http://bit.ly/1lNaPSb. The LA Times reported the High Speed Rail Authority had decided strategically to start the timetable toward construction of the rail line's Burbank-Palmdale segment: http://lat.ms/TLxgvQ Moody's upgraded its rating of California general obligation bonds to Aa3 from A1: http://bit.ly/1x9iE8c The San Francisco Chronicle reported San Francisco was finding housing for some of its homeless families by renting places for them in other towns from Vallejo to Sacramento: http://bit.ly/1nYDbXD Mountain View may increase the compensation it requires landlords to pay low-income tenants in certian kinds of no-fault evictions: http://bit.ly/1iQx9et Ellen Hanak's team at the Public Policy Institute of California were suggesting a statewide water surcharge as a way to raise money for regional projects as an alternative to bonds: http://www.ppic.org/main/blog_detail.asp?i=1553 The city of Davis was hearing proposals from developers for environmentally conscious design of an "innovation center". Three proposals are from groups led respectively by Hines, Ramco Enterprises and Capitol Corridor Ventures: http://bit.ly/1lFliPm Mayor Eric Garcetti of LA set up a "Mayor's Fund for Los Angeles" nonprofit to fund projects beyond the support they receive from public budgets. Goals for the fund include work on the LA River: http://lat.ms/1m4EA0h Kern County adopted a regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategy under SB 375. Planetizen has a summary and links to an extended commentary by NRDC consultant Ella Wise: http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70026 The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) approved a sustainability strategy June 11 that predicted 20% population growth from 2010 through 2035: http://bit.ly/1o28hxo Details emerged on San Francisco's Schlage Lock development proposal, which calls for a stunning 1,700 units of housing on a long-neglected factory campus in the southeastern Visitacion Valley district. A city Office of Economic Analysis presentation said construction spending could reach $637 million. See http://bit.ly/1lMKHqC for the SF Business Times writeup. The presentation is at http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5460. The plan goes to the Board of Supervisors next week: http://bit.ly/1rUTyHp The League of California Cities included clippings in its daily briefs from a couple of disputes over economics and housing in Orange County: homeowners opposed a 70-unit proposed affordable housing development in Santa Ana: http://bit.ly/1nYANyP. Costa Mesa planners were recommending a separate new permitting process for motels to allow long-term stays: http://bit.ly/1jFeuNv

In recent land use news: Sacramento Bee political columnist Dan Walters is predicting fresh attempts in the new legislative session to limit no-fault evictions under the Ellis Act. Streetsblog LA reported the Metro Board of Directors instructed its CEO to report on transit-oriented development efforts that can prepare Los Angeles County to be a grantee under the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities cap-and-trade program. Following CalEPA's announcement of its "disadvantaged community" designations for cap-and-trade grantmaking (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3616 ), hopeful news articles appeared in the Fresno Bee and the Stockton Record about funding possibilities for Central Valley regions where bad air quality and agricultural poverty combine to meet definitions of disadvantage under the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 standard. Meanwhile, however, the California Coalition for Rural Housing submitted a comment on the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program suggesting the program was all but exclusively oriented toward transit-oriented development at major transit hubs, and was "designed to fail" in smaller communities and places poorly served by transit. Video from the AHSC program's last main public workshop on October 28 is available now at http://sgc.ca.gov/ . New guidance documents issued based on the CalEPA decision include this Air Resources Board redraft on benefits to disadvantaged communities . The Silicon Valley Business Journal reported the Crossing/900 project on Middlefield Road in downtown Redwood City signed a major deal to provide a headquarters for the Box, Inc. company, purveyor of secure cloud storage services. The SF Chron reports that housing giant Lennar and another developer, Macerich, have contracted to build a shopping center on the site of the former Candlestick Park stadium, to form the center of a new dense development projected to include 6,000 housing units. News reports came through on a slew of Bay Area specific and general plan revisions:  Menlo Park voted a week before the election to limit medical office space under its downtown and El Camino Real specific plan. An office space limitation measure on the ballot, Measure M, lost by 61.6% to 38.4% . The city of Novato set a public hearing for Nov. 18 on revisions to its housing element. The housing element update page is at http://www.ci.novato.ca.us/Index.aspx?page=1410 . Solano County's Housing Element update was posted for comment in October . Proposed revisions include a new disability accommodation request process. Half Moon Bay has begun public meetings on a General Plan revision that will be the first since 1993; the Half Moon Bay Review reports the last revision attempt, in 2004, broke down in acrimony. The paper meanwhile reports a recent traffic study found high congestion levels on roads in the Coastside area of San Mateo County. The study is part of the Connect the Coastside transportation management plan process, focused on Highways 1 and 92, which intersect in Half Moon Bay. Cupertino's General Plan went to a hearing November 10 with emphasis on its housing element , which was released for comment in October. The Silicon Valley Business Journal 's Nate Donato Weinstein livetweeted the meeting, noting  62 people submitted cards for public comment and many speakers opposed the draft, especially the proposed allocations of residential and office construction. The City Council next takes up the matter December 2. Palo Alto's revision to its Comprehensive Plan (local equivalent to General Plan) is focusing on " retail preservation " amid some disagreement on what that exactly means. Martinez is discussing amendments to the General Plan and the Hidden Lakes Specific Area Plan. The Calaveras Enterprise is still nagging the Board of Supervisors to move along with revising its General Plan, which is currently projected to reach approval stage around April of 2016. San Diego began this week to install about 200 "smart" parking meters that accept credit cards and track space usage. The first such meters will be in the tourist-oriented Gaslamp Quarter. Fresno homeless-rights activist Mike Rhodes reported on Indybay that settlements have been reached between the City of Fresno and 36 homeless campers. The campers alleged they lost property in a city "cleanup" sweep, using bulldozers, that removed a large encampment of hand-built shelters. Counsel representing the campers included Central California Legal Services and Arnold & Porter. (Item via League of California Cities.) The Press Democrat reported Mendocino College rescinded an agreement to sell a 15-acre blufftop research station property to the Bureau of Land Management. Instead, it announced plans to sell only a conservation easement. The college cited plans to continue using buildings there for research while also preserving the property against development. BLM would have added it to the California Coastal National Monument. A couple of commentaries have appeared from law firms playing up the usefulness of SB 628 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts. They're posted by Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard and by Holland & Knight . For CP&DR's own early profile of the bill � including reasons it may not work well for housing or in dense neighborhoods � see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3563 . The LA Times reported that, in a move one neighbor called "the road to development," The Los Angeles City Council voted to allow paving on Bulwer Road in Laurel Canyon. The stated purpose of paving the dirt road was to help a developer sell two houses that were completed five years ago after sitting unfinished for years before that. But it was disputed whether further construction might follow  California Lawyer 's November issue has reports on two land use matters: the future of California groundwater and AirBnB. If you missed the National Association of City Transportation Officials meeting in San Francisco, some of the presentations are available via links from the daily schedule . Sunnyvale neighbors have appealed a court ruling that disappointed their campaign to recover public access to a public building that the city sold, the Raynor Activity Center. The suit is brought partly uner CEQA, partly under the Public Park Preservation Act. The neighbors' most recent update describes the ruling. The appellate case is Save Sunnyvale Parks and Schools, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale . Inyo County approved the Munro Valley Solar project in Olancha, despite objections to its visual impact and to effects on tribal cultural resources.  Grist magazine posted a colorful linkfest on extreme responses to the California water shortage, including a National Journal news feature on water theft. The LA Times reported, a tad optimistically , that a new dust mitigation approach "ends L.A.'s longtime feud with Owens Valley."

Organizers have confirmed that attorney Jennifer Hernandez of Holland & Knight and Prof. Ethan Elkind of UCLA will both take part in a panel discussion of SB 375 and SB 743 at the University of San Francisco law school November 4. A third panelist will be Michael Schwartz of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority. Hernandez and Elkind set out strongly worded, antagonistic positions in August on the proposal by California's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement SB 743 by shifting from the existing Level of Service (LOS) transportation impact metric under CEQA to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric. The proposal has been championed by advocates for public transportation, bike/pedestrian access and "smart growth" but dreaded by some developers as a source of new uncertainties and obligations under CEQA law. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3560 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3582.) Hernandez was the principal author of a fierce criticism published by her firm in August, captioned, " OPR Proposes to Increase CEQA's Costs, Complexity and Litigation Risks with SB 743 Implementation. " Elkind answered it with a critical essay captioned " Misleading Attacks on California's new Transportation Analysis Under CEQA ." A further OPR presentation was scheduled for November 3, so by November 4 the panelists may have further grist for their discussion. See http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/SB743_Workshop_Notice.pdf. The presentation's webcast may be available later, as with OPR's previous presentation of the type, at http://opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php. An RSVP form for the USF event is here . Oral argument in Berkeley Hillside set for December 2 The Supreme Court has announced it will hear oral arguments in Los Angeles December 2 in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (Logan). The case is one of the most significant in a large backlog of CEQA cases currently pending before the State Supreme Court. It concerns the application of a categorical CEQA infill exemption to a proposal for a very large private house, and more generally whether or when "unusual circumstances" can create exceptions to the exemption. A header in the respondents' brief argues: "Appellants have not shown that 'unusual circumstances' should be deleted from the Unusual Circumstances exception." And they argue that the exception is at risk of swallowing the rule. (And see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3314.) The petitioners, Berkeley Hillside Preservation, say they haven't sought to delete the 'unusual circumstances' language. They do argue that a fair argument for significant environmental impacts should still trigger an EIR. The full current list of pending major CEQA cases before the Supreme Court is as follows: - Berkeley Hillside , S201116, oral argument December 2 - Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. 14th District Agricultural Association (Stars of Justice) , S218240, held awaiting the decision in Berkeley Hillside. - Center for Biological Diversity v Dept of Fish and Wildlife (the Newhall Ranch case), S217763, reply brief due November 26. - California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District , S213478 (the "CEQA In Reverse" case): Fully briefed. - City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of CSU , S199557, fully briefed. - Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District , S214061, fully briefed. - Sierra Club v. County of Fresno , S219783, opening brief due December 2. In other news -- -  The Calfornia Attorney General issued an opinion clarifying that members of oversight boards for local post-redevelopment successor agencies may not receive compensation or reimbursed expenses from the authority that appoints them. The rule applies to appointing authorities for other oversight boards as well. Amit Palta, of the firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP, wrote up the opinion on JDSupra . The opinion is at http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/12-902.pdf. - The State Supreme Court turned down a request for depublication of a major case affirming the EIR for a portion of the California High-Speed Rail project. For coverage of the Third District appellate ruling see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3540. - The Los Angeles County Supervisors approved a new "vision statement" for Marina Del Rey. - The city of Tulare adopted a general plan that shrank its Urban Development Boundary by six miles . - The LA Times reported on tensions over the possibility of broader federal tribal recognition policies that could lead to more tribal exercises of sovereignty in places with strictly regulated land use such as Napa. - In what the LA Times called "a new front in the battle over Malibu beach access," Coastal Commission staff sent enforcement warnings over allegations of harassment and high fees for public beach access at the privately run Paradise Cove.

The Coalition for Responsible Arena Development filed a notice of intent to bring a lawsuit against the proposed downtown arena in Sacramento. The group opposing the proposed development claims that the project violates CEQA and is a misuse of public funds. LA Mayor Approves University Village Project Near USC KTLA Mayor Villaraigosa signed off on a $1.1 billion redevelopment project for University Village near USC. The new development includes 350,000 sq. ft. of retail space and new housing and academic areas for students, making it the largest project in the history of South LA. The project's construction could start as early as this year, and will be developed in phases until its expected completion in 2030.  DOF Returns $11 Million To Placer County Modesto Bee After the end of redevelopment in California last year, the state Department of Finance has finally returned the $11 million it has been withholding from Placer County. The county intends to use the funds for highway improvement projects in north Lake Tahoe and Auburn. Central Valley Leaders Work Towards Settling Growth Wars Fresno Bee After the city offered to drop its lawsuit against Madera County's proposal for a 5,200 residential development last week, county officials have agreed to meet with the city to further discuss pending lawsuits and regional growth disputes. In the upcoming meetings, both city and county leaders hope to reach agreement on lawsuit settlements and how the region will grow- hopefully putting the growth wars to rest. Recent Study Shows DTLA Housing is Cheaper Without Parking Curbed LA A study from UCLA's Michael Manville found that housing in DTLA is more affordable if developers don't have to adhere to conventional parking requirements. The study focused on housing provided under the city's Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, which does not require additional parking spaces for additional units. The study found that many buildings offered rental rates that were "unbundled" from parking, providing lower housing options for people without cars- a trend that is not exclusive to DTLA.

2006 is shaping up as a turning point for the state’s enterprise zone program. Not only are 18 of 42 enterprise zones scheduled to expire later this year, but state lawmakers are considering a number of competing bills that would do everything from maintain the status quo to significantly reform the economic development program. This spring, Juan Arambula, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy, issued a report calling for increased enterprise zone program accountability, new criteria for designating zones and reforming the hiring tax credit. A few weeks later, the California Budget Project (CBP) issued a study that strongly questions the effectiveness of the enterprise zone program and calls for lawmakers to substantially reduce the program’s size. The report from Arambula (D-Fresno) was the result of hearings regarding the enterprise zone program and includes 45 recommendations. Among other things, Arambula recommended continuing enterprise zone designations through 2008 to give the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) — which took over the program in 2003 — time to complete a thorough review. Other recommendations call for more state oversight, an annual “cost per job created” report by HCD, and changing the hiring tax credit to reduce abuses. In a 14-page response, the California Association of Enterprise Zones (CAEZ) objected to most of Arambula’s recommendations. “The enterprise zone is meant to be a state and local partnership and the state has been absent in providing adequate oversight, marketing of the program nationally and internationally, and assistance/training to the local communities,” CAEZ responded. The report by the CBP, which frequently questions tax breaks, echoed some of Arambula’s recommendations but went much further. The CBP found that enterprise zone tax breaks cost the state $300 million in 2003. “However, numerous studies have failed to establish a link between EZ tax incentives and increased employment, firm growth, or economic development,” the CBP concluded. In the Legislature, economic development bills have moved slowly this year. Among the most far-reaching is SB 1268 (Cedillo), which would require cities, counties and redevelopment agencies to submit biannual reports on every economic development subsidy — including EZ tax credits — of at least $25,000. Arambula’s report and the CAEZ response are available on the CAEZ website, www.caez.org . The CBP report is available at www.cbp.org . Financial assurances intended to ensure that garbage dumps, hazardous waste facilities and surface mines do not degrade environmental and public health are often inadequate, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has concluded. In a new study, the LAO recommended overhauling the financial assurances system to reduce the state’s liability for cleaning up closed waste facilities and mines. “Our review finds that state agencies, when calculating the required dollar amount of financial assurances, frequently do not include all the costs necessary to prevent adverse impacts to the public and the environment,” the LAO reported. The LAO also found that some of the financial assurance mechanisms – especially corporate guarantees and self-insurance — are not very assured. The report cites a California Integrated Waste Management Board study that estimated the state faces a liability of $1.8 billion by mid-century for solid waste facilities. The state’s exposure for surface mines could be as much as $1.2 billion. Maintaining only one hazardous waste site — the BKK landfill in West Covina — is costing the state at least $5.5 million annually, according to the LAO. Coincidentally, the report came out only days after a state appellate court upheld a regulation giving the state Department of Conservation the final say on when local governments may release financial assurances for surface mine reclamation (see ). The LAO recommended: • Broadening the scope of costs covered by financial assurances; • Eliminating a corporate guarantee or corporate financial test as a means of providing financial assurance; • Consolidating all financial assurance functions into one unit at the California Environmental Protection Agency; • Charging a new fee on currently operating waste facilities and surface mines to provide a state fund for long-term maintenance and cleanup. The report, “Financial Assurances: Strengthening Public Safety of Waste Facilities and Surface Mines,” is available on the LAO’s website: www.lao.ca.gov . Affordable housing advocates have sued the City of Mission Viejo over the city’s approval of a 144-unit housing project. Two years ago, the city made clear it would not approve a proposed 168-unit apartment project for low- to moderate-income residents on the same 23-acre site, a stance that was popular with neighbors but not with HCD (see , August 2004). The recently approved project calls for 122 market-rate housing units and 22 affordable units. The Public Law Center, the Legal Aid Society and the California Housing Law Project sued, saying the city had not identified where it would provide its fair share of low- and moderate-income housing. The Carpinteria City Council has adopted in-lieu affordable housing fees that may set a record. The city on the Santa Barbara County coast has an inclusionary zoning ordinance that requires 12%of new housing units to be designated for moderate-income residents. Under the new fee structure, developers that do not provide the affordable units may pay an in-lieu fee of $493,500 per single-family house or $254,330 per condominium. The fee is based on the difference between median market rate prices and the amount that a median-income family can afford. No one has applied to pay the in-lieu fee since the city established it at more than $200,000 per unit in 2004.