Search Results

The housing deficit continues to grow in the Bay Area, which produced only 83% of needed housing units from 1999 through 2005, according to a report by the Bay Area Council. The production of affordable units was even worse, as the nine-county region produced only 42% of the very low-, low- and moderate-income units prescribed in the Association of Bay Area Governments’ regional housing needs determination (RHND). The Council, a CEO-led business organization, said the region’s housing situation is an economic concern. “While salaries tend to be high in the region, costs of living are even higher than comparative regions (almost exclusively due to housing costs), resulting in workers paying a very large ‘premium’ to reside in this region,” the Council concluded. “Thus, as talented workers consider where to live, very high housing costs can discourage new talent from moving to the Bay Area while pushing current residents elsewhere.” Contra Costa County has produced more than its share of total units, and Solano County has nearly met its overall share. Other counties, however, saw less building than prescribed by the RHND. San Mateo County’s 9,365 permits were only 59% of the county’s housing share. Interestingly, the Council found that the jurisdictions that fell the farthest short of their RHND goals were cities of 35,000 to 75,000 people. Together, they had produced only 59% of their RHND total. Smaller cities jointly exceeded their target figures, and larger cities met 85% of their RHND goals. Seven cities provided more than 100% of their share of affordable units: San Jose, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Hercules, Pinole, San Bruno and Colma. The cities of Petaluma and San Pablo nearly met their goals, according to the Council. The Bay Area Council, previously headed by outgoing Business, Transportation and Housing Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak, urged approval of SB 1800 (Ducheny). The builder-sponsored bill would require local governments to zone for 20 years of housing needs and prepare 10-year housing plans, increase by-right developments and decrease environmental review. However, the bill has received little support (see , page 3). The Council’s report is available at www.bayareacouncil.org .

The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) has recommended that the City of Sacramento consider limiting development in the Natomas Basin, the fastest growing part of the city, because of flood threats (see , October 2005). In July, the Army Corps of Engineers reported that Natomas lacks 100-year flood protection because of levee seepage concerns. “This is particularly troubling since Natomas is a deep basin and may experience flooding in excess of 15 feet,” DWR Director Lester Snow wrote to Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo. “With less than 100-year flood protection, the chance of homes flooding over the next 10 years is approximately 10%, much greater than the risk of a home fire.” The letter emphasizes that DWR is working with the city and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to upgrade the levees, and that voter approval of two bonds in November will help. In the meantime, though, DWR urged the city to consider: • Limiting new construction; • Requiring building designs relative to potential flooding depth; • Notifying property owners and renters annually of the flood risk; • Requiring builders to provide flood insurance to new residents until “the minimum level of flood protection is achieved;” • A “robust assessment of flood risk in general plan updates,” and possibly new policies. The state agency sent a similar letter to Sutter County, in which the northern end of the Natomas Basin lies. Sacramento officials expressed some frustration with the letter, and there are no indications the city will slow Natomas development. Sutter County officials said development of the planned 7,500-acre Sutter Point project will not likely get started before levees are upgraded. of Supervisors has voted 3-2 to pay the developer of a 440-acre project in Upland $102 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the developer. Colonies Partners sued the county’s flood control district over the cost of providing a 65-acre flood control project in the midst of the 1,150-unit project (see , February 2004; , December 2003). The litigation had already reached an appellate court once and appeared headed back in July when a Superior Court for a second time ruled that the flood control district’s easements on the property no longer existed, meaning the county would have to purchase the land for the flood control channel and basin. The county counsel’s office and outside attorneys with Jones Day disputed the ruling and recommended against a settlement, but a sharply divided board approved the $102 million agreement anyway. Dissenting Supervisors Dennis Hansberger and Josie Gonzales contended Colonies Partners never provided documentation to support the amount of the settlement, and Hansberger later told the that a taxpayer lawsuit for a gift of public funds would be “entirely appropriate.” But the board majority said it was in the best interest of everyone to settle the matter. The flood control district will apparently use its reserves, issue bonds and sell surplus property to make the $102 million in payments over 10 years. The City of Lynwood’s Redevelopment Agency shorted its low- and moderate-income housing fund by $193,000 over three years, spent nearly half of housing monies on planning and administration, failed to record affordability covenants on subsidized housing units, and held property longer than legally permitted, according to a recent audit by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For the three years audited, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, the agency deducted pass-through amounts, fees and transfers to schools from the gross tax increment before allocating money to the low/mod housing fund, according to HCD. The result was $193,000 less than required for the housing account, as state law mandates that 20% of gross increment go into the affordable housing fund. The city blamed Los Angeles County accountants and concurred with HCD’s conclusion. The redevelopment agency spent 13%, 48% and 45% of low/mod housing funds on planning and administration during the three audited years, without determining that the expenses were necessary. The agency countered that it was negotiating and approving two affordable housing projects during that period. State auditors reported that they were unable to confirm affordability restrictions for housing units subsidized by the redevelopment agency. The agency said that no redevelopment funds had been used for the projects, as the city relied on federal funding for affordable housing projects. However, HCD said that assertion contradicted the agency’s audited financial statements, which say the agency spent more than $1.3 million on housing rehabilitation and construction over a six-year period. The city should expect a follow-up audit on this issue, HCD said. As for the six properties held longer than the five- or 10-year statutory maximum, the agency reported that it had sold three parcels to the city for a park, is developing one parcel, and is negotiating with a developer regarding two others. Water began flowing in the Lower Owens River in December when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa turned a control knob opening a gate that has directed the river into the Los Angeles Aqueduct since 1913. After decades of political battles and litigation involving Inyo County and environmentalists, Los Angeles in 1991 agreed to restore the river. But the city moved slowly, prompting more litigation. The city lost recent rounds and was facing the loss of some water rights if it did not start restoring the river (see , October 2006). The river will now flow an additional 62 miles through the Owens Valley before the city diverts it into the aqueduct. The project also includes restoration of riparian habitat along the river. Cynthia Bryant is the new director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Bryant replaces Sean Walsh, whom Gov. Schwarzenegger has named a senior advisor. Bryant most recently served as chief deputy legislative secretary for the governor. Prior to that, she was a policy aide to state Senate Republicans, legal counsel for the Assembly Republican Caucus and counsel to the Assembly Rules Committee. Gov. Schwarzenegger has extended the life of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley by two years, until the end of 2008. The governor formed the partnership headed by members of his cabinet in 2005 to address economic, transportation, land use and social issues in the eight-county region (see , February 2006). Thus far, the group’s major success has been getting attention focused on the need for Highway 99 improvements. The truce between the City of Berkeley and the University of California over campus development appears to have crumbled. In December, the UC Board of Regents approved the “southeast campus integrated projects” program, which calls for renovating and seismically strengthening Memorial Stadium, constructing a 142,000-square-foot athletic center, and converting the Bowles Hall dormitory into suites for corporate executives attending classes. Two weeks later, the city filed a lawsuit, contending that the project violates the Alquist-Priolo seismic safety law, and that the project description and UC’s search for alternative sites were inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act. A neighborhood association and environmental groups have filed two other lawsuits over the projects. In 2005, the city and UC reached a settlement over the school’s long range development plan after years of antagonism (see , July 2005; , June 2005). But the friendly feelings are apparently over. The City of Berkeley eased its historic preservation regulations in December, when the City Council approved a revised preservation ordinance. In November, Berkeley voters rejected an initiative that would have locked in place the previous regulations. The new rules make it harder to designate historic sites and structures, and make it easier to remove things from the protected list. Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates repeatedly argued that the old rules were abused to halt development.

Even if they disagree with each other sometimes, state and local officials are trying to make it easier to get development projects through the CEQA process. Jerry Brown recently used his 2011 CEQA reforms to get a solar project approved in Riverside County. Meanwhile, Fresno County streamlined its CEQA process even as Brown has attempted to intervene in disputes between Fresno city, the county, and Madera County over greenfield development. Brown Uses CEQA Reforms to Approve Solar Project CA.gov Last week Governor Brown certified the McCoy Solar Project in Riverside County under the terms of his 2011 CEQA reforms (AB 900), making it the second project to be certified since he signed the bill in September 2011.  AB 900 allows projects to be eligible for expedited review. Brown says the billion-dollar renewable solar facility is projected to generate clean solar power, create over 340 jobs, and invest at least $100 million in the state.  A RDA Success Story For Long Beach LA Streetsblog The former RDA effort to revamp downtown Long Beach provides a unique example of something positive coming from the state's dissolution of the RDA last year. A four-phase project to redo downtown streetscapes was slimmed down to focus solely on Pine Avenue, the main downtown corridor. .  Recently Approved Regulatory Change Makes Development Easier in Fresno County  Fresno Bee Amid concerns that Fresno and Madera counties have made development of greenfield projects too easy, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve a regulatory change that will help speed up the county's development process. The change allows developers to hire their own consultants, instead of the county contracting to a third party, for CEQA required reviews of project proposals. Opposing groups call this change a conflict of interest; however supervisors hold that there is no conflict of interest since the county will continue to oversee the environmental review process of proposed projects.  Metro Approves Use of Measure R Funds for the 710 Freeway Coalition LA streetsblog The City of Rosemead is using a portion of its Measure R local return funds to pay for its membership fees in the 710 Coalition. Although many oppose the use of local tax dollars to support the highly controversial I-710 extension project, Metro claims that this use falls within the Metro funding guidelines.  US DOT Prioritizes Walking and Biking in New Design Standards DC streetsblog Traditionally, US DOT has relied on adopted roadway guidelines that favor the automobile and render roadways unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians. Now for the first time, US DOT is setting out to create its own set of design standards that prioritize safer streets for biking and walking. Secretary of Transportation, Raymond LaHood, says that DOT will draw from best practices and collaborate with AASHTO and NACTO to develop standards that create a safer experience for all roadway users.  Council Candidate Visions A New LA Rail Line With Streetcar Curbed LA Los Angeles Council District 13 candidate, Matt Szabo, revealed his comprehensive transportation vision for the area in a plan titled, "This Could Be Us: A Public Transit Vision That Works". The plan includes a new rail line running along Sunset Boulevard, connecting Hollywood to other destination areas, like Dodger Stadium and Downtown LA, a new streetcar along Riverside Drive connecting to the downtown streetcar, and an extension to Metro's existing red and purple rail lines. Szabo's plan aims to improve the area's connectivity, improve access to public space, and advance efforts for increasing green space, like the Hollywood Central Park freeway capping project. San Diego Preps Region for CA's High Speed Rail U-T San Diego San Diego is in the process of preparing the county's rail lines for the state's future high-speed rail network. The blueprints , as part of the draft CA State Rail Plan, aim to combine the existing rail system with the future rail system needed to accommodate the state's new bullet-train network. Although the high-speed rail isn't expected to operate through San Diego for decades, officials are committed to improving regional access to future network connections in Los Angeles and San Diego by investing in its current light rail system.

Gov. Schwarzenegger waited until the last minute to take action on the most important housing bills of the 2004 legislative year, signing some and vetoing others. The most controversial housing bill that the governor signed is SB 1818 (Hollingsworth), which increases the maximum density bonus for certain affordable housing projects from 25% to 35%. One way developers can qualify for the larger density bonus is by donating land for future affordable housing projects. The bill also requires cities to provide affordable housing developers with three incentives of the developer's choice. That final provision is a major concern, said Sande George, lobbyist for the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. It appears a developer could use the provision to avoid paying mitigation fees, utility connection charges, and planning fees, she said. But bill supporters say they envision the incentives being things like smaller setbacks or relaxed parking requirements. Under the legislation, a city may refuse to grant a concession if the city makes findings. Also receiving the governor's endorsement were AB 2348 (Mullin) and AB 2158 (Lowenthal), both of which make changes to the housing element process (see , June 2004). The governor vetoed two other high-profile housing bills, both by Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento). One of the failed bills was AB 2702, which would have reduced local government discretion over second units. “As a strong proponent of local control,” the governor said in his veto statement, “I believe that government is most responsive and accountable to people when it is close to the people. This bill removes that control away from local officials, where homeowners and residents can voice their concerns about their neighborhoods and moves it to a state bureaucracy in Sacramento.” The second bill Schwarzenegger rejected was AB 1426, which would have provided $1 million from the Proposition 46 housing bond to fund incentives for affordable housing production in the Sacramento region. The governor said it was inappropriate for the state to set aside the bond funds for one region's programs. Interestingly, both vetoes came despite Business, Housing and Transportation Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak's support for the Steinberg bills. Housing advocates were disappointed. “This governor may be more receptive than any of his predecessors over the last 25 years to local government arguments for local control,” the California Housing Law Project said in an October memorandum. BESIDES THE HOUSING BILLS, the governor also took action on two other bills that could have indirect land use implications. Schwarzenegger signed AB 2572, which requires cities, special districts and other water providers with at least 3,000 connections to install water meters by 2025 (not by 2013, as reported by in September). The largest cities affected are Sacramento and Modesto. Meanwhile, the governor vetoed a bill that would have capped air pollution limits at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles at current levels. Schwarzenegger said AB 2042 (Lowenthal) “would not reduce air pollution in any way.” Instead, he called for a new state and federal program of financial and regulatory incentives to reduce port air pollution. AS EXPECTED, CALTRANS DID NOT AWARD A BID a bid to build the “signature” portion of a new, seismically safe San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. However, instead of asking for a bid extension, the state simply let the $1.4 billion bid expire on September 30. The bid from a consortium of bridge builders for the self-anchored cable suspension span was about double what Caltrans had estimated, and the bid helped make clear just how expensive the proposed eastern Bay Bridge replacement may be ( , October 2004). The estimated cost of the project has jumped from $1.3 billion to $5.1 billion since 1997. The state has convened a panel of experts to reconsider the Bay Bridge design. A report to the Legislature is due in December. More than half of the state's cities and counties have not completed a comprehensive general plan update in at least 10 years. According to a letter from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to the attorney's general's office, 288 cities (out of 477) have not completed an update in at least a decade, nor have 37 of the state's 58 counties. However, OPR did report that 75 cities and 19 counties are currently working on comprehensive plan updates. OPR defines a “comprehensive” update as a revision of at least five of the seven required general plan elements. AT A HEARING ATTENDED BY MORE THAN 1,000 people, the Los Angeles City Council approved phase two of the Playa Vista project on the city's west side. Phase two will slide between housing that is already under development on the project's west end, and a 3 million-square-foot office and industrial park on the project's east end (see , October 2003). With 2,600 housing units, 175,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail space, phase two is proposed to contain the mixed-use aspects that Playa Vista backers have touted. In all, Playa Vista will have about 5,800 housing units. Even though about 600 of Playa Vista's 1,087 acres are being set aside for open space, wetlands habitat or parks, development opponents persist. During the City Council hearing, they complained bitterly, especially about traffic congestion. Litigation over phase two approvals is next. A RAND CORPORATION STUDY is the latest to link low-density, suburban-style development with public health problems. The Santa Monica-based think tank found that adults who live in the most sprawling cities have a health profile similar to someone who is four years older and living in a more compact city. The RAND study identified the Riverside-San Bernardino region as the nation's most sprawling. Among the health conditions more prevalent among residents of sprawling areas are high blood pressure, arthritis, headaches and breathing difficulties - even after accounting for factors such as age, race, income and local environmental conditions. “To improve our health the study suggests that we should build cities where people feel comfortable walking and are not so dependent on cars,” said Dr. Deborah Cohen, a RAND researcher and study co-author. The study is available on the RAND website at: www.rand.org/research_areas/health/index.html . A STATE APPELLATE COURT has for the first time invalidated an urban water management plan. In an unpublished decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the Castaic Lake Water Agency's plan. Castaic's urban water management plan - which is supposed to address 20-year supplies and needs - has received criticism since the agency adopted the document in 2000. The agency sells water at both wholesale and retail in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Sierra Club and Friends of the Santa Clara River sued over the plan in 2001, as did Ventura County, which eventually dropped out of the litigation. Earlier this year, directors of the Newhall County Water District, which purchases water wholesale from the Castaic agency, cast a no-confidence vote regarding the plan (see , March 2004). The environmentalists contend that the plan improperly relies on “paper water” from the oversubscribed State Water Project and questionable groundwater supplies. The Fifth District rejected the plan because it did not properly account for perchlorate contamination from a closed munitions factory in Saugus. “If the perchlorate contamination impairs the supply of water taken from the Saugus formation in dry years, the districts plan to restore full production capacity by treating the contaminated water,” Justice Dennis Cornell wrote for the court. “While the treatment facilities are being built, the districts have no plan to cover the reduction in water available from the Saugus formation. “Thus, the plan's description of the perchlorate contamination and the method for addressing that contamination is flawed because it fails to (1) address the time needed to implement the available method for treating the contaminated water and (2) describe the reliability of the groundwater supply during that implementation period,” Cornell continued. The implications of the court ruling are unclear, although the decision places planners in a tenuous situation. In the meantime, the Castaic agency is preparing the mandated five-year update to the water plan. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN A CONDOMINIUM tower and a multi-modal transportation depot in downtown San Francisco has concluded with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voting to purchase the condo site via eminent domain. Developer Jack Myers had actually begun preliminary construction on a 423-unit, 51-story condominium project across the street from the site of the planned transbay terminal (see , August 2004). Construction of the condominiums apparently would have prevented construction of an underground rail line to the terminal. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority suggested both projects could go forward if a huge concrete foundation were built under the residential tower. Supervisors, however, rejected the idea as risky and costly, and instead voted to acquire Myers' site on Natoma Street for $32 million. The city would pay half and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the other half. Myers, who vowed to continue with a lawsuit over the terminal's environmental impact report, will likely press for a higher price. SAN FRANCISCO SUPERVISORS in October approved a 45-day moratorium on the demolition of one- and two-screen movie theaters. A proposal to raze the Richmond District's 4 Star theater to make room for a church spurred the moratorium, which supervisors are likely to extend this month. In the meantime, the city is considering a process in which developers would have to prove that a proposed theater demolition would not harm a neighborhood. PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY (PALCO) and state agencies have been ordered to pay $6 million in attorneys' fees after losing a lawsuit over a “sustained yield plan” for 200,000 acres of forest owned by PALCO on California's north coast. The award of attorneys' fees is one of the largest ever in an environmental case, and an appeal is certain. The logging plan was drawn up as part of the $480 million deal in which the state purchased a portion of the Headwaters Forest in Humboldt County from PALCO. The Environmental Protection Information Center and the United Steelworkers Union challenged the plan on a variety of grounds, winning the case in 2003. More recently, Lake County Superior Court Judge John Golden awarded EPIC $4.3 million in fees and the union $1.8 million. The administrative record in the case contains more than 75,000 pages. AFTER MORE THAN A DECADE of planning, discussion and controversy, the City of Los Angeles broke ground in October on a new pedestrian path around Silver Lake Reservoir. The 2.2-mile long pathway will encircle the 126-acre property and have varying amounts of separation from the street. The project also includes the planting of street trees and a new chain-link fence along the west side of Silver Lake. The $4.2 million project, funded by the state and city, is the highest priority of the Silver Lake and Ivanhoe Reservoirs master plan. The bodies of water have been off limits to the public since the 1940s, and the city during the 1980s proposed covering them because they provide drinking water. Area residents fought that plan and have worked ever since to get some limited use of the public property.

A bill concerning development under military airspace continues to evolve in the state Legislature. Senate Bill 1462 originally proposed creation of the Military Greenway Commission, to which cities and counties in Southern California would have to report proposed developments that could impact the military. But the bill’s author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), expanded the measure into a California Environmental Quality Act amendment that would force local governments to consider a project’s potential impact on military operations. In mid-May, Kuehl again amended the bill, dropping the CEQA provisions. Instead, the bill would require local governments to notify the military of proposed development projects, general plan amendments or plan updates when the property in question lies beneath a low-level flight path or adjacent to a military base. The military branch involved could then request a consultation with the public agency or project applicant. The bill also requires the governor to create a conflict-resolution process. The CEQA version of the bill generated a firestorm of opposition from developers, business groups, and some cities and counties with military bases. It appears unlikely that the latest bill amendments will satisfy opponents. The bill was written at least partially in response to Tejon Ranch’s plans for a new town of 60,000 people at Interstate 5 and Highway 138. Portions of the 11,700-acre project site underlie a low-level flight path used for training military pilots (see , April 2003). Kuehl and the bill’s backers — which are mostly environmental groups — say the measure is necessary to prevent conflicts between urban development and military activities, and they point to the round of base closings that is scheduled to commence in 2005. Opponents say the measure is unnecessary and only an attempt to block development. At the committee level, the bill has received mostly partisan supports. But the measure puts some conservative lawmakers in a difficult position because a vote for property rights could also be portrayed as a vote against military readiness. A former development company executive is the new director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Lucy Dunn to the post effective June 1. Dunn spent 12 years with the Koll Company and its affiliates. Most recently, she was executive vice president of development for Hearthside Homes, where she negotiated deals concerning Bolsa Chica entitlements and wetlands restoration (see , January 2002). An attorney, Dunn is vice president of the California Building Industry Association and a director of the National Association of Home Builders. Dunn succeeds Matthew Franklin, who served as HCD director for a year before taking a position as head of San Francisco’s housing programs. Gov. Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that makes it easier for local governments to adopt transit village plans. Under the original Transit Village Development Planning Act, a transit village could be created only around a rail station, and only if the local government could prove the project would 13 specific public benefits, such as redevelopment of depressed neighborhoods, promotion of job opportunities, and increased stock of affordable housing. Assembly Bill 1320 (Dutra) permits creation of a transit village around any sort of rail station, a bus hub, a bus transfer station or a ferry terminal. The bill also reduces the public benefit requirement from 13 to five. The controversy over a proposed quarry and concrete batch plant just outside Santa Clarita continues. In May, U.S. District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian approved a consent decree between Cemex and Los Angeles County that allows the mine to go forward. However, the Santa Clarita City Council has voted to appeal the consent decree to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit in February directed the lower court to let the city intervene in the lawsuit. Cemex sued the county more than two years ago, after the county rejected the Mexican mining company’s proposed quarry in Soledad Canyon, off Highway 14. Under the settlement, the company must pay about $1.5 million over several years into a fund to address air quality, traffic and open space impacts. The company also must widen Soledad Canyon Road between the quarry and the freeway. The Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 for the settlement, with Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents the area, firmly opposed. The city contends the mine will harm already poor air quality, increase traffic congestion, threaten groundwater and scar a prominent hillside. The city also insists that environmental studies should be updated. In an interesting twist, the city earlier this year purchased for $1 million the 493 acres where the mine is proposed. But the Bureau of Land Management owns the property’s mineral rights and has issued mining permits to Cemex. Both U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) and Sen. Barbara Boxer have introduced bills that would block the mine. One development company that has vigorously fought another company’s project in El Segundo lost yet another round in May. In an unpublished decision, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled against Kilroy Realty. Kilroy had alleged that the City of El Segundo had manipulated the CEQA process to aid Thomas Properties Group, which plans to develop 2.2 million square feet of office and retail space near the Los Angeles International Airport (see , May 2002). Kilroy lost an earlier round of the lawsuit at the trial court level. Two years ago this month, Kilroy lost at the ballot box when two-thirds of El Segundo voters rejected a Kilroy-funded referendum of the project. The 46-acre site of “Campus El Segundo” has been vacant since the early 1990s, when Rockwell International closed and then demolished an aerospace industry factory. Voters in Azusa approved a specific plan for 500 acres owned by Monrovia Nursery during a special election in May. The plan calls for 1,250 housing units, including single-family houses, condominiums and apartments, a retail “promenade,” an elementary school, a transit plaza around a Metrolink rail line, and 200 acres of parks and open space. A group called Azusans for Responsible Growth opposed the project, contending it contained too many housing units. After the city approved the project last year, the group gathered signatures on a referendum. The city found the referendum flawed, so the group sued. The city then put the plan on the ballot anyway, and the plan won favor with 75% of voters. In 1999, city voters overturned approval of a 1,600-unit development on the nursery site, which Monrovia is vacating. The city then undertook a lengthy planning process with heavy public involvement (see , February 2002). The resulting plan is the one voters endorsed in May. A five-member commission charged with examining the proposal to divide Santa Barbara County in two has been appointed by the governor. The commission has up to one year to report on the proposal to carve Mission County out of the northern and western portions of Santa Barbara County (see , July 2003). The commissioners are Jack Boysen, a retired developer and member of the county Planning Commission from Santa Maria; former Solvang Mayor June Christensen; retired San Luis Obispo County Assessor Dick Frank; former Santa Barbara Mayor Harriet Miller; and former San Jose City Manager and retired airlines executive Ted Tedesco. Private water companies should be eligible for Proposition 50 bond funds , according to a recommendation from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In a May 14 report, the LAO found that legal and tax issues could be resolved, so the issue is one of policy for the Legislature. Proposition 50 — a $3.4 billion resources bond approved in November 2002, — does not address public versus private eligibility, and the LAO has urged lawmakers to set a clear policy. Senate Bill 909 (Machado) could provide the policy. The LAO reported that 23% of Californians get their water from private companies, the majority of which are quite small. Those companies appear to be eligible for portions of $1.4 billion in six different Proposition 50 categories. Making those monies available to private water companies would further the public purpose of Proposition 50, the LAO concluded. The LAO’s report is available at www.lao.ca.gov .

The Bush administration brought its efforts to change environmental regulations to California in September, when high-ranking appointees conducted “listening sessions” in Redding and Colton — two of 24 informal hearings across the country intended to carry out a 2004 executive order calling for “cooperative conservation.” Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey called cooperative conservation the “fourth chapter” in American conservation, following on the initiatives of Theodore Roosevelt, the New Deal, and the environmental movement of the 1960s and ’70s. At the Redding hearing, attended by about 140 people, environmentalists expressed skepticism that landowners, developers and resources industries would be willing to cooperate for the sake of the environment unless strong laws require such action. “Voluntary compliance is a beautiful idea, but we don’t think it has a chance working,” said William Oliver, of the Audubon Society’s Wintu Chapter. He and other environmentalists urged federal officials to “believe in the science that we are paying for.” However, numerous timber industry representatives at the Redding session focused their comments on the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Tim Feller, a district manager for Sierra Pacific Industries, called the two laws “onerous” and difficult to comply with. The Endangered Species Act “has turned into a hammer on private lands,” said Dave Bischel, president of the California Forestry Association. “Put away your hammer,” he told the officials. Representatives of environmental groups did endorse existing programs that bring conservationists, landowners, ranchers and others together. But the environmentalists spoke repeatedly about the need for more funding and pointed out that the administration has proposed reduced funding. Federal officials have offered little indication of what they will do to implement cooperative conservation, or when. There is a website: http://cooperativeconservation.gov .

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released three reports of interest to planners in March. The reports address housing supply, the link between water and planning, and planned developments. The housing supply study surprised many people because it reported a statewide shortage as of 2000 of only 138,000 units, when interest groups and other analysts have pegged the shortage at 500,000 to 1 million units. Authors Hans Johnson, Rosa Moller and Michael Dardia identified a shortage of 168,000 units in the Bay Area, 146,000 units in Los Angeles and Orange counties, and 87,000 units in San Diego County. However, they found that housing was abundant everywhere else in the state, especially in the Inland Empire and Central Valley, a situation that forces long commutes and traffic congestion. Housing construction dropped from 2.1 million units during the 1980s to 1.1 million units during the 1990s. The researchers reported that macro economic trends — such as employment levels, U.S. economic policy and private investment strategies — and demographic factors — including a slowing of population growth during the 1990s, and more immigrants and children — accounted for 80% of the construction decrease. "These findings do not mean that there are no hardships with respect to housing supply and new construction in California," the report states. "There may be serious problems in markets for low-income housing, and there is evidence of a housing shortage in the state’s largest metropolitan areas. However, they do suggest that the supply crisis may be overstated, and that our position in 2000 was perhaps better, and certainly not much worse, than in 1990." The survey on water supply and growth found that most jurisdictions coordinate the two in some fashion. The survey by Ellen Hanak and Antonina Simeti found that 62% of cities and counties participate in the planning activities of their local water utilities. The survey also found that 55% of cities and 83% of counties require some sort of assessment of water availability before approving new housing, although the level of assessment varies greatly. About half of cities and counties also have policies that link new homes’ locations with considerations of stormwater management and groundwater recharge. The survey also found that half of counties and one-quarter of cities have conducted reviews under 2001 legislation (SB 610 and SB 221) that requires assurances of water availability for large developments. The study of planned developments found that they are not the evil, walled compounds for the wealthy that some commentators have described. The study by Tracy Gordon found the percentage of middle-income people living in planned developments is the same as in similar areas. Gordon did find that planned development residents are more likely to be white, and less likely to be Hispanic or African-American, than in the community as a whole, but she said planned communities have a minimal impact on overall segregation in the state. The study also countered the belief that planned development residents withdraw from the larger community. Gordon found higher percentages of voter registration and turnout in planned developments, and voting preferences that matched similar neighborhoods. All of the PPIC studies may be found at www.ppic.org THE SAN DIEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY did not provide replacement housing for units demolished as part of redevelopment projects, double-counted housing units and spent an inordinate portion of housing funds on planning and administration, according to a Department of Housing and Community Development Department audit released in March. Auditors identified one project that removed 24 housing units that were not replaced. Two other projects that involved demolition of 137 and 19 units, respectively, relied on replacement units that had been built four years earlier and may not have been available to displaced residents. Auditors also identified four instances in which the redevelopment agency counted units as both replacement housing and toward low- and moderate-income housing production requirements. Additionally, over the three years audited, from 21% to 44% of low- and moderate-income housing fund expenditures were for planning and administration, HCD reported. In response, the agency differed with HCD’s interpretation of state law regarding replacement units. The agency said that under state law, it may count units built as much as four years before demolition of existing units as replacement housing. Officials at HCD appeared to agree but only if the units were built or rehabilitated in anticipation of removal of the existing units. The agency did not do this, according to HCD. As for double-counting of housing units, the agency said it would review its implementation plans and work with HCD. The agency contended that its planning and administrative expenses were justified and, because of accounting techniques, appeared exaggerated. The state also knocked the redevelopment agency for counting ineligible units toward housing production requirements, not keeping bond proceeds for housing in a separate account, and filing inadequate reports. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS did not adequately analyze alternative sites for constructing a new death row, according to a report issued in March by the California State Auditor. Corrections is in the planning stages of a $220 million overhaul of the condemned inmate facility at San Quentin. "Relocating San Quentin’s activities elsewhere and allowing Marin County to develop the property would provide an opportunity for the state to help Marin County address some of its housing and transportation concerns," State Auditor Elaine Howle reported. But Howle also concluded that relocating death row could cost $300 million more than the state would receive from the sale of the property. Corrections officials said the report justified their decision to go forward at San Quentin. Developers and some Marin County officials have eyed the San Quentin site — overlooking San Pablo Bay, near San Rafael — for years. Howle’s report is available at www.bsa.ca.gov THREE BALLOT MEASURES that would have allowed development on small parcels of agriculturally zoned land in Napa County were rejected by voters in March. Voters said no to a proposal to expand a restaurant in Oakville (Measure Q), a plan to expand the Pope Valley Market (Measure R) and rezoning for a commercial establishment near Cuttings Wharf (Measure S). The elections were required under 1990’s Measure J. Since then, voters have rejected seven of eleven measures to rezone agricultural land. THE TOWN OF LOOMIS joined the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society in filing a lawsuit over the City of Roseville’s recent approval of the 3,100-acre west Roseville specific plan (see , March 2004; , August, 2003). The suit alleges Roseville did not adequately address traffic congestion, air quality degradation, the loss of farmland and impacts to wildlife habitat. REUSE OF THE FORMER NORTON AIR FORCE BASE in San Bernardino advanced in March, when Stater Bros. Markets announced it would move its headquarters from Colton to 160 acres at Norton and build a 2 million-square-foot warehouse and distribution center. As many as 2,000 people could work at the new Stater Bros. facility, which could break ground this summer. Stater Bros. would join Kohl’s, which has already opened a large warehouse at Norton, and Mattel, which is planning a facility of its own. The Inland Valley Development Authority, which is responsible for base reuse, continues to negotiate its assistance for Stater Bros.

Lots going on in California planning and development this week ...  Central Valley's Growth War Gets the Governor's Attention Fresno Bee Governor Brown intervenes to help resolve debates over how the central valley should grow. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is currently overseeing the meetings between the city of Fresno and its neighboring counties to help reach a mutual understanding for how to sustainably grow and develop the region. With recent state projections showing that the valley is growing at a faster rate than anywhere else in CA, the policies that regulate its growth and development will significantly impact where its growing population will be able to live and the extent to which the region will physically grow.  Hot in CA: Plans to Improve Biking and Walking... SFStreetsblog In response to MAP-21, a bill passed by Congress last year that cut federal funding for biking and walking programs, advocates like the League of American Bicyclists and the California Bike Coalition are urging the Brown administration to prioritize walking and biking in the state budget.  �California Bike Coalition's goal to influence the state budget and CEQA reforms� LAStreetsblog Gov. Brown's budget proposal combines funding for pedestrian and bicycle programs into one category, cutting "active transportation" funds 10% from last year. Additionally, CalBike wants CEQA reforms to include a streamlined process for projects that improve bicycle infrastructure and better-connect bicycle networks.   �SF's Bicycle Strategy could be a model for the nation, now they just need the funding� SF Streetsblog SFMTA proposes three strategies to effectively improve bike mobility in the city.   Despite the city's historic record of underfunding bicycle projects, officials are on board with advocates for an increase in bicycle funding.  Specific Plan in LA Sets Smart Development Model for the City Los Angeles Times Cornfields Arroyo Seco Specific Plan seeks to revitalize neighborhoods and industrial areas by proposing new urban zones. The plan was approved on Tuesday by the City Council planning commission and needs to go through the City Attorney's office before the full council can approve the plan.  LA Community Parks Risk Closing Without Redevelopment Dollars L.A. Downtown News Two parks in Skid Row, Gladys Park and San Julian Park, were at risk of closing last week.  With the end of Redevelopment in CA, the nonprofit, SRO Housing Corp, who has long maintained both parks with annual CRA payments have been looking for support elsewhere. When the funds to operate the park ran out in June, Councilwoman Jan Perry helped secure funds from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority that would keep the park operating for another six months. Those six months have passed and redistricting has handed this issue over to Councilman Jos� Huizar. With the risk of the parks closing on February 1st, Huizar allocated $50,000 of discretionary funds to aid SRO with San Julian Park's maintenance and operation costs and the city's Department of Recreation and Parks will now maintain Gladys Park. City officials are currently working on a long-term solution that will hopefully prevent the risk of closure in the future.  Berkeley Greens Its Downtown The Downtown Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan was unanimously approved by Berkeley's City Council on Tuesday night.  The plan follows Berkeley's Downtown Area Plan that was approved last year. The provisions aim to create a more pedestrian-oriented downtown and better design for its streetscapes, plazas and parks.

The Santa Monica Mountains coastal area, one of the largest still under direct Coastal Commission permitting authority, on April 10 won Commission approval of a Land Use Plan, which was the most significant step toward final certification of its Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Commission will take up the interpretive Local Implementation Plan separately, probably at its June meeting. The LCP plan area covers a broad swath of the Santa Monica Mountains inland from the Malibu city limits and Pepperdine University, running approximately five miles to the crest of the mountains and covering 50,000 acres. A further mountainous "North Area" is subject to similar planning approaches but is inland of the Coastal Act's jurisdiction. The area under the Santa Monica Mountains LCP touches the coast only briefly on either side of Malibu's long, narrow strip of coastline. The traditionally fractious City of Malibu has had its own separate LCP since the Legislature forced it to adopt one in 2002. Final Commission approval for an LCP would delegate coastal permit approval powers to the county, removing a layer of regulatory process from most construction approvals but requiring the county to operate per the Commission-approved plan. The plan passed the Commission with environmental groups generally in favor and mixed positions by affected property owners, with farmers and vintners most strongly in opposition. A brief political season leading up to the meeting included a letter-writing campaign against the plan's agriculture restrictions. After a long history of past false starts, the LCP project was reportedly restarted by LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, in order to wrap up the matter before the end of his last term as Supervisor. He vigorously cheered the county and Commission efforts to completion. A statement on his weblog after the Land Use Plan certification called it "a vote that will resonate for generations". Richard Bruckner, director of the LA County Department of Regional Planning, said the Santa Monica Mountains LCP policies, crafted mainly by the County, took a new approach to the usual starting binary for a Coastal Commission permit discussion: whether land qualifies as "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas" (ESHA) or not. He said they worked out "a much more nuanced plan where there are gradations of habitat." Bruckner said previously each permit application began a negotiation over the extent to which development on a property could be limited without effecting a taking. The new approach would be clearer, hence less time-consuming, he suggested. The new plan classifies land in three categories of sensitivity, H1 through H3, ranging from severe limitations on development in H1 to relatively relaxed standards in H3 zones that are already developed. Long-term Commission watcher Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network, said the H2 standard applied development restrictions that would be typical of restrictions on development in ESHA areas. Don Schmitz, an organizer of opposition to the plan who frequently represents permit applicants before the Commission, said "I understand it was a hard-fought compromise that was hammered out with the Coastal Commission staff." The plan allows existing farming and vineyards, and new or old personal gardens. However, it creates a heavy presumption against "new crop-based agricultural uses" and prohibits new vineyards outright, based on concern about runoff, erosion, pesticides, and habitat disruption, especially on steep slopes. Initial drafts would have prohibited all new "crop-based" uses, but in light of the pro-agriculture campaign, the Commission approved an addendum whose major provisions clarified that not all new crops were prohibited, and described small-scale gardening and farming that could still be allowed if organic and biodynamic methods are used. Yaroslavsky wrote on his weblog that the Commission added the additional wording about authorized agriculture due to "misinformation" from opponents including Schmitz, whom he singled out by name. In the earlier of two weblog posts focused on the April meeting, he gave a heated defense of the LCP against claims that it would unreasonably restrict property use, especially with respect to crops and animals. Schmitz in turn accused the plan's creators of failing to observe protections for agriculture that he argued were centrally enshrined in the Coastal Act, and of moving the approval process too fast. He said the original proposal was for an "outright and complete ban on any agriculture in the Santa Monica Mountains," but that he and other opponents were "chastised" for saying so because the proposed rule "magnanimously" would allow existing agriculture to continue. Schmitz described himself as a farmer and vineyard owner and a spokesperson for a new group, the Coastal Coalition of Family Farmers, which was the plan's most visible opponent as of April. Schmitz said this group was newly formed in response to news of the plan proposal. He said the proposal took farmers by surprise and did not leave much time for them to organize a response. In an email Jordan wrote, regarding opposition complaints on timing, "all legal time requirements were fulfilled, all sides -- supporters and opponents -- had the same access to information, and were well informed of the direction it was going." A Change.org petition bearing the logo of Schmitz's group is still posted at http://www.change.org/petitions/local-coastal-program-protect-the-future-of-farming-in-the-santa-monica-mountains. The page introducing the petition refers to "Banning future agricultural land use". The petition had received 922 signatures as of this writing, many added after the April meeting, some from as far away as Nevada, Ohio and Italy. The Commission staff's 179-page addendum, containing last-minute responses and revisions to the proposal, included letters showing a mix of strongly held local sentiments: support from environmental and community groups and some landowners, and opposition from other local landowners, the Farm Bureau, Pacific Legal Foundation and Malibu Chamber of Commerce. The opponents' letters contained varying phrasing about whether what was to be banned was new farms and vineyards, or agriculture in general. Bruckner and Jordan said the many established equestrian facilities in the Santa Monica Mountains would be helped to come into compliance before they faced hard-edged enforcement actions. Jordan, herself an equestrian, said descriptions of the help with compliance as an "amnesty" program were, however, inaccurate. The Santa Monica Mountains LCP process has spanned most of Yaroslavsky's long-running political career. He was first elected to the LA City Council in 1975. The LA County Supervisors took the first step toward an LCP in 1982 by approving a Land Use Plan for the Malibu area. The Commission certified that plan in 1986 but because the Supervisors had not passed zoning and planning ordinances to implement it, the Commission could not approve the whole LCP. The Supervisors partially restarted the process in 2007, then stalled, then recently redid the whole package. And now, at last, the plan is headed toward final certification, with only the meeting on implementing details to get through, presumably at the meeting scheduled in Huntington Beach in June. Looking toward June, Bruckner said, "It's the details, but I'm very pleased that... we've got agreement on the policies between the Commission and the County. And I think we can work through the details with the Commission staff. They've been very generous with their time and we've had a good dialogue with them." The lack of a Santa Monica Mountains LCP was recently an issue in Hagopian v. State of California , discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3440, in which organic farmers at the top of Topanga Canyon attempted to develop their property based on county approval without going to the Commission. Participants on all sides of the LCP debate declined to comment on the Hagopian matter, all distancing themselves from the Hagopians' position that the LCP had not been needed at all. Bruckner said he anticipated the LCP would bring the county about 30 to 40 new permitting cases a year, depending on economic conditions, and then there would be work to do with nonconforming property owners. He said "by the commission staff's own reckoning there are as many violations or unpermitted improvements in the Santa Monica Mountains as in the ... rest of the coastal areas combined." While the new Santa Monica Mountains LCP may transfer that much workload off of the Coastal Commission, it won't be as much of a change as in 2002. That was when the Commission, under orders from the Legislature's AB 988, created and approved an LCP for the City of Malibu, ending a long tradition of extended fussing over Malibu local issues at meetings of the statewide body. Some of the history is explained in Malibu's LCP, as created in 2002, appearing as an attachment to the September 2002 agenda at http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm2-9.html. Conoisseurs of legislative dudgeon may appreciate the last three staff analyses on the 1999-2000 session's AB 988, available at http://bit.ly/PK0b0V. Links: Malibu Times : http://bit.ly/1p0Wg0a Thousand Oaks Acorn : http://bit.ly/1lZfLR5 LA Business Journal : http://bit.ly/QTS4Qn LA County LCP planning page: http://planning.lacounty.gov/coastal Yaroslavsky's weblog: http://zev.lacounty.gov/news/a-high-note-for-mountain-protections For a list of coastal segments where Coastal Commission permit authority had not yet been transferred as of November 2013 see http://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcp/LCPStatusSummFY1213.pdf. Coastal Commission April agenda, annotated with results, LCP documents attached: http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm14-4.html Monterey Bay Shores Resort The Coastal Commission approved developer Ed Ghandour's proposal for the 39-acre, 368-unit "Monterey Bay Shores Resort" in Sand City, which has been before the Commission intermittently since 1998. The decision overrode intense objections from environmental groups and agencies that had sought stronger habitat protections for species including the Western Snowy Plover, Smiths Blue Butterfly and Monterey Spineflower. The approval used a special procedural double play to wrap up the case both in an appellate court and at the Commission. At the start of the three-day session, the Monterey resort proponents -- formally, Security National Guaranty, Inc., or SNG -- were close to settling 13 years of litigation with the Coastal Commission. SNG had won a ruling in San Francisco Superior Court that the Coastal Commission appealed. Before going forward with appellate briefing, the parties agreed to seek resolution of the matter in a hearing of the Commission with the option to return to court. The matter was set to recur on the April 9, 10 and 11 agendas so the Commission and courts could act in correct order to sew up the settlement. The Commission heard environmental objections, centered on the plover habitat issue, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Parks & Recreation Department, environmental organizations and individual objectors, while local officials praised the project's design and potential economic benefits. Other issues included measures to reduce bluff erosion; provide stability for the structures, which would be built on a dune field; preserve views from Highway 1, and protect surrounding sand dunes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had called for SNG to prepare a habitat conservation plan and apply for an incidental take permit. The primary environmentalist objection was that instead the final plan called for created a "habitat protection plan" with fewer enforceable specifics. Having reached a settlement, the parties dismissed the court cases and returned Friday, April 11 for an approval decision. When it was time for the approval, the Monterey Herald said it took four minutes. Links: Monterey Herald on the start of the debate: http://bit.ly/1qu4jzR Monterey Weekly blow-by-blow on the marathon April 9 debate: http://bit.ly/1klDagR and on the outcome: http://bit.ly/1gXQu5A Monterey Herald looking toward the April 11 post-settlement approval: http://bit.ly/1hEpbgG Herald on the final approval: http://bit.ly/OZbodM Audubon Society "displeased" with the habitat provisions: http://bit.ly/1qW4F0E The Sierra Club likewise: http://bit.ly/1enOKb2 Appeal of Security National Guaranty v. CA Coastal Commission , settled April 10, as shown on the online docket at http://bit.ly/1kVsyUh Related San Francisco Superior Court dockets; many more recent papers are downloadable: http://bit.ly/1lYcVgb; http://bit.ly/1lYg5AC. ( Disclosure: the judge in the San Francisco Superior Court case, Harold Kahn, heard an unrelated matter in March in which Martha Bridegam participated as an attorney. ) Paradiso Del Mare approval disappoints Surfriders The Commission approved the Paradiso Del Mare proposal for two large private homes on Brooks Street in Santa Barbara County west of Goleta, sought by CPH Dos Pueblos Associates. The approved proposal provided for coastal trail and habitat restoration mitigations including $500,000 "for public access trail implementation" and $20,000 for a new "Seals Watch" volunteer group, but local environmental activists condemned them as insufficient or even harmful. The 454-page official record includes statements that 137 of 143 acres on the project site would be "preserved as permanent visual open space," of which 117 acres would be preserved as habitat, with "substantial public access and recreation easements on the property representing the first phase for implementation of the California Coastal Trail along the 20-mile Gaviota Coast." Local Surfrider Foundation chapter chair Mark Morey wrote indignantly to supporters that the 7-4 vote to approve the project "was a vote against you, the community, nature, and the Gaviota Coast." He wrote that surfers and the larger public would lose beach and trail access, a white-tailed kite nesting tree would be affected, and other private development projects would likely follow these first two. (Objections to the project in the prior record include arguments that although the project was approved to include only two residences only, it would create conditions that make nearby land easier to develop.) In an email exchange, Morey and fellow Santa Barbara Surfrider members wrote that the construction would block a trail that "has been used by the public across private land for around 50 years" and would replace it with an access easement that, to become a trail, would depend for its construction costs on county or other third-party funds. (Objections noted in the record said a trail on available easement routes would call for a stairway costing $750,000 or more.) Further, the Surfriders objected that the project would be built close to a seal rookery, and the expected easement route would likely run so close to the seals that it might have to be closed during the season when both seals and surfers traditionally used the area. The chapter's Bob Keats wrote that future occupants of the project would have access to the seals' area any time, "in contrast to the infrequent access to the beach by surfers, as the surf, although high in quality, does not occur very often." Keats questioned whether adequate notice had been given of amendments to the commission's settlement with the developer that, when they were discussed at the meeting, seemed to persuade some commission members toward approval. An account posted April 15 by the Santa Barbara Independent said some Commission members were startled to be presented with revisions to the settlement agreement during the meeting and that Commissioner Mary Shallenberger raised questions about notice. Surfrider and the Gaviota Coast Conservancy are plaintiffs in a pending court challenge to the EIR. On the case, Morey wrote, "every option is on the table." Keats wrote that the suit would now name the Coastal Commission as well, "and we will continue to pursue the litigation." Santa Barbara Independent reports: April 8: http://bit.ly/RgI7gF; April 15: http://bit.ly/1kXRMWx The local Noozhawk site on the court case: http://bit.ly/1kmfWa9 In other Coastal Commission news: The Commission unanimously disapproved the Beach Plaza Motel teardown and reconstruction on Ocean Blvd. in Long Beach. The Long Beach Press Telegram reported the Commission found the proposed swankier replacement would violate a Local Coastal Program provision "to "protect access to the coast for people of low and moderate incomes."" The plan had been opposed by UNITE HERE Local 11, environmentalists and neighbors. For the Press Telegram report see http://bit.ly/1khfQk8. The Long Beach Post has more at http://bit.ly/1m59CUD. Santa Monica received Coastal Commission approval, with conditions, to replace the deteriorated 84-year-old California Incline Bridge, Ocean Avenue to PCH, with bluff stabilization, better structural stability and improved sidewalks and bike lanes. The project is expected to close that heavily used link between the PCH and Ocean Avenue for 12 to 18 months. The Commission approved revised findings in a staff report in support of a disputed athletic fields renovation in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Some neighbors have opposed the use of artificial turf, bright lights for night games, and the resulting loss of informality at that end of the park. Others have endorsed the same choices. The City Fields Foundation, which supports the renovation, posted on Facebook at http://on.fb.me/1eo8Txv, "Though just an administrative action, this vote was critical if we are to start construction this spring." As reported in the San Francisco real estate blog Socketsite at http://bit.ly/1hDliOM, the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park is gathering signatures for a ballot measure against the renovation. To the Surfrider Foundation's joy, the Commission approved a proposal to truck in extra sand to replace erosion at Broad Beach in Malibu. Malibu Times: http://bit.ly/1kVNpGW; Surfrider Foundation: http://bit.ly/1m0NahW Items noted at the meeting as not requiring a coastal permit included an emergency dust control project at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area.

An Oregon property rights initiative has been upheld by that state’s Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision issued February 21, the court ruled that Measure 37 did not violate equal protection and due process rights, and did not improperly restrict state lawmakers’ land use authority. The decision overturned a trial court ruling issued last fall that found the initiative violated the federal and state constitutions. The ruling could provide a boost to similar proposed ballot measures elsewhere, including California. Approved by 61% of Oregon voters in November 2004, Measure 37 requires the government to either compensate property owners for land use regulations promulgated after the owner acquired property or not apply the regulations. The initiative backed by a group called Oregonians in Action was a direct attack on the state’s 30-year-old planning law that many planners see as a national model. The law prohibits most development outside of urban areas. Within months of Measure 37’s passage, landowners filed at least 2,500 applications for development in rural areas. With no money to compensate landowners, counties took many different approaches to the applications. Everything froze, however, when a Marion County Circuit Court judge invalidated the initiative. The state Supreme Court did not find constitutional flaws in Measure 37. The court rejected the argument that Measure 37 violated equal protection rights by establishing classes of people that others could not join, and that the measure violated due process rights by favoring certain property owners over others. “Although it is true that neither the state nor the federal constitution compensation to individuals who suffer any loss in property value as a consequence of land use regulation,” the court ruled, “it is equally true that neither constitution requiring such compensation in the manner provided for in Measure 37. The people, in exercising their initiative power, were free to enact Measure 37 in furtherance of policy objectives such as compensating landowners for a diminution in property value resulting from certain land use regulations or otherwise relieving landowners from some of the financial burden of certain land use regulations.” The case is , Oregon State Supreme Court No. S52875. Only days before the ruling, the farm bureau in the state of Washington filed an initiative similar to Measure 37. A local, California version of Measure 37 is scheduled to be on the ballot this June in Napa County, which currently bars most development in agricultural and watershed areas. The “fair pay” initiative would require compensation for land use regulation similar to Measure 37. A city charter amendment in Chula Vista that would limit the city’s eminent domain authority has been placed on the ballot by the City Council. The measure would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes and would require the city to own for at least 10 years property it acquires via eminent domain. A group called Chula Vistans for Private Property Protection submitted about 14,000 signatures on the ballot measure in January. The group appeared to lack the number of signatures required to place a charter amendment on the ballot. But the City Council, without endorsing the amendment, voted unanimously in late February to put the measure on the ballot anyway. Exactly how the measure would affect the city’s redevelopment agency is unclear because the agency is not bound by the city charter. The state attorney general’s office revealed in February that it is continuing to monitor three redevelopment agencies that were cited last year for major violations of the Community Redevelopment Law by the state controller’s office. In a letter responding to an inquiry by state Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), Attorney General Bill Lockyer said redevelopment agencies in Calapatria, Hawaiian Gardens and Santa Ana remain under scrutiny. In Calapatria, the redevelopment agency used low- and moderate-income housing funds to purchase 29 acres that the agency intended to sell to a developer for a market-rate housing project. The city said the developer would fully reimburse the low/mod housing fund. In Hawaiian Gardens, the controller questioned the redevelopment agency’s acquisition of 17 properties. The attorney general’s office demanded more information but has not received it. In Santa Ana, the redevelopment agency sold a parking lot to a commercial developer for $1 and then leased back 150 spaces for $15,000 per month, with the city subleasing parking spaces from the agency for $6,000 a month. Low/mod housing money is involved in the deal. “The arrangement appears to be problematic, and we anticipate taking further action in the matter, including the possibility of litigation,” Lockyer wrote. As expected, the Western Riverside Council of Governments increased a development mitigation fee for regional transportation to nearly $10,000 per house, effective in July. The Western Riverside COG has been a leader in the growing statewide movement to assess new development for regional highway, road and transit projects. The group claims that its transportation uniform mitigation fee (TUMF) is the largest, multi-jurisdictional transportation development fee program in the country. Since it was implemented in July 2003, the fee has generated about $800 million for projects. However, transportation officials said rising construction costs and faster-than-anticipated growth forced a fee revision. The new fees are $9,639 per single-family home (up from $7,247), $6,806 per multi-family unit (up from $5,021), $12.49 per square foot for retail development (up from $8.51 per square foot), $2.27 per square foot for industrial development (up from $1.58 per square foot) and $6.33 per square foot for services (up from $5.28 a square foot). The nonresidential fees will be phased in over three years. Some development interests and city officials argued against the fee hike, saying the charges would hinder needed growth and send desirable projects to neighboring San Bernardino County, where fees are lower. A new federal Environmental Protection Agency “smart growth” report on balancing parking needs with broader community goals highlights planning for two projects in California. The report, called “Parking Spaces/Community Places,” provides an extensive review of the proposed NASA Research Park (NRP) at the decommissioned Moffett Field Navy base in Mountain View. Using typical parking ratios, the 2-million-square-foot research park would need about 7,500 parking spaces. But a transportation demand management plan instead calls for only 5,200 spaces on the site. The reduction in parking spaces is made possible by the overall development’s inclusion of nearby housing with sidewalks and bike paths, shuttle busses and bus passes, charging tenants and lessees for parking, and forcing different users to share parking spaces. The second project profiled is a proposed 162-room hotel in downtown Long Beach. Under the city’s ordinance, the hotel and accompanying 35,000-square-foot retail project would have had to provide 302 parking spaces. That was neither financially feasible for the developer, nor preferable to the city, which wants to encourage pedestrian activity. The on-site parking requirement was eventually knocked down to 162 spaces through a hotel valet parking system, relaxed parking standards, and the payment of in-lieu fees to the city, which will provide public parking spaces. Parking Spaces/Community Places as well as a new report on best management practices for stormwater and two reports regarding water and high-density development are available on the EPA’s smart growth website, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth . The Department of Water Resources has completed an overhaul of the California Water Plan. Unlike previous state water plans, which forecast large deficits in the amount of water that would be available, this plan says needs can be met through 2030 through more efficient water use, underground water banking, recycling of treated wastewater, desalination projects and a relatively small amount of new surface storage. The complete report is available at www.waterplan.water.ca.gov .

California city councils may be in a short time window when it's to their advantage to pass local bans on plastic bags. They became more safely able to do so as of April 16 when the state Supreme Court declined to review the ruling by California's First District that upheld San Francisco's ban on plastic bags last winter. That decision was ordered published in January. At the other end of their time window is a deadline that could be imposed if the Legislature passes SB 270, proposed by State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima. The Contra Costa Times , reporting on Pleasant Hill's proposed ban at http://bit.ly/1haLlbd, noted that, if passed, the Padilla bill would grandfather plastic bag bans imposed before September 1, 2014 but would impose a uniform ban statewide for areas that by then had not yet passed their own plastic bag laws. For SB 270's text and legislative progress see http://bit.ly/1o0lkjH. As of this writing it had passed the Senate and was on its third bounce through policy committees in the Assembly. Links: Bill Fulton's detailed account of the appellate decision for CP&DR is at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3426. The appellate court's online docket on the San Francisco case is at http://bit.ly/1tRLtoW. The advocacy site "Plasticbaglaws.org" provides a usefully thorough picture of plastic bag ban litigation around California, with links to official sites, at http://plasticbaglaws.org/litigation/ (In addition to the Marin chronology shown there, the state Supreme Court review was denied in the Marin case in October.) The Grist Web site, writing from an advocacy perspective, provides a national picture of plastic bag bans, in which California cities are prominent: http://grist.org/article/plastic-bag-bans-spreading-in-the-united-states/ Huntington Beach, which previously banned plastic bags, recently allowed the sale of reusable paper bags: http://cbsloc.al/POIIEz The Encore Recycling Company of Salinas, which recycles agricultural plastic into bags, was preparing to capitalize on a provision being considered for the statewide law that would favor use of recycled plastic bags: http://bit.ly/1hQnXzj EPA map focuses environmental attention by census tract A visually stunning and socioeconomically telling map project by CalEPA's CalEnviroScreen 2.0 project (http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/) has drawn Southern California papers' attention to the unequal distribution of pollution hot spots. Many of the most pollution-burdened areas are low-income communities of color in southern and central California. The LA Times provides the map -- which extend statewide -- and links to interpretive news reports at http://graphics.latimes.com/responsivemap-pollution-burdens/. (The city of Burbank and the report's authors disputed whether notably poor scores on water contamination were derived from tests of treated drinking water or untreated groundwater: http://bit.ly/1nYsEMO.) CalEnviroScreen, which is part of CalEPA's Environmental Justice Project, maps cumulative effects of separately measured pollution burdens and compares them to socioeconomic data, seeking "portions of the state that have higher pollution burdens and vulnerabilities than other areas, and therefore are most in need of assistance." In a statement at http://bit.ly/1pJ5PkR, Assemblymember V. Manuel P�rez, D-Coachella, said his AB 1329, passed by the Legislature last year, instructed the state's Department of Toxic Substances Control to prioritize enforcement in the hot spots that CalEnviroScreen identified -- and that the tool showed areas of serious concern in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys. AB 1329 is at http://bit.ly/1fLOfmo. Drought proclamation suspends HOA landscaping rules The Governor's April 25 emergency drought proclamation includes a declaration that homeowners' association rules and policies are unenforceable where they conflict with the proclamation's calls for water-saving measures. The order's phrasing is a more generic echo of provisions in the proposed AB 2104, by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, which has been approved by the Assembly and as of late April was pending in its first State Senate policy committee. AB2104 would permanently invalidate HOA rules that impose landscaping standards: http://bit.ly/1k9b1r3. At a macro level, the proclamation's effects include suspending competitive bidding for several state agencies' drought projects. For details and the full text see http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18496. The Sacramento Bee 's Matt Weiser has the proclamation's highlights at http://bit.ly/1hEL93o. Bergamot development will be on Santa Monica's November ballot A challenge to the proposed large Bergamot-area development in Santa Monica, also known as the Hines project, has qualified for the November ballot, according to the local Santa Monica Lookout : http://bit.ly/1iqOQj2. The paper reports the Bergamot measure won its signatures with the help of project opponent Residocracy.org, an organization and multi-topic petition Web site founded by former City Council candidate Armen Melkonians. Other opponents include the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, at http://www.smclc.net/, which filed suit against the project in March. PG&E fights cities and neighbors on trees PG&E has temporarily suspend a newly draconian vegetation removal program that could cut thousands of trees from areas around its gas pipelines. The utility has cited safety as its reason for the program but faces strenuous objections from cities and residents. The Contra Costa Times (reprinted in the Mercury News ) has more at http://bit.ly/1nxDTOI. Earlier this month PG&E was indicted on federal charges in connection with the 2010 gas pipe explosion that killed eight people in a residential neighborhood of San Bruno. For details in the SF Chronicle see http://bit.ly/1jyjPIK. San Francisco prepares to add local well water to Hetch Hetchy supply San Francisco's famous mountain-clear tap water, all the way from Hetch Hetchy, could have less clean local water blended with it as of 2016 in much of the city. Chris Roberts of the San Francisco Examiner reports the city is preparing to dig four wells this summer in the western part of the city, creating an emergency supply and a supplemental source that could provide up to 5% of city water regularly. There's concern, however, about contamination from bacteria and nitrates in the local groundwater. See http://bit.ly/1jZ0oXv.

Voters in Monterey County may be closer to deciding two land use ballot measures after a 15-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an unrelated case that recall petitions need not be circulated in multiple languages. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that petitions in a Santa Ana Unified School District recall were invalid because they had been circulated only in English. In March, a federal district court judge, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, declared invalid an initiative to overhaul the Monterey County general plan because initiative backers printed petitions only in English. After the general plan ruling, the county Board of Supervisors pulled off the ballot a referendum of a proposed 1,100-unt housing project for the same reason (see , May 2006). Under the Voting Rights Act, the government must publish election materials in other languages if more than 5% of voters speak a language other than English. However, the panel that reheard the Santa Ana school district case voted 14-1 that the multi-lingual requirement does not apply to citizen petitions. Requiring translation of citizen petitions “is very likely to have a chilling effect on the petition process itself,” Judge William Canby wrote for the court. “A requirement of translation for recall petitions is far more likely to be used as a sword than as a shield.” Exactly what will happen with the Monterey County land use measures is unclear. Proponents said they would push for a special election because it is too late to get the initiative and the referendum on the November ballot. But county officials said they were still studying the situation and noted that a U.S. Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit decision is possible. Additionally, litigation over the two ballot measures is pending in federal court. The Ninth Circuit case is , No. 03-56259, 06 C.D.O.S. 8808, and was filed on September 19. While growth control votes in Monterey County remained in question, the county and the City of Salinas reached a settlement in the city’s lawsuit over county plans for the 2,500-acre Rancho San Juan. The county has been planning for growth on the ranch just north of Salinas for some time, but the city sued over a specific plan, which includes the 1,100-unit Butterfly Village project for which a referendum is pending (see above.) The city agreed to drop its California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit when the City Council and Board of Supervisors approved an 18-point “Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding.” The document permits the city to annex about 3,000 acres north of town, designates land to the north and east of the city for development while preserving farmland to the west and south, requires imposition of a countywide traffic impact fee, and calls for county-city cooperation on issues such as affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Salinas officials said the city needs room to grow because of severe overcrowding and a lack of affordable housing. Rancho San Juan growth opponents immediately seized on the settlement and closed-door negotiations behind it, and the opponents hinted they may file a suit insisting that the settlement should be subject to environmental review. A referendum contesting adoption of a redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point district in San Francisco has been blocked by City Attorney Dennis Herrera. He declared the referendum petitions were invalid because they did not contain the entire redevelopment plan. The city adopted the plan, which emphasizes development of 3,700 new housing units in the 1,300-acre project area, earlier this year (see , September 2006). Fearing gentrification, opponents gathered enough signatures on a referendum petition to force an election. But Herrera determined on September 19 that the petitions were invalid without the plan itself. Opponents said they would likely sue over Herrera’s decision. A controversial proposal by Santa Clara County to build a 7,000-seat concert hall at the county fairgrounds in San Jose is apparently dead after the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 not to pursue the project. The decision came shortly after county analysts revealed that rising construction costs would require at least a $15 million county subsidy. The county began pursuing a concert hall at the aging fairgrounds in 1998, shortly before the City of San Jose and downtown advocates began talking about building a similar hall in downtown. Eventually, the county decided on a plan in which it would issue about $80 million in bonds to pay for the fairgrounds facility and hire the House of Blues to run it. The city sued and lost one round in court before paying to settle the lawsuit (see , May 2006; , December 2004). Backers of the county project said it could generate tens of millions of dollars for the county over the next three decades. But when it came time to move forward, three supervisors said the project was too risky, especially when the county already has a $200 million budget shortfall. The county’s decision may give new life to the proposed downtown concert hall, which has languished. Yolo County has dropped its eminent domain action to acquire 17,300 acres of farmland and open space in a triangle between the cities of Woodland, West Sacramento and Davis. Instead, the county reached an agreement with the property owners that limits development and water sales. The county commenced eminent domain proceedings on the Conaway Ranch more than two years ago because of concerns about the loss of farmland, endangered species habitat and water (see , August 2004). After eminent domain proceedings began, a collection of Sacramento area developers acquired the ranch, which has 50,000 acre-feet of water rights. Under the settlement, the owners may sell up to 1,500 acres of land in small parcels. For sales of parcels larger than 250 acres, the county will have the right of first refusal. All land remains subject to the county general plan, which currently permits virtually no development. The agreement calls for water to be used first to satisfy farming, habitat and recreation needs on Conaway Ranch. Surplus water could be sold but the county would have the first right to negotiate a water purchase and would receive a cut of proceeds if another entity buys the water. Property owners said they may use the land as a mitigation bank and sell conservation easements. On-the-ground restoration of San Dieguito Lagoon in Del Mar began in September after 15 years of planning, permitting processes and litigation. The restoration plan by the San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority calls for creation of a 115-acre saltwater marsh, construction and rehabilitation of nesting sites for endangered birds, and permanently reopening the mouth of the river (see , September 2003). Construction is expected to take two years. Southern California Edison is paying for the project as mitigation for ongoing operation of the San Onofre nuclear power plant about 30 miles to the north.