The committee charged with recommending how the Air Resources Board should establish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets under AB 32 and SB 375 spent much of its first half dozen meetings talking in about the technical details of measuring emissions and modeling for future emissions. That changed on Wednesday, June 3, when Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) member Richard Katz said he'd had enough. Can't we get on with the policy discussion, asked Katz, a former assemblyman who represents the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Commission on the RTAC. Other RTAC members – including Los Angeles Planning Commissioner Mike Woo and San Diego Association of Governments Executive Director Gary Gallegos – agreed during something of an impromptu roundtable discussion. Woo said it was time to "reclaim the direction of the committee." The Air Resources Board is in the midst of implementing AB 32, the three-year-old law that requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The Air Resources Board has decided that a small portion of the GHG reduction will be attributable to land use changes, but the board has deferred the specifics to the SB 375 process . Passed last year, SB 375 requires the state to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the state's 17 regions, and requires the metropolitan planning organization within each region to adopt land use planning and transportation strategies that will meet the target. To help figure out what the targets should be, the board appointed the 21-member advisory committee earlier this year to recommend factors and methodologies the board should consider. Despite the call for diving into policy issues during the most recent RTAC meeting, questions of how to measure emissions and ways to predict how policies will affect future emissions remain. Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said a summary of regional scenario data (essentially a collection of models) that was provided for the June 3 meeting proved that the various models employed by different MPOs are too inconsistent to be of use. "The existing models don't provide a common yardstick by which we can measure progress toward the targets," Wallerstein said. "I think that's a major problem." Shari Libiki, a consultant and Stanford environmental engineering professor, insisted the panel could not recommend policy without better data. "We don't understand our baseline very well," Libiki said. "I understand that people are frustrated with talking about models." But, she added, the models will affect the committee's recommendations. The committee made no recommendations at the June 3 meeting, but several of the committee members' priorities started to shine through. Great Valley Center founder Carol Whiteside encouraged the committee to be  "bolder" and not settle for "tinkering at the margins" of land use and transportation policy. A $1 per gallon gas tax would generate a great deal of new revenue and help move the state toward its GHG reduction goals, she said. Affordable housing attorney Michael Rawson and University of Southern California professor Manuel Pastor Jr. pressed for the inclusion of social equity as part of a policy package. Any policy that results in displacement of low-income people or disruption of communities should not be considered "feasible," argued Rawson. Amanda Eaken, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the committee should ensure that local governments have the tools to respond to changing demographics and new housing products – namely, housing other than single-family subdivisions. Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission Executive Director Steve Heminger expressed what appeared to be a somewhat common observation, and a frustration. "2020 is really soon," Heminger said in reference to the AB 32 deadline for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels. "But land use strategies are slow acting, and they are even slower in regions that are growing slowly. And they are slower yet in regions in recession." "We are working on this subject at a time when our Legislature is on the verge of blowing the state up," Heminger continued, noting that all funding for transit is likely to be lost. "They are doing everything they can to encourage more driving." So, how much should the current recession and state budget crisis factor into the committee's recommendations? A lot, said Katz, who argued for GHG targets "grounded in real world achievability." Not so much, said Stuart Cohen, of advocacy group TransForm. "We should not use the existing funding situation as the reason for low targets," he said. The committee has only four meeting scheduled before it makes a recommendation to the Air Resources Board. Those should be lively – and very long – sessions. – Paul Shigley

There is no better example of the conundrum in which Gov. Schwarzenegger and all Californians find ourselves than the controversial oil drilling deal off Santa Barbara County. On the one hand, Schwarzenegger and the state are world leaders in public policy to reduce energy consumption and promote renewable energy development. On the other hand, we're broke – and a deal allowing Plains Exploration Petroleum (PXP) to extract oil from state waters near Vandenberg Air Force Base would provide the state government roughly $200 million a year for a decade. Right now, Schwarzenegger says do the deal. Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and State Controller John Chiang say no way. A little background. Last year, a collection of environmental organizations lead by the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center announced they had cut a deal with PXP. Under the Tranquillon Ridge plan, the Texas-based company would use an existing platform located in federal waters to extract petroleum underlying adjacent state waters (the state controls waters within 3 miles of the coast). In exchange, PXP would shut down the platform and three others in the Santa Barbara Channel by 2022, donate 4,000 acres of land for public use, and pay the state about $2 billion in royalties. In January of this year, the State Lands Commission, composed of the lieutenant governor, the controller and the director of finance, voted 2-1 to prohibit the drilling. The Commission – well, Garamendi and Chiang – said the threat of an oil spill was too great, complained about the private nature of the deal, claimed that it was not really enforceable, and pointed out that the federal government could override the agreement and prevent the planned oil drilling platform decommissioning. Considering that the State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over state waters, the 2-1 vote appeared to be the end of the Tranquillon Ridge deal. But did I mention that the state is broke? The governor's May budget revise included authority for Finance Director Mike Genest to supercede the State Lands Commission and approve the Tranquillon Ridge oil drilling lease. As you might imagine, this move did not set well with Garamendi and Chiang. At a State Lands Commission hearing in Santa Monica on Monday, they voted 2-0 for a resolution urging the Legislature to reject the "end-run around the Commission's decision regarding the Tranquillon Ridge lease." (The panel's third member, Deputy Finance Director Tom Sheehy, who had defended the governor's plan, left the meeting early because of a family emergency.) At the hearing, environmental groups that had supported the quid pro quo with PXP began backing away , saying they don't want to circumvent the State Lands Commission. This hot potato is now in the hands of the Legislature, which already has more scalding spuds than it can juggle. An additional $200 million in annual revenue, even if it doesn't start flowing for a year or two, is awfully hard pass up in the face of eliminating health care for a million children and closing 200 state parks. Back to that other hand: If California approves the first oil drilling leases in state waters since 1969, how seriously are we to take the state's commitment to the not-always-convenient fight against climate change?     Cities and counties – wondering what SB 375 is going to do to their land use authority – are watching closely. - Paul Shigley

Opponents of the proposed construction of two houses on a coastal bluff in San Clemente may pursue their lawsuit to overturn the California Coastal Commission's approval of the projects, even though the suit was filed after a statute of limitations had ostensibly expired, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. Under the California Coastal Act, opponents of a commission ruling have 60 days from the date of a decision to file legal action. The San Clemente neighbors seemingly missed that deadline. They successfully argued, however, that their suit was timely not under the Coastal Act, but under a section of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that authorizes the commission's regulatory program. The properties in question are two adjacent lots in an undeveloped, nine-parcel stretch on the city's coastal bluff. The vacant land has afforded the public an unobstructed view of the ocean and access to the beach for years. In November 2007, the Coastal Commission approved development permits that allowed the properties' owners to build multistory, single-family houses on the lots. The commission conditioned its approval on the property owners' signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the owners of five other undeveloped lots to provide for view corridors and pedestrian beach access. While the commission approved the permits on November 14, 2007, it did not file the requisite notice of approval with the Natural Resources Agency until December 27. On January 28, the neighbors sued the commission, contending that the coastal panel had failed to adequately evaluate project alternatives; used the MOU to improperly defer mitigation; and violated procedural requirements by providing late notice of staff reports and failing to respond to written comments from the project opponents. In response, the Commission and the two property owners contended the lawsuit was filed after the 60-day deadline in the Coastal Act. Orange County Superior Court Judge Thierry Patrick Colaw agreed and dismissed the neighbors' suit. The Coastal Commission does not have to strictly abide by CEQA rules. Instead, it uses a certified regulatory equivalent of the CEQA process authorized by the act in Public Resources Code § 21080.5. Subdivision (g) of that section establishes a 30-day statute of limitations for legal action, and the appellate court ruled that the clock for legal action started ticking on December 27 when the commission filed the notice of permit approval with the Natural Resources Agency. "If § 21080.5, subdivision (g), applies, plaintiff's filing of the petition on Monday, January 28, 2008, was timely," Justice William Rylaarsdam wrote for the court. The commission and property owners argued that this CEQA provision and the Coastal Act were in conflict because of their differing statutes of limitations, and in such a case, the Coastal Act should prevail. They had a state Supreme Court ruling on their side. In Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com. , (2005) 35 Cal.4th 839, the court ruled that when CEQA and the Coastal Act conflict, the Coastal Act controls (see CP&DR Legal Digest , June 2005 ). The appellate court, however, decided that the different statutes may be reconciled. The relevant Coastal Act provision is Public Resources Code § 30801, which applies to "any decision" by the Commission, while § 21080.5, subdivision (g), covers any state agency decision prepared pursuant to the same section. "Thus," Rylaarsdam wrote, "§ 21080.5 governs a limited type of attack on Commission's rulings issued under the certified regulatory program exemption." The lawsuit filed by the group of San Clemente neighbors was precisely this sort of attack because it challenged the Commission's range of alternatives, mitigation measures and public review process, the court ruled. The Fourth District Court of Appeal also pointed out that the question of legal deadlines would not have arisen if the Commission had filed its decision with the Natural Resources Agency promptly. The case now returns to Superior Court for further proceedings. The Case: Strother v. California Coastal Commission , No. G040745, 09 C.D.O.S. 5407. Filed April 30, 2009. The Lawyers: For the project opponents: James Geocaris, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, (714) 545-9200. For the Commission: Christina Bull Arndt, attorney general's office (213) 897-8964. For the property owners: John Flynn III, Nossaman, (949) 833-7800.

The state will appeal a Superior Court decision blocking the state from shifting $350 million of tax increment revenue from redevelopment agencies to schools In the midst of the state's larger budget crisis, the amount at issue in the litigation suddenly appears piddling. Still, the case, if pursued, could be important, especially to redevelopment agencies. Attorneys for the Department of Finance filed the notice of appeal earlier this week. The notice does not contain any arguments, and state officials have declined to discuss their legal strategy. The state did not request a "stay" of the April 30 decision; hence, redevelopment agencies are off the hook for now. It's entirely possible the state is simply keeping legal options alive while other things develop in the background, including a likely legislative remedy. As we reported earlier , Judge Lloyd Connolly based his ruling entirely on the Legislature's findings and declarations in support of the money shift. A move is afoot to draft new findings and declarations that could withstand Connolly's scrutiny, renewing the shift. Don't forget, though, the California Redevelopment Association has other legal arguments against the shift, including the contention that it would unconstitutionally interfere with contracts between redevelopment agencies and bondholders. Of course, the $350 million of redevelopment money amounts to only 1.44% of the state's projected $24.3 billion budget gap for the 2009-10 fiscal year. The two-house Conference Committee on the Budget began tackling the mess this week, and I have to say I do not remember the mood in Sacramento ever being more somber. Proposals that in past years might have served as political threats – emptying some prisons, cutting off health care for a million children, eliminating job training and college grants, shortening the school year, closing the majority of state parks – are being taken seriously as budget-balancing ideas. They're no longer talking about quality of life issues at the Capitol, they're talking about life, death and the most basic public services. The League of California Cities is organizing its "budget action day" on Wednesday, June 3, during which local government officials will lobby lawmakers not to increase local government responsibilities while the state simultaneously borrows $2 billion in local property taxes and outright takes gas tax revenues locals have been receiving. However, local officials – including Los Angeles Mayor and former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa – made their pitch all this week and appear to have gotten nowhere.   - Paul Shigley

A state appellate court has upheld the City of Los Angeles's refusal to grant a conditional use permit for the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol at an adult cabaret. SP Star Enterprises, which has certificate-of-occupancy permits to operate the nude entertainment club, contended that the city's decision amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on its free speech. But the court ruled that the decision to deny a permit strictly concerned alcohol and did not prohibit the expression of protected speech. Star's facility, which is permitted to seat up to 177 patrons, is located in a converted industrial building at Ducommon and Vignes streets in the burgeoning Arts District north of Little Tokyo. The city-issued building and occupancy permits allow Star to operate the club between 11 a.m. and 2 a.m. daily. Star, which holds a franchise for a Penthouse adult cabaret, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol at the club, and a city zoning administrator granted the CUP for one year. The Los Angeles Hompa Hongwanji Buddhist Temple and Fukui Mortuary, which are located near the club, appealed the decision to the Central Area Planning Commission (APC). A temple representative contended that the CUP would result in an unsafe environment for the families and children who attend day care and events at the temple. The mortuary owner argued the sale of alcohol at the club would disrupt services and upset grieving people. Other foes of the decision to grant the club a CUP also surfaced. Representatives of two Los Angeles city councilmembers, as well as the Central City East Association, argued that the alcohol permit would set back the area's revitalization drive. Two Los Angeles Police Department lieutenants said the sale and consumption of alcohol at the club had the potential to increase crime in the area. Star's attorney countered that the company had invested more than $1 million in the club and that its agreement with Penthouse required that the facility be upscale. He added that the club is in a concrete box that would emit no noise, that there is adequate parking on-site and that security would be provided at all times. The attorney also noted that the mortuary is 518 feet from the club, while the temple is more than 1,000 feet away. In reversing the city zoning administrator's decision to grant the CUP, the Central Area Planning Commission (APC) found that the sale and consumption of alcohol at the club would not be desirable to the public convenience and welfare, would be detrimental to the character of the community and would not be in harmony with the area's general plan. The vote was 3-1 to deny the permit. Star sued the APC, arguing that the CUP request must be reviewed under the "strict scrutiny" standard because Star features constitutionally protected expression – nude dancing. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs disagreed, finding the city's decision to deny the alcohol permit was permissible no matter what standard of review applied. In its appeal, Star continued to argue that the APC's decision was an unconstitutional restraint of protected speech that a court must review independently. But a three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, said the issue was alcohol – not nude dancing. "It is clear that an initial application for a conditional use permit to sell alcohol for on-site consumption does not involve a fundamental vested right or Star's right of free speech," Presiding Justice Joan Klein wrote for the court, citing Yu v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. , (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 286, 296. "On the contrary, it is generally accepted that ‘the liquor business is fraught with danger to the community, and may therefore be either entirely prohibited, or permitted under such conditions as are prescribed by the regulatory agency, which has broad power in this respect.'" Because the issue did not involve the protected activity of nude dancing, the Second District panel of judges held, the lower court properly applied the more deferential "substantial evidence test," rather than the independent-judgment standard and the strict-scrutiny test. The appellate court found that the APC's references to "general welfare," general plan "harmony" and "proper" uses were not overly vague, as Star had contended, and that the club's proximity to a day-care school was an appropriate factor to weigh in deciding the CUP request. The commission's consideration of crime and alcohol in the broader downtown area was also proper, and the testimony of neighbors and the police regarding neighborhood character and integrity constituted substantial evidence, the court ruled. The Case: SP Star Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles , No. B204045, 2009 DJDAR 6152. Filed April 28, 2009. The Lawyers: For Star: Stuart Miller, Wellman & Warren, (949) 580-3737. For the city: Tayo Popoola, city attorney's office, (213) 978-8068.

I was studying the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan for Huntington Beach the other night. One of the chief goals of the specific plan is to remake Beach and Edinger into first-rate streets worthy of this Orange County community of 200,000 people, replacing the messy, strip-like conditions that currently exist on these major thoroughfares. With the deadline for my column looming, I fought to stay awake, but soon fell asleep. With my feverish brain preoccupied with streets, it should have been no surprise that I dreamt of Baron Eugene-Georges de Haussmann, who during the 1860s designed � and ruthlessly pushed through � a set of magnificent boulevards in Paris, including the widening of the Champs Elysees . � I quickly showed M. le Baron the specific plan document prepared by the urban design firm of� Freedman Tung and Bottomley. He was delighted with the crisp drawings of tree-lined streets, flanked on either side by buildings four and five stories tall, inspired in large part by his own grand, formal boulevards. Then his eye fell on something that caught his attention. "What is this nonsense?" he thundered, as he pointed accusingly to a portion of text. "What does the gentleman mean exactly, when he says that the boulevard should be series of centers, with stretches of street in between serving as infill," he said with an almost palpable distaste. I tried to explain to this distinguished visitor that the city wants to develop the streets to their full commercial potential. The strategy, as outlined in the specific plan, is to use existing retail centers as "centers" that would be reinforced with new housing, and office and mixed-use buildings. "Bah! Nonsense," said the Baron with 19th Century confidence. "Streets do not have centers. Cities have centers. Where streets converge, that's where you have a center, just as I arranged a dozen boulevards in Paris to converge on l'Arc de Triomphe ." I tried to explain to the Baron, so brilliant but so hopelessly out of date, that� this plan is essentially a democratic document. Real estate investors and merchants were clearly among the many voices that Huntington Beach heeded, and understandably so: City Hall clearly wants to boost sales tax and property tax revenue on these major streets, and that means promoting merchants. "Bah," said the Baron derisively. "Streets do not exist solely for the sake of merchants. Streets are for all the citizens." I tried to explain to Monsieur le Baron that planning in 21st Century California often ends up as a complex arrangement among different groups, sometimes with very different agendas. Even a cursory look at the specific plan reveals a tension among contradictory goals. In one place, the city states a goal of creating beautiful streets that encourage people to walk. On the same page, we find an expression of support for more auto dealerships, a condition that pedestrians shun. "Foolishness," said Baron Haussmann. "You can sell your cars somewhere else. A great street is no place for such uses." Again, I tried to explain to the good Baron that the world had changed considerably since the time when Napoleon III had given Haussmann near-dictatorial powers over the capitol of the French Empire. "At the risk of offending you, M. le Baron , I think you do not fully appreciate what we're trying to do in Huntington Beach. In a democracy, we try to build a consensus toward a plan that satisfies all the different goals. Planners want a great boulevard, merchants want foot traffic and the city officials want sales tax revenue. The compromise solution is a first-rate shopping street with retail prominent among a mix of uses." After listening patiently, the Baron growled. "I simply cannot understand why you Americans insist on doing things in an indirect way," said the Baron. "Rather than simply build the boulevard, you want to create a set of incentives and whatnot, with the hope that a great street will emerge, as if by lucky accident, through the promotion of shopping and other uses. It is sort of like trying to make a woman fall in love with you by standing on a street corner and playing the mandolin, hoping to attract her attention. It is not impossible, of course, but far from certain. You would be better off writing love letters, sending gifts by the hour and threatening to drown yourself in the Seine. That approach is much more direct." "In addition," the Baron continued, "I am not convinced that this plan, despite excellent research and the best intentions, actually accomplishes what it sets out to do. Boulevards are characterized by continuity. Here, in your Huntington Beach, you are proposing some new development around this shopping center and that one, hoping that the in-between places will fill in somehow. If you were to take this type of planning to its logical extreme, you would end up with something very similar to that infernal place, the Las Vegas strip, where you have giant clumps of development � the casino hotels � separated from one another by long stretches of parking lots or T-shirt shops. Is that the kind of multi-center street you want?" At this point, I confess, I grew impatient. "My dear Baron, I must protest. Not all of us have the emperor of France as a client. We live in a democracy, and planning must reflect the goals of all the people." "Or those who have the most money and speak the loudest," replied the Baron, with a directness bordering on rudeness. "Democracy may be a good political system � nay, the best possible � but as for planning, give me autocracy any day. Vive l'Empereur! " At that point, the Baron vanished, and I awoke to the sound of a jackhammer breaking up concrete on the site of a new car dealership. And I still hadn't made up my mind about the specific plan in Huntington Beach.

These days, the California High-Speed Rail Authority might as well be called the Political Traction Company. After winning voter approval of a $9.9 billion bond in November, the authority seemed to become a favorite of the Obama administration, which is eager to fund high-speed rail construction. In addition, some Central Valley communities � such as Fresno and Bakersfield, where stations are set to be built � are eager to see the project advance. Nevertheless, cities along the Peninsula of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are asking questions about the project. Two cities have already sued to force environmental review of an agreement between the authority and Caltrain. The objecting cities complain that a fast-moving train traveling on elevated tracks would be extremely disruptive to adjacent residential neighborhoods and downtown districts. The cities of Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto, Belmont and Burlingame have formed a coalition that regularly meets to plot strategy on the rail project. Other cities along the probable route from San Jose to San Francisco, however, are receptive to the project and even to hosting a station. The rail authority insists that the project is still in its review stage and that no final decision on the line will be made until an environmental impact report is completed, possibly in late 2010. Trains have traversed the Peninsula since the 19th Century, and a number of the region's cities grew up around train stations. Nowadays, Caltrain operates a popular commuter train service � including several "baby bullets" with express service � between San Francisco and Gilroy. In some cities, train tracks run primarily through industrial areas. In others, tracks abut the back yards of homes and slide through busy downtowns. In April, the High-Speed Rail Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with Caltrain for the right to use the Caltrain right-of-way. A city's concern about the rail project "depends on geography," explained Steve Emslie, deputy city manager for Palo Alto. In his city, train tracks "go right through the middle of the city. It's all residential." A high-speed train traveling 125 mph up and down the Peninsula would have to be separated from all crossings � in contrast to Caltrain, which has mostly at-grade crossings. Cities along the proposed route envision the new train running on tracks elevated 20 feet to 40 feet and built on platforms or embankments. The structures, they worry, would create an imposing and potentially noisy barrier. The cities also fear the rail authority will add several tracks to the two in existence, widening the right-of-way. They are pressing the authority to build the route in a tunnel or covered trench to prevent disruptions. "As the preferred vertical alignment," Atherton Mayor Jerry Carlson wrote to the authority, "Atherton strongly favors undergrounding of tracks and electric power conduits in a tunnel or trench with cross streets at grade level. Other vertical alternatives have far greater adverse impacts with cannot be adequately mitigated." Among the negative effects cited by Carlson were visual blight, loss of heritage trees, noise and depressed property values. In late April, Atherton and Menlo Park sued over the MOU signed by Caltrain and the High-Speed Rail Authority, a suit that Palo Alto supports. The cities argue that an environmental impact report should have been completed before the two entities signed the agreement. The authority, however, says it's too early for anyone to draw conclusions or file lawsuits. The rail authority completed a program EIR for the overall system in 2005, and in 2008 chose Pacheo Pass (near San Luis Reservoir) instead of Altamont Pass for the connection between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The authority is now working on a program-level EIR for the route between San Jose and San Francisco, said authority spokeswoman Kris Deutschman. Scoping sessions were conducted earlier this year for the tiered EIR. "This is at least an 18-month process," Deutschman said. "The uproar among a couple of cities has been a misunderstanding on their part." Advisory committees with city and other stakeholder representatives will meet regularly during the environmental review process, ensuring that locals have a voice in the project, she added. No decisions have been made regarding a tunnel versus a platform structure, the number of tracks required or the location of Peninsula stations, Deutschman said. One high-speed rail station could be in Millbrae, which already has a giant multi-modal transit station for Caltrain, BART, a San Francisco airport shuttle and San Mateo County buses. Millbrae has encouraged extensive residential and mixed-use development in the vicinity of the transit hub, and thus far has voiced no objection to the high-speed rail plan. Farther south, a station is likely to be built in either Redwood City or Palo Alto. Both cities have Caltrain stations in their downtowns, and Redwood City has pursued a downtown revitalization strategy based largely on transit-oriented development. Redwood City has not taken a position on the high-speed rail project. � "We don't have all the information yet," Redwood City Mayor Roseanne Faust told the San Francisco Chronicle . "How could we possibly make that kind of decision?" Palo Alto also lacks all the information, but officials there are more circumspect. The city is working to gather and analyze as much information as possible, Emslie said. "If money were no object and we had magic wands, we would like to see this thing in a tunnel," Emslie said. The city is trying to learn just how much tunneling would add to the rail project's cost and physical feasibility. It's an alternative the rail authority also is studying. A station in Palo Also is worrisome, Emslie added, because it would likely add six to eight tracks right in the middle of town. "We're also not enamored of the traffic it would generate. These things really function as a mini-airport," he said. A decision on the details of the San Jose-to-San Francisco route is unlikely before late 2010, and construction of any part of the system remains uncertain. The first phase, from Los Angeles to San Francisco, is expected to cost $33 billion to construct. Last year's Proposition 1A provided $9.9 billion, and the authority is asking the federal government to provide $3 billion to $4 billion from the federal stimulus and at least $12 billion in future grants. The authority also is counting on local and regional funding, and about $7 billion in private equity. Resources: California High-Speed Rail Authority: www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov . City of Atherton: www.ci.atherton.ca.us . City of Palo Alto high-speed rail page: www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=1223&TargetID=87

The California Supreme Court has reversed an appellate court ruling that regional park and open-space districts said would have greatly diminished their ability to acquire and manage land. In its ruling, the state's top court said that a regional park and open-space district can dispose of property if it has not officially declared – such as by adopting a resolution – that the property is "dedicated" for use as a park and open space. The Fourth District Court of Appeal had ruled that property was automatically dedicated for such use upon park and open-space district acquisition. The distinction is crucial because a regional park and open-space district cannot dispose of a dedicated property without the consent of the district's voters or the state Legislature and two-thirds of the district board of directors. "The ability to delay a board vote to ‘actually dedicate' acquired property allows districts to engage in long-range strategic planning, and permits such districts to acquire property when it becomes available and to hold it in a ‘land bank' for possible future use as park and open space, even if such use, for a variety of reasons, is not yet feasible," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the unanimous state Supreme Court. Park and open-space districts had argued that requiring the approval of voters or lawmakers for every land-disposal issue, no matter how small, would have presented an unnecessary and new hurdle in acquiring land, planning for its use and managing it (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2008 ). The case was brought in 2003 by Wildomar resident Gerald Ste. Marie. Ste. Marie, who's not an attorney but represented himself throughout the litigation, challenged a plan by the Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District to sell 80 of 161 acres in Wildomar that the district acquired in 1995 through a purchase and a gift from a landowner. The county Board of Supervisors, which oversees the district, decided to sell the property on Clinton Keith Road after voters rejected a proposed fee to fund the construction and operation of a park on the land. In 2003, the county signed an option agreement to sell the 80 acres to the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District, which wanted to build a new campus on the land. In his suit, Ste. Marie contended that his community lacked sufficient parkland and voters should have decided whether the district could sell the land. In making his case, Ste. Marie cited Public Resources Code § 5655, which states that all property acquired by a regional park and open space-district is immediately, upon acquisition, "dedicated and set apart for" park and open space purposes, as defined by law. Under § 5540, a regional park and open-space district may not convey its interest in real property "actually dedicated and used for park and open space" without the approval of voters, or both houses of the state Legislature and two-thirds of the district's board of directors. A trial court judge and appellant court had agreed with Ste. Marie's reading of the statute and blocked the proposed land sale. In reversing the earlier decisions, the state Supreme Court ruled, " lthough the same word <"dedicated"> is used in both statutes, the Legislature did not use it in the same way. Section 5565 states that land is ‘dedicated,' whereas § 5540 imposes conveyance restrictions on land that is ‘actually dedicated.'" The court said the Legislature's use of the word "actually" should not be ignored. The court cited the legislative history of a 1985 amendment to § 5540. Ste. Marie contended that the amendment only involved a district's ability to dedicate easements. But in its ruling, the court cited a legislative analysis pointing to a broader interpretation: to "clarify a park district's authority to dedicate easements without substantially changing current dedication authority for other property." "This," wrote Werdegar, "suggests the Legislature understood that under the then-extant state of the law, a park district's ‘current dedication authority' for real property involved some affirmative act, such as adoption of a resolution by the board of directors, and did not happen automatically merely upon passage of legal title from a seller to a district." In addition, the court noted, California's eight regional park and open-space districts have always interpreted the term "actually dedicated" to require an affirmative act by a governing board. "Such a long-standing interpretation of a statutory scheme by the government entities involved, established not by a single staff member but memorialized in their master plans or by a resolution adopted by their boards of directors, is entitled to great weight, and we defer to it," Werdegar wrote. Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster praised the court's decision, saying, "The court saw clearly that progressive counties must have the flexibility to develop creative plans for parks, open space and other resources for their communities." Seven of the state's regional park and open space districts asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts. Because the districts typically buy land on the open market, they must respond quickly when property becomes available and decide on the details of usage and park boundaries later. (The Los Angeles County Open Space and Recreation District was not a party to the litigation because it merely serves as a funding conduit for other entities.) Mt. San Jacinto Community College District representatives said the district remains interested in acquiring the site. The Case: Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District , No. S159319, 09 C.D.O.S. 5875, 2009 DJDAR 6919. Filed May 14, 2009. The Lawyers: For Ste. Marie: Gerald Ste. Marie, in pro. per. For the district: Dennis Peter Maio, Reed Smith, (415) 659- 5942.

Local political and business figures have joined Kinkisharyo International in blaming union-linked complaints, including a CEQA appeal, for deterring an expansion of the company in Palmdale. Kinkisharyo currently assembles light rail cars for LA Metro at a temporary plant. The expansion could have made it a major local manufacturing employer for the longer term. The LA Times reported Kinkisharyo had been prepared to shift some heavy rail car manufacturing work to Palmdale from its main plant in Japan, in a deal worth millions of dollars to the local economy. But a dispute began over a position taken by members and supporters of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 11 supporting "card check" unionization for future new hires at the site. The paper reported what happened next was a CEQA appeal against construction of the proposed new plant, filed by activists who included Local 11 members. The Antelope Valley Times reported that Kinkisharyo withdrew its permit application October 10. It described a group called Antelope Valley Residents for Responsible Development (AVRRD) as the filer of the appeal; The Palmdale Council's October 1 agenda also identifies AVRRD as the appellant. In a letter posted by the AV Times site , the company's U.S. general manager, Donald Boss, wrote that the project had become "too risky" because AVRRD and IBEW had "refused to withdraw the various appeals they have filed, and have given no assurances that they would not file a court action to object to any final action by your city council." The letter described AVRRD's CEQA objections as "simply a pretext to gain leverage in their attempt to force us to agree to a card check agreement regarding the unionizing of our workforce." Earlier, on October 7, the AV Times published a statement by AVRRD that in turn linked to a letter by the group's counsel, Tanya Gulesserian of the firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo. The letter, dated October 1, said it sought "to fill the void left" by the City of Palmdale's "failure to perform any environmental review of the Project and thus failing to protect air quality, public health, biological resources and supplies of fresh water." It proposed that Kinkisharyo conduct specified air quality reviews of toxics and Valley Fever hazards; that it either transplant 51 Joshua trees or purchase land in mitigation equal to twice the acreage the project would affect, and that it "acquire a new water entitlement for the Project." The LA Times reported Supervisor Mike Antonovich led a press conference Oct. 20 to cry foul and seek support from Governor Jerry Brown. The AV Times reported the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District board also unanimously appealed to Governor Brown to help prevent Kinkisharyo's departure. Kinkisharyo was reportedly planning to move the expansion elsewhere in the U.S. but Maria Elena Durazo of the LA County Federation of Labor told the Times that to do so would violate the company's contract with Metro. IBEW Local 11 posted a comment on its Facebook page October 14 saying "The company is threatening to leave Los Angeles County as a way to incite elected officials and transit officials into bailing them out." It said the company's contract still required it to create "at least 194 good-quality, full-time jobs in LA County. And it must fully comply with state environmental laws, just like any other company in California." Al Jazeera America reported the Kinkisharyo contract followed an effort for a "U.S. employment provision" by the Jobs to Move America project of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE). It described Jobs to Move America as prodding Metro and Kinkisharyo to live up to hiring commitments but did not attribute any role to it in the CEQA complaint.

As if we needed another story about Prop 13's unintended impacts on education, here's a new twist.  The Archer School for Girls inhabits a covetable property – a resplendent 1930s Spanish Revival complex designed by William Mooser – on one of the most unenviable corners in the free world. It's on Sunset Boulevard, about a mile west of the 405 freeway, in Brentwood. It’s the bottleneck through which every single commuter coming from Santa Monica and Pacific Palisades crams in an effort to get to the Valley or wherever. When the evening rush hour gets going (around 3pm) you're lucky if it takes you a half-hour to drive that mile. Needless to say, the traffic was there long before the school, which moved to that campus in 1999. But, if you ask some people, the traffic is the fault of Archer. They'll say that plenty of other things are the school's fault too.  Some background: When Archer acquired the property and applied for its conditional use permit, neighbors raised holy hell. They feared every manner of impact, from noise, to errant soccer balls, to unsightly renovations, to unspecified hooliganism. Despite the arguable importance of educating the city's 600,000 or so school-age children, there's no such thing as "school zoning" in LA. So, the school is, like all other private schools, governed by a conditional use permit. Archer's conditions would make even the most vulturous attorney blush. It has something like 85 restrictions, and most of them are unheard-of for a school. If Archer was a bar, it’d be forced to serve beer out of thimbles. (Disclosure: I taught at Archer in the early 2000s.) Essentially none of the neighbors' fears has come to pass. The girls haven't burned down the neighborhood. Traffic has gotten worse, but it's done so very much of its own accord. Even so, now that Archer is proposing an expansion of its campus – without, mind you, an increase in enrollment  – the forces of neighborhood concern are at it again. Sure, more cars would make traffic worse. But there's worse and then there's imperceptibly worse.  Archer wants all sorts of things that schools tend to want: a performing arts complex, a gym, more evening events, and a parking structure. I don't have a position on exactly what conditions Archer should or shouldn't agree to. That's for the school and the neighbors to work out. I am, however, interested in how we got into this mess in the first place. And here's where it gets ironic.  Many of the homeowners in Brentwood who are anxious about Archer have been there quite a while. That means, they may have voted on Prop 13. If they owned homes at the time, they probably voted for Prop 13. (Who in their right, self-interested mind wouldn't have?) And it certainly means that they've benefited from Prop 13. A home that was worth $100,000 north of Sunset in 1978 might be worth north of $5 million today. And that's just for the lot.  (Check out this map of property taxes in LA County and zoom in on Sunset and the 405. You’ll see plenty of blue lots, indicating tax rates of less than $2 per square foot. Then ask yourself if any of those properties should be taxed at that rate when many others are above $10.) The rest of the story is no secret: Howard Jarvis goes bonkers, Prop 13 passes, local revenues dry up, the state back-fills (sort of), and big urban school districts, like LAUSD, get clobbered while suburban school districts thrive on revenues from new construction and pro-education residents. There is no greater tragedy in modern California than the demise of our urban schools. The well-off families of Los Angeles, many of whom also probably voted for Prop 13, have responded by supporting private schools at up to $30,000 or so per student per year. It's no coincidence that many of LA's private schools didn't exist before 1978. Mind you, there's a public high school about two miles south of Archer. Most Archer students would probably go there (or to their respective neighborhood schools) if their parents were comfortable with the education there. But, who can blame them?  The neighbors won’t know it, because Prop 13 is surely a distant memory for many of them, but they want to have it both ways. They get the estimable tax benefits of Prop 13. But they also don't want to be impacted in the slightest by an institution that owes its very existence to Prop 13 – and that, aside from traffic impacts, costs them nothing. This brings up one of the hidden costs of Prop 13. The neighbors' (grandfathered) property taxes may be low, but now everyone is spending time, money, and energy on yet another CUP battle. Where's Howard Jarvis when we need some simplistic wisdom to sort this all out?   The way the negotiations are going, the neighbors are going to get much of what they want, including further restrictions on car traffic, number of school events, and the size of the new buildings and parking garage. That’s how politics often works in LA. Powerful homeowners' groups are politically galvanized. And planners can’t even use a fiscalization argument to support the school, since the school doesn’t  doesn't enrich the city via sales taxes. So, the conversation naturally turns to traffic and construction noise and the school gets squeezed.  I only wish Archer's neighbors were as concerned about the local public school's utter shortage of facilities as they are about Archer's desire to build new ones.  It's hard not to think that one consequence of an underfunded public school system is that civics goes by the wayside. A little education in the unintended consequences of Howard Jarvis' crusade would have saved the world a lot of pain. Instead, Archer's neighbors get to remain blissfully ignorant while they issue their demands. The worst thing – except, of course, for under-educated children – is that if LA had better schools, it's likely that everyone's property values would rise.  Back when I taught at Archer, my favorite course was  AP Human Geography . It has a chapter on urban form. I regret that even I never touched on Prop 13. The school is certainly learning its lesson now.

In recent California land use news: President Obama designated a new San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in a 350,000-acre area of the Angeles National Forest. The LA Times has details at http://lat.ms/1waSn83. The White House announcement, including a map, is at http://1.usa.gov/1qxxFLc. The Sacramento Bee reported Judge Timothy Frawley issued a tentative ruling that would approve most aspects of the Sacramento Kings arena project environmental impact report, but would disapprove aspects of the traffic impact analysis. Traffic impacts were the major subject in a further hearing on the matter Friday, October 10. Frawley has yet to issue his final decision, which will affect two challenges to the arena: the long-running Saltonstall case and the more recent Sacramento Coalition for Shared Prosperity case. The Bee has posted a copy of the tentative ruling . Meanwhile oral argument has been set for November 4 on the Saltonstall parties' appeal of Frawley's refusal to stop the project outright. The League of California Cities noted the announcement of a NOFA for $40 million of Infill Infrastructure Grants from the state Department of Housing and Community Development. The NOFA and other details are at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/iig/ but the League's announcement has information about the application workshops, set for October 20 in Oakland, October 22 in LA and October 30 in San Diego. CalEPA posted an updated version of its August descriptive report on the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 mapping and screening tool. However, it has yet to make the difficult choice of which California census tracts qualify as "disadvantaged." The decision has become inflected by regional politics because the screening tool tends to rate northern and coastal areas as less disadvantaged. The choice of census tracts will have an important influence on grant distribution in the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program . The U-T reported the San Diego City Council gave initial approval to a compromise "linkage fee" ordinance that would raise developer fees to support affordable housing. The measure was expected to return to the Council for final approval October 21. For some types of construction the measure would return the fees to their 1990 dollar amounts. (They were halved in 1996). The paper reported the new fees would be $2.12 per square foot for "new office buildings" and $1.28 per square foot for "hotel and retail space". However, the existing fee would be dropped from construction of new space for manufacturing, warehouse or nonprofit hospital use. The Arts District in downtown Los Angeles was fighting proposals for a Metro maintenance facility to serve the planned Westside Subway Extension. By KCET's account of the dispute, the Metro planners and local Arts District boosters had made detailed plans over the course of some years for uses that turn out to conflict. The Los Angeles River Artists & Business Association has posted a petition against the maintenance yard, which it says is far too close to the city's new Sixth Street Bridge and Arts Plaza project – but KCET reports the Metro yard project completed environmental review in 2012. The "Coast Dairies" property near Davenport on the Central Coast, an inland open space of almost 6,000 acres, was transferred to the Bureau of Land Management as a gift from the Trust for Public Land. The Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz organization reported, " This is a very big deal! " The SPUR planning organization announced plans to open a new Oakland office, to join its founding San Francisco office and its more recent San Jose branch. Capital Public Radio reported that opponents haven't given up fighting the SB 270 plastic bag ban now that Governor Brown has signed it. They've received clearance from the state attorney general to collect signatures on a statewide repeal referendum. For some history on the bill see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3568. The Sacramento Bee reports California will swear in Sen. Kevin deLeón, D-Los Angeles, as Senate President Pro Tem this evening. The LA Times endorsed against the Proposition P measure for a county parks parcel tax, calling it regressive and saying it was placed on the county ballot without enough discussion. Rail carriers filed suit in federal court seeking to block California's SB 861 from taking effect to impose new safety measures for oil trains. And the Center for Biological Diversity alleged that fracking wastewater had been illegally injected into the ground where it could harm Central Valley aquifers. Households with dry wells in East Porterville are now receiving water aid from an international relief charity, according to the local ABC-30 TV station . It reports, "Besides donations and government assistance, there aren't any long-term solutions set up in place for this crisis." Urban history scholar Mark Vallianatos has an op-ed at http://lat.ms/1ttOej2 making a case for the Los Angeles Street Vendor Campaign, whose steering committee he serves on. The same writer runs an erudite smartmouthed Twitter feed at @markvalli , sometimes with extended daylong series about Los Angeles mid-century urban design and transportation planning. A video dramatizing gentrification tensions went viral in San Francisco this past week. First posted by Uptown Almanac , it depicts an argument in which young men playing pickup soccer on a public playground in the city's Mission District are approached by players from Dropbox who say they have paid a fee to reserve the field. San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed legislation October 8 legalizing AirBnB rentals. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted the legislation's sponsor, Board of Supervisors President and Assembly candidate David Chiu, as saying, "We can protect our city's housing units from being converted to hotels, while also allowing short-term rentals on a limited basis to help residents afford to stay in their homes." But the paper quoted Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants' Union as saying the protections against displacement weren't strict enough. In a critical writeup with detailed analysis of the Supervisors' voting choices, the SF Bay Guardian 's Steven T. Jones wrote that the measure, as passed, "effectively limits the rental of entire homes to 90 days per year" but that it didn't similarly limit "hosted rentals, such as spare bedrooms." As of October 13, the landlord-tenant landscape in San Francisco had rather suddenly changed. Ted Gullicksen, aged 61, was unexpectedly found dead at his home . The same day, the Bay Guardian was folded by its owner, San Francisco Media Company. The company took down the Bay Guardian's entire online archive; the link to Jones' article in the previous item of this column is to a cache that may soon disappear. On the other hand, Jones' 2012 news feature on the subject, "The problem with the sharing economy," is permanently available from the Internet Archive . Maven's Notebook has the transcript of a detailed radio interview with attorney Michael Jackson of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance on California water history and his arguments against the Delta Tunnel project and the water bond measure.

From many vantage points, the Monterey Peninsula looks idyllic. But it's always been a mess when it comes to water politics. Throw in a long stalemate on solutions among the stakeholders, along with a disliked private water utility, administrative and judicial orders to cut back existing water supplies, no connections to state water – and a drought – and it's hard to see a clear path out of this morass. Local leaders say they've come up with three possible solutions in the past year: building a large desalination plant, increasing use of recycled wastewater, and using winter overflows from the Carmel River to recharge the nearby Seaside Basin. Still, they've got some tight deadlines to meet in order to escape a dire future with less water. And the desalination plant, arguably the most difficult piece of the puzzle, is the key, as it will produce six times as much water as recapturing winter overflows from the Carmel River. Desalination could be a panacea for the approximately 110,000 residents of the region, which includes Monterey, Carmel, and Seaside, along with unincorporated areas like Pebble Beach and the Carmel Valley. But other than a few small projects, little progress has been made in  the past decade. A proposed $400 million regional saltwater desalination project near Marina (north of the Peninsula), to be run by the local water utility, would offset proposed cutbacks in other water supplies. But it won't be built for at least five years. Already a Sword of Damocles hangs over the region's head, with water cutbacks set to occur between 2015 and 2017. The newest entrant into the race to find a solution was the 2012 formation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) by the six cities on the Monterey Peninsula, called the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority. "The challenge has been that there hasn't been a consensus on what the water supply should look like," said Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett, who is on the JPA. Burnett said the consensus has been reached on the three solutions in the past year. California American Water, or Cal-Am, the local water utility, is supposed to cut its water supply from the Carmel River by 70%, according to Henrietta Stern, a project manager with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). That should take place by 2017, although local officials are hoping that the state will push back that deadline if progress has been made on local projects. At the same time, the region already has to cut back its water usage to comply with another court ruling that requires it to replenish groundwater in the Seaside basin. In 2010, the region could count on 3,300 acre feet from that source, but has had to pump out less since then. In 2015, it will only be able to pump out 2,300 acre feet of water, and by 2021, it can only take about 1,500 acre feet of water, according to David Stoldt, general manager of the MPWMD. While desalination looks like it could be a savior, desalination proposals in the area have come and gone in recent years. A previous desalination project fell apart in 2012. And other battles have also taken place: residents tried and failed in a June ballot measure to take over privately-owned Cal-Am. Marina, which sits to the north of the Monterey Peninsula, has its own water supply from the Salinas River basin. That water is not available to the Monterey Peninsula. In the 1990s, Marina built its own desalination plant, designed to produce 300 acre feet of water in a year, That is only enough to provide one-third of the city's water each year. And the project is unused because energy costs were too high to run it, said Marina's Mayor Bruce Delgado. Monterey Peninsula officials are seeking a regional facility that can serve a much larger population. But they are looking to Marina and the area nearby for a large desalination plant because the geology to the north  makes it easier to drill, Delgado explained. The MPWMD is currently backing two desalination proposals: one by Cal-Am one mile from the city of Marina, and another  proposed by private developers in Moss Landing. The Marina  plant would produce 7,000 to 9,000 acre feet of water per year, which is slightly less than the cutbacks expected at the Carmel River by the start of 2017. "The problem is the large desalination project won't be online by then," Stern said. Current estimates are that the Marina project won't be done until 2019. And the 2019 date is a guess, since the city of Marina is refusing to allow Cal-Am to drill a slant well to test if the desalination project is even feasible there. The slant well would test the viability of planned beach well intakes, according to the Monterey Herald . "Those types of delays have plagued the projects," Stern said. Well drilling for the desalination plant is already in dispute at the Superior Court and the state level. In September, Cal-Am filed an eminent domain lawsuit to gain access to a Marina site for slant well drilling. In addition, the California Coastal Commission takes up the matter at its November 12 meeting. Burnett explained that the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over the portion of the well that will be drilled under the Pacific Ocean. Delgado said that while the actual desalination plant is outside the city limits, the slant wells are proposed for a site within the city of Marina. Delgado said the Marina City Council turned down the slant well drilling on a 3-2 vote because it wanted more environmental documents produced. "The city council majority is in favor of more information before the test slant wells can be drilled," he said. Another proposed desalination plant near Moss Landing might be built first, Stern said. It would rely on deeper water from the ocean that wouldn't have the same impacts on fish and ocean life. Unlike the Marina project, no environmental impact report has been started on the Moss Landing project. Water politics on the Monterey Peninsula have always been complicated. MPWMD was created by state legislation in 1978 to manage water issues, develop additional supplies and oversee agencies that provide water. In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board ruled that Cal-Am did not have valid rights to 70% of the water it delivered to the area. Most of the water came from the Carmel River. In 2009, the state set a deadline at the start of 2017 to reduce withdrawals from the Carmel River. Stoldt said that two of the species that live in the river, the steelhead trout and the red-legged frog, are both listed as federal endangered species. The presence of both makes it difficult to build new dams on the river. Stoldt said recycling the peninsula region's wastewater may provide an additional 3,000 to 5,000 acre feet to the local area. An EIR on the program, called Pure Water Monterey, should be done in 2015, he said, and the program may be in operation by 2017. Official attempts to get an extension on the 2017 deadline for reducing Carmel River water can be expected in 2015.  Any extensions would come from the State Water Resources Control Board. "The hope is to point to the program being underway and the state providing some relief," Stoldt said. Water conservation efforts have also led to reductions in use in recent years as well, with residents saving over 1,000 acre feet of water a year, Stoldt said, and even more water conservation may be required of local residents. She said there will be economic impacts if the region is left with water cutbacks and few new sources of water. "If there's only enough water for residents, how does a hotel, restaurant or an aquarium stay in business?" "Over the past few decades there is likely no local issue that has been more debated, politicized voted on, and finally, as frustrating," wrote Monterey Mayor Chuck Della Sala, in a recent article on water. "...Desal has to be part of the mix." Proposition 1, the state water bond measure on the November ballot, may provide some financial assistance to Monterey County if it passes. An analysis of the $7.5 billion statewide measure by MPWCD says that it includes $725 million statewide for water recycling, desalination and potable reuse.