Search Results

The Fifth District Court of Appeal last week rejected an EIR on air quality grounds for a senior-oriented housing complex near Friant Dam. The methodical, linguistically attentive opinion by Justice Donald R. Franson, Jr. toured three realms of environmental review: land, water and air. It turned down objections from environmental and community groups based in the law of land zoning and water impacts, leaning hard on some word definitions to do so. But when it examined the project's mitigation measures in the air, it found the EIR had failed to put foundations under them. The appellate court sent the decision back to Fresno County's local judge with instructions to have the county describe more specifically what harm might be done by the project's extra air pollution, such as vehicle exhaust, and how the harm would be mitigated in ways the county could measure and enforce. According to the decision text, the project by Friant Ranch, L.P. would cover about a square mile and a half, mainly of former grazing land. The court says it would build some 2500 housing units, some of them restricted to adults 55 and older. Media reports put the total of units at 2,270. By the court's description the project additionally calls for 250,000 square feet of commercial use and it would all be on 942 acres counting 460 acres of dedicated open space. That sounds large but it was the project's Alternative 3, smaller than some earlier projections. As clarified on the docket at http://bit.ly/1iN6hpI the case was brought by the Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin and the League of Women Voters of Fresno against the county and Friant Ranch LP. A related suit brought by the City of Fresno moved toward settlement in March with an agreement that the developer would charge a $500 fee for each unit to contribute toward a parks fund. See http://bit.ly/1h1q35r and http://bit.ly/1pNq2SC. Opponents of the Friant Ranch project greeted the May 27 decision with a victory press conference emphasizing opposition to sprawl and concern over "diverting our already scarce resources to new-town development": http://bit.ly/1mLgDZL. But the developer's counsel told local news station KFSN that the dispute wasn't over and the project's proponents still counted on going forward with it: http://abc30.tv/1iNaREi. The matter on appeal was a county Supervisors' approval that updated the Friant Community Plan within the Fresno County General Plan, authorized a specific plan for the project, and amended the Friant Redevelopment Plan. The court found the land element of the proposal was acceptable because the County properly, though controversially, amended the county general plan to change the area's land use designation: from mainly agriculture plus a few other uses, mainly trailer parks, to the commercial, residential and public uses that the project had in mind. The decision walked through a word-by-word dispute on whether the land use change for the area matched the county's policy to "maintain agriculturally-designated areas for agricultural use" and to "direct urban growth away from valuable agricultural lands to cities, unincorporated communities, and other areas planned for such development where public facilities and infrastructure are available." It quoted the EIR as finding that the land lost to agriculture was neither prime, nor of statewide importance, nor designated as unique, nor subject to preservation contracts, hence that it was not not "valuable agricultural lands" as defined in the policy. The EIR language had quietly extended the phrase about "public facilities and infrastructure" to include areas where facilities "are available or can be expanded." Plaintiffs objected that the last four words were not in the regulation. But the court chose not to view their appearance in the EIR as impermissible mission creep, in light of an additional policy that discussed installing infrastructure prospectively. The court found that plaintiffs' objections about traffic congestion under the General Plan's transportation element were not exhausted administratively. Plaintiffs had argued the issues were raised sufficiently at the administrative stage of review by a six-paragraph section in a critical letter by Fresno's city manager. The court quoted the letter as citing projections for "unacceptable levels of service" through crowding on two major roads reaching the project site, and as expressing polite skepticism over the EIR's claim that emergency services would not thereby be affected. But the court rejected those phrases as not placing the county sufficiently on notice of the issues because they didn't mention the problem's relation to the general plan nor the county's LOS Policy -- "in contrast to" other parts of the letter that were more specific in describing standards and stating whether they were met. As to the law of water -- CEQA review of wastewater disposal provisions, that is -- the court rejected plaintiffs' objections because it found wastewater treatment and disposal were adequately addressed, primarily through a plan to build a new wastewater facility, create an effluent pond in a former gravel quarry, and use treated wastewater for summertime irrigation, principally at the project itself. The court found inconsistencies in the EIR on the effluent pond's dimensions but worked past them and accepted evidence presented that effluent stored or used locally for irrigation either would not reach the San Joaquin River, or, if it did, would not harm it. It found the EIR presented sufficient detail overall on the volume of wastewater and its disposition -- especially after setting aside discussions of larger wastewater volumes that would have been called for by larger, unapproved versions of the project. The court rejected complaints that the draft and final EIRs gave too little attention to the hydrogeology of the proposed quarry pond (an issue that the Sierra Club was still reportedly disputing two weeks ago). In doing so, the court distinguished its own 1994 ruling in San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus , 27 Cal.App.4th 713, saying that, when it found the draft EIR inadequate in that earlier case, it "did not establish new rules of law heightening the disclosure required in a draft EIR or preventing a final EIR from curing a draft EIR's omission of information." Regardless, the court said that in the 1994 case the final EIR was also deficient and "Our holding referred to the final EIR, not the draft." Further, it said the Friant Ranch draft EIR was more specific than the 1994 document to begin with, and then evidence from competing experts had further filled out the administrative record. Turning to air quality analysis under CEQA, the court said the EIR provided more detail than the one previously found deficient in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 but it was still "short on analysis." It said the Friant Ranch EIR failed sufficiently to connect the dots from the county's existing serious air pollution problems, to the volume of pollution likely to be added by traffic to the new project, to the likely specific effects of those emissions, such as health detriments or days when local air quality standards would not be attained. It found this problem had been sufficiently raised in administrative proceedings because the City of Fresno's objecting letter said the EIR had failed to "disclose the human health related effects of the Project's air pollution impacts." The court's toughest assessment was of a "mitigation measure" that was actually a list of approaches such as saving energy and encouraging bicycle use. In the nonresidential development areas, the EIR offered mitigations including shade trees in paved areas and catalyst-equipped HVAC systems in the buildings. The list came with an assurance that the mitigations would reduce pollution "substantially". The court said the EIR was not at fault for failing to explain more carefully how or how much the listed mitigation measures would help, though saying it shouldn't claim pollution reductions would be "substantial" without giving evidence to back up the claim. On the other hand, the court did insist that the actions to be taken needed to be spelled out somehow: either the EIR should give specific descriptions up front of promised actions whose performance the county could enforce at need, or if it called for "deferred formulation of mitigation", it should provide "specific performance criteria" for designing such measures later. The decision said neither was the case for many of the mitigation measures proposed, and that use of a hedging phrase, "where feasible and appropriate", was not reassuring, but only "add to the vagueness". (This central part of the ruling was reminiscent of the recent Woodland case, though it's not cited. See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3472). The court found the county did adequately consider whether compensation through off-site emission reduction programs might help, in that it said the possibility was going to be considered during the air district's Indirect Source Review. For full approval, the project would need to be approved by regional water and air quality boards as well as the county. The case is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F066798.PDF.

It's easier at this point in the legislative season to say which bills are dead than which ones have a chance. This is a quick rundown of bills we've been following, plus a few more. For descriptive notes on many of the bills' provisions see our prior discussion at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3498 and as linked from there. Cap and Trade seems to be in high-level horse-trading mode. Only Jerry Brown, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and the legislative leadership know for sure how this one will end. The latest iteration of Steinberg's legislative proposal appeared June 3 in a Senate budget committee hearing at http://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/FullC/June032014SBFRCapandTradeAgenda.pdf. Comparison with the original April version, available at California Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG) site at http://www.calcog.org/index.aspx?nid=96, shows the Steinberg proposal has given some ground, dropping from 40% to 20% the portion of cap and trade proceeds that would go to "affordable housing and sustainable communities", and within that dropping the percentage for affordable housing from Steinberg's original 20% down to 10%. See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3494 for the main starting points of proposals in that area, which have been the subject of many hopes for transportation and housing funding this session.  Bills that are now procedurally dead include: SB 1132, fracking limits. SB 1260, housing set-aside in post-redevelopment tax increment financing AB 2175, renters' rebates AB 2729, Infrastructure Financing Bank expansion SB 391, raise funds for affordable housing with real estate recording fees SB 1270, limits on surface mining SB 1451, raising procedural bars for would-be CEQA litigants, is also done for this year, having failed to pass out of its house of origin. Next year's CEQA sequel has already begun: staffers with the State Senate Environmental Quality and Judiciary Committees are circulating a survey to "stakeholders" on the issue. It asks broad open-ended questions on how best to revise the CEQA environmental process and seeks responses before next September 1. The attached copy was provided by a recipient of the emailed letter. The following remained live bills after the May 30 "house of origin" deadline: SB 1439, Ellis Act restrictions, was turned down in the State Senate on the Wednesday before Friday's deadline but then won approval on reconsideration in a dramatic Thursday lobbying push. There's an insider blow-by-blow account by San Francisco's Randy Shaw at http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=12670. AB 2372, limited Prop 13 reform on business reassessments, "was modified enough to gain support" by the CA Chamber of Commerce and passed into the Senate, per the Sacramento Bee at http://bit.ly/1kyv05I. See also SF's smart Socketsite blog at http://bit.ly/1hx4TNl. SB 1021, limited parcel tax rate variability AB 1537, change Marin County's status from "urban" to "suburban" to downzone default housing density from 30 to 20 units per acre. Lots of critical comment is around on this one, including Planetizen with links to Marin IJ coverage at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-69031 and a critique from attorney and climate/transit scholar Ethan Elkind suggesting the measure could be a corrosive precedent against the enforceability of housing elements: http://www.ethanelkind.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-californias-affordable-housing-requirements/ SB 968, public access to Martin's Beach; recent coverage in the San Mateo Daily Journal at http://bit.ly/Sr6k3Z . SB 1424, City of Martinez tidelands transfer. See http://martinezgazette.com/archives/13910, and an exceptionally detailed legislative summary on history behind control of the Martinez marina via http://bit.ly/1kAWOqahttp://basecamp.com/ SB 2135, affordable housing priority for surplus public land. AB 2104, overriding HOA landscaping rules to save water, shown at http://bit.ly/1knvkVP as calendared for a June 10 State Senate hearing. SB 270, ban single-use carryout bags AB 2493, post-Redevelopment release of $750 million in project funds to cities. SB 1129, post-Redevelopment cleanup AB 2280, re-create some elements of Redevelopment with a housing emphasis AB 1404, allow and require San Francisco Redevelopment's successor agency to rebuild over 5000 affordable housing units lost to the city through "urban renewal" demolitions 1955-1975 AB 2292, expand infrastructure financing districts specifically for Oakland freight and ex-military sites that are already redevelopment targets. AB 2549, local commission on Milpitas' post-Redevelopment funding losses. AB 2417, for "purple pipe" distribution of recycled water AB 1739/SB1168, groundwater management: see http://www.acwa.com/news/water-news/groundwater-bills-move-forward-legislature. AB 2453, Paso Robles water district governance by a locally controversial "hybrid" board structure: see http://pasoroblesdailynews.com/state-assembly-passes-bill-permit-paso-robles-water-basin-district/21199/ SB 1077, pilot program imposing auto tax based on miles traveled SB 69/AB 1521, restore Vehicle License Fee revenue for newly created municipalities such as Jurupa Valley. AB 1513, Residential property: possession by declaration AB 1999, state historic rehabilitation tax credit AB 2145, new rules on community choice aggregation for clean electrical power: opponents' site with many municipal endorsers at http://www.no2145.org/; IBEW union argument in favor: http://bit.ly/1rIUTEB ; State legislative site, which links to recent floor analyses, at http://bit.ly/1p5rUqk SB 1199, designate almost 37 miles of the Mokelumne River as "wild and scenic": http://on.news10.net/1iQE0ym Floor analyses available via http://bit.ly/1l3Dfq7 show long lists of endorsers for and against.

Below are a dozen picked results from June 3 local ballot measures affecting land use. Links are included here to more detailed county results pages. A community plan near the shipyards in San Diego was defeated while a proposed waterfront height limit passed in San Francisco. South Lake Tahoe defeated paid parking kiosks, Half Moon Bay picked the go-slow option for a bridge repair, Monterey Park narrowly approved a small development project, Marin County approved a farmer's market structure near the Frank Lloyd Wright civic center, and Lake County approved a sales tax for lake cleanup. Watsonville voted in a strict rule that puts future place-naming choices to a public vote. California's statewide electorate passed ballot measures on veterans' housing and local government transparency. Statewide results are at http://vote.sos.ca.gov/. The Secretary of State's directory of county election offices is at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_d.htm. June 3 Election Results Tally El Dorado County -- City of South Lake Tahoe Measure P: End a kiosk-based parking fee program in busy tourist areas. See http://www.cityofslt.us/index.aspx?NID=743 and http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/06/03/ca/ed/meas/P/ Lake Tahoe News endorsement against: http://www.laketahoenews.net/2014/05/editorial-vote-measure-p/ Op-ed in Tahoe Daily Tribune in favor: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/southshore/11300378-113/parking-measure-vote-meters Follow results at: http://elections.edcgov.us/results.fwx Yes: 68.41% No: 31.59% Percent Reporting: 6 of 6 precincts Lake County Measure L: Increase sales tax in the county by a half-cent for 10 years to pay for  the eradication of weeds, algae and invasive mussels from Clear Lake, the restoration of wetlands in the county and the improvement of water quality. Because it's a tax, a two-thirds vote is required. http://ballotpedia.org/Lake_County_%22Healthy_Lake_Tax%22_Sales_Tax,_Measure_L_(June_2014) Proponents' site: http://savethelake.info/ Critical semi-endorsement from Record-Bee outdoors columnist Terry Knight: http://www.record-bee.com/outdoors/ci_25805517/measure-l-beats-doing-nothing Follow results at: http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/ROV.htm http://acm.co.lake.ca.us/elections/results/result26.htm#c9909 Yes: 63.9% No: 36.1% Percent Reporting: 70 of 70 precincts Note: The measure did not receive its required 2/3 vote. Los Angeles County -- City of Monterey Park Measure A: Approve a general plan amendment and a rezoning of commercial land to permit the Olson Co. to construct an 80-unit residential development on an undeveloped 9-acre parcel of land on Potrero Grande Drive near Resurrection Cemetery, just off the 60 freeway. The vote is required by a 1982 city ballot measure that requires voter approval for a change in land use designation. Olson is a Seal Beach-based developer specializing in townhome and small-lot-single-family infill projects. More information in the following City Council staff report: http://www.ci.monterey-park.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/02192014-569 Follow results at: http://rrccmain.co.la.ca.us/14062043/2043_CITIES_Frame.htm Yes: 52.45% No: 47.55% Percent Reporting: 24 of 24 precincts Los Angeles County -- City of Signal Hill Measure U: Require a 2/3 vote for all "taxes, assessments and fees" and sunset them after 10 years. See http://bit.ly/1wf6H1h. Measure U is supported by a group called Signal Hill Community First (http://www.signalhillfirst.org/) The Long Beach Press Telegram reports supporters lost a challenge to the way the city presented the measure on the ballot: http://bit.ly/1nkMTnX. Just a few days before the election, disagreement continued on the measure's scope, including whether it would apply to impact fees and other fees developed as part of the land-use process: http://bit.ly/1rIexkb. The city claims it will lose 13% of local tax revenue as a result of the measure. Follow results at: http://rrccmain.co.la.ca.us/14062043/2043_CITIES_Frame.htm Yes: 34.30% No: 65.70% Percent Reporting: 6 of 6 precincts Marin County Measure B: Create permanent structures for a farmers' market at Frank Lloyd Wright's historic Marin Civic Center building. The Marin IJ supports the measure and recounts some history of the prior referendum that led to strict voter-approval requirements for changes around the Marin Civic Center building, at http://bit.ly/1ns5gLk. See also http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/06/03/ca/mrn/meas/B/and a snarkier appraisal of the plan (with some cinematic history of the Civic Center complex) at http://www.northbaybiz.com/Columnists/Only_in_Marin/Organically_Grown.php. Follow results at: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/rv/election-info/election-results Yes: 81.14% No: 18.86% Percent Reporting: 157 of 157 precincts -- Measure O: Establish a policy preference in favor of a publicly owned water district. Opposed by Californian American Water. A court ruled the ballot description couldn't say Measure O would guarantee public ownership and save money. See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3467 on that issue. The county Supervisors voted to oppose it: http://bit.ly/1oSKYKT Cal American has reportedly outspent proponents by 24 to 1: http://bit.ly/1n9DUGH Follow results at: http://www.montereycountyelections.us/Election%20Result.htm Yes: 43.61% No: 56.39% Percent Reporting: 55 of 55 precincts Riverside County -- City of Desert Hot Springs Proposition F: Raise parcel tax on vacant land within the city from $29.80 to $372.68 per acre, to be spent only on public safety services. Not strictly a land use measure but of interest as a municipal finance move because city officials placed it on the ballot to avoid a second municipal bankruptcy. See http://www.pe.com/articles/city-695413-measure-council.html and http://www.cityofdhs.org/Elections. Follow results at: http://www.voteinfo.net/Elections/20140603/eresults/Election%20Result.htm Yes: 62.92% No: 37.08% Percent Reporting: 7 of 7 precincts San Diego County -- City of San Diego Propositions B and C: Approve the City Council's approval of the Barrio Logan Community Plan and associated changes in the zoning code. Industrial landowners placed the measures on the ballot after failing to reach a compromise with community-based organizations in the old neighborhood adjacent to the San Diego shipyards, where residential and industrial uses are intermixed. The issue is discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3473. Recent debate has centered on whether the city-approved plan would actually make air quality worse: http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/05/19/fact-check-clearing-the-air-in-barrio-logan/ LA Times report of June 2: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-barrio-logan-20140602-story.html Follow results at: http://www.sdvote.com/voters/results/results.shtml -- (Disclosure: William Fulton, publisher of CP&DR, is Planning Director for San Diego.) Measure B: Yes: 41.53% No: 58.47% Measure C: Yes: 39.50% No: 60.50% Percent Reporting: 697 of 697 precincts City and County of San Francisco Measure B: require a vote for all future height limit variances on the waterfront. The measure lost some of its point when the Warriors basketball team management gave up their contested effort to build an arena on Piers 30-32 near the Golden Gate Bridge, and instead picked an arena site farther south in Mission Bay near Third and 16th Streets. Considerable future development plans are still at stake, however, notably for the old Union Iron Works property at Pier 70. For Measure B see http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=4279 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3443. On the Warriors see http://bit.ly/Q9kLbg. On Pier 70, which for years was a backwater of warehouses, studios and car impound storage, see developer Forest City's plans at http://pier70sf.com/ and artist Wendy MacNaughton's impressions at http://pier70community.com/. Measure B proponents' page: http://www.nowallonthewaterfront.com/news An opponent's argument: http://urbanlifesigns.blogspot.com/2014/06/no-sea-of-parking-on-waterfront.html Follow results at: http://www.sfelections.org/results/20140603/ Yes: 59.42% No: 40.58% Percent Reporting: 597 of 597 precincts San Mateo County -- Half Moon Bay Measure E: Allow the city to demolish the Main Street bridge and build a new, wider bridge that would include accessible walkways. Backed by the City Council. Measure F: Conduct more modest renovations of the bridge and require any future attempt to demolish the bridge to be approved by voters. The measure would also make preservation of the "historical, visual, and physical integrity (including appearance and character)" of the bridge the official policy of the city of Half Moon Bay. Caltrans recently gave the bridge a sufficiency rating of 24 out of 100. SMCounty Daily Journal pre-election coverage: http://bit.ly/1qSd7mU Comment pro-F: http://bit.ly/1kue3Jd Comment anti-F: http://bit.ly/1p4ZFrJ Fierce local chat page argument: http://talkaboutwidget.hmbreview.com/topic.php?t=9611&c=4 Follow results at: https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2014/june/ Measure E: Yes: 38.25% No: 61.75% Measure F: Yes: 64.41% No: 35.59% Percent Reporting: 8 of 8 precincts San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties Measure AA: Issue $300 million in bonds, to be paid off over 20 to 30 years, for habitat preservation, trails and visitor amenities in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Required a two-thirds overall vote. Supporters at http://www.openspace.org/news/bond_measure.asp say the final result across the three counties voting was "over 67%." The vote was taken in parts of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and a small area of Santa Cruz County. San Mateo County results: https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2014/june/ Yes: 66.28% No: 33.72% Santa Clara County results: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/51635/131405/Web01/en/summary.html Yes: 68.81% No: 31.19% Santa Cruz County results: http://www.votescount.com/jun14/results.htm Yes: 50% No: 50% Supporters claimed a favorable vote of over 67% across three counties. Precints reporting: San Mateo Co.: 200 of 200 Santa Clara Co.: 296 of 296 Santa Cruz Co.: 1 of 1 Santa Clara County -- City of Los Gatos Measure A: The "Albright Way Initiative" would authorize the appropriate changes in zoning and construction code regulations to allow a development project to go forward, creating two 65-foot tall buildings, two 50-foot tall buildings and a 35-foot tall parking garage at 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard. The project is envisioned in part as an office for Netflix. Currently, the town's General Plan limits construction in this area to only 35 feet in height. Opponents and proponents of the measure settled the essential disputes over the property's future in March, making the initiative itself superfluous, but by then it was too late to withdraw the measure from the ballot. See http://www.mercurynews.com/los-gatos/ci_25284048/los-gatos-albright-way-lawsuit-settled-but-election and http://bit.ly/1puHMlP, and see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3443 on the dispute over signature gathering that preceded the measure's placement on the ballot. Follow results at: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/51635/131405/Web01/en/summary.html Yes: 71.69% No: 28.31% Percent Reporting: 26 of 26 precincts Santa Cruz County -- City of Watsonville Measure J: Require a citywide election to decide on the new names of any public places, such as parks, public buildings, bridges, plazas, courtyards and airports. The name selection process would allow each of the seven City Council members to propose a name for the public place in question. The names would all be put before voters at an election, and the name receiving the most votes would become official. The measure emerged from a 2010 plan to name Watsonville Plaza for Dolores Huerta of the United Farmworkers. See http://bit.ly/1nv8vPK. Follow results at: http://www.votescount.com/jun14/results.htm Yes: 64.55% No: 35.45% Percent Reporting: 17 of 17 precincts

On May 23 the Strategic Growth Council announced recommendations for the $16 million in its third and last round of planning grants under Proposition 84. The 33 recommended awards go before the Council for approval June 3. See http://bit.ly/1lOYfO3. Santa Barbara creates a land conservation bank The state and federal fish and wildlife services have approved the 853-acre La Purisima Conservation Bank, which places easements on "critically important grasslands and oak woodlands" outside Lompoc. The project will sell mitigation credits to developers. See http://bit.ly/1jX0r9k. Costa Mesa wins back $10.3 million Redevelopment loan The City of Costa Mesa is celebrating a clawback of a clawback in the state post-Redevelopment finance wars. In a jubilant press release, the city said the state Department of Finance agreed that a $10.3 million loan made by the city to its redevelopment agency was owed back to the city. The city statement said DOF would pay $782,983 up front, and would work out a payment schedule for the rest. For the city statement, see http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=40&recordid=1445. The OC Register has more detail at http://www.ocregister.com/articles/state-615593-costa-mesa.html. Drought and Water Notes The State Water Resources Control Board issued the first of what may be more "curtailment" orders blocking water use by some holders of post-1914 water rights. On its May 20-21 agenda, the main curtailment discussion, on rights in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, appeared at first as a resolution proposed for approval but was changed to a public workshop to receive comments. The board did pass a curtailment resolution "due to insufficient flow for specific fisheries" for three creeks feeding the Sacramento River in Tehama County. See the May 20 entries at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/calendar/ and http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/mill_deer_antelope_creeks.shtml. Conservation groups sought to extend the comment period on the massive BDCP plan text, which is schedule to expire June 13. See sacb.ee/1lWGlLS. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's drought bill passed the U.S. Senate after weeks of delay, after giving up $300 million in drought relief funds. The bill, SB 2198, has worried environmentalists because of provisions for more water pumping from the Sacramento River Delta. The bill now goes to conference with House Republican leaders. See http://bit.ly/1jqdRFZ. A group of water officials have asked the Ninth Circuit for en banc review of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell . See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3448 for CP&DR's prior discussion and http://bit.ly/1k38QYN for an update from the Nossaman firm. Bakersfield Californian columnist Lois Henry wrote a furiously critical column on the entry of the Tejon Ranch into the business of selling water to other users, with the hovering possibility that it might eventually use the water rights it has been purchasing to supply its multiple pending housing and business developments. See http://bit.ly/SQAcas. In other news -- The Long Beach Press-Telegram reports the California Attorney General has filed a motion to intervene in the dispute between Long Beach and Los Angeles over the 153-acre BNSF rail yard upgrade project. See http://bit.ly/SfmcGB. California's Air Resources Board held its seventh cap-and-trade auction, selling almost $195 million in 2014 credits and almost $46 million in 2017 credits. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=616.. Unsuccessful parties and others have filed requests to depublish the Woodland "urban blight" EIR case that we discussed at www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3472. For a little discussion see http://www.ceqadevelopments.com/2014/05/12/spring-2014-ceqa-roundup/. The updated online docket is at http://bit.ly/1qrIrFt. San Franciscans filed an appeal seeking CEQA review of a city decision to repeal the recent imposition of Sunday parking meter charges.: http://bit.ly/1kHAISc

Ever since I moved to San Diego last year without owning a car, people have felt sorry for me. They offer me rides. They wonder where I buy groceries. They ask me how I feel about being nature-deprived. They ask me how I can stand to ride the bus. I usually smile and nod and acknowledge what they are saying and tell them it really isn't so bad. I rarely tell them that they are making a fundamental mistake: They are equating owning a car with using a car. I belong to Zipcar, and there are two Zipcars parked at all times in the parking garage in my apartment building – a MiniCooper wagon and a Ford Escape SUV – that I can rent whenever I want. In fact, they are located closer to the elevator than my two eternally vacant parking spaces. I also belong to Car2Go. Right now, my smartphone tells me there are six two-seater SmartCars parked within 1,000 feet of my apartment, all available for me to rent on a per-minute basis. Avis is located four blocks away. Sometimes I rent a car for the weekend, though that seems awfully old fashioned these days. When I have to drive for work – my office is five blocks from my apartment – I have access to the city motor pool, which is located right downstairs in a parking lot outside my office building. I usually take a taxi to the airport (two miles away); from my apartment window I can see whether there are any taxis waiting for a fare at the Doubletree Hotel across the street. And when I don't know what else to do I call Uber X.  Right now my smartphone says there are five Uber X vehicles within four blocks of my apartment. Cars? I have more cars than I know what to do with. I use cars all the time, in order to go all kinds of places, and I am never without access to a car.  My overall automobile cost is probably less than half of what it was when I owned a car – because I usually pay for a car only when I am traveling in it, not when it is just parked somewhere. I'm well aware that I am on the leading edge of this whole "car-sharing" thing and that the vast majority of people don't have the same options because of where they live and work. But the fact that I am doing just fine without owning a car in a traditionally suburban place like San Diego suggests that something important is going on, at least in modern urban neighborhoods: Our complete reliance on a "monoculture" of owner-occupied automobiles is being augmented with a much more varied ecosystem that includes not just alternatives to driving, but many different ways to use a car. The urban transportation infrastructure obviously also includes walking, bicycling, and rail and bus passenger service. (Because I limited my discussion above only to cars, I didn't even mention that I can walk to the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego from either my apartment or my office, making it easy for me to get to downtown Los Angeles without a car.) In California cities, these choices have not traditionally been "robust," as they say. But when they are augmented by the range of car-sharing options I listed above, the entire system becomes a much more powerful option. You can take a regular bus or train to a destination and then use a car-sharing service like Uber X if you get stuck later on in the evening when service is bad or nonexistent. (I have done this several times.) Or – perhaps most important – you can use a car-sharing service as the "last-mile" solution to get to and from a rail stop. (This is part of the reason why car-sharing services have been more successful in Los Angeles than even the vendors thought they would be. In such a spread-out city, solving the last-mile problem is huge.) At the recent Southern California Association of Governments annual general assembly, transportation infrastructure guru Dan Sturges noted that any successful transportation system has to function like the vines that Tarzan uses in the jungle. Swinging from one vine isn't enough. The next vine always has to be there, ready to grab, or else the whole system falls apart. All transportation systems work like this, but if they work well we don't even notice. For example, we routinely take off on long car trips, confident that the infrastructure of well-placed gas stations will be available to us before we run out of gas. The same is true for car-sharing. The more options we have, the more powerful the system becomes. We can move about the city using lots of them, confident that the next swinging vine will always be there. Obviously, many people – especially in suburban locations – will always have activity patterns that will require them to own their own cars, drive them everywhere, and leave them parked most of the time. But for even semi-urban locations – such as old close-in single-family neighborhoods adjacent to commercial corridors – the swinging vine option is pretty viable. Indeed, the swinging vines can help transform these neighborhoods much faster than public transit alone ever could do. And success is likely to feed on itself. The more people use these options, the less parking these neighborhoods are going to need. Obviously, heavy use of Uber or Lyft cars, which are constantly circling around, reduces the need for parking. But research also suggests that one Car2Go or Zipcar – which the user has to park somewhere – has a similar impact becauseas a short-term rental car it will be driven more and parked less. Plus you can park two Car2Go SmartCars in one parking space. When less parking is needed, more land can be devoted to new buildings, which means a greater concentration of both people and destinations in one place, which means even less need for parking and greater opportunities for using the swinging vine. From this perspective, the traditional suburban model seems pretty archaic – and expensive. Cars that are parked virtually all the time, at great expense to their owners? Huge amounts of land devoted to parking that could be devoted to more profitable or more human-scale uses? How rigid! How inflexible! How expensive! How 20th-Century! Obviously, this suburban model will be with us for a long time because so many people live and work in suburban locations – often with long commutes. They will have little choice but to own their own car, drive it everywhere they go, and park it virtually all the time. And huge numbers of people will continue to make the suburban choice. But for urban and semi-urban neighborhoods, car sharing seems like an almost miraculous way out of the conflict between density and driving. And in those neighborhoods, the ongoing and often inevitable transition away from the suburban model will become more viable, cheaper, and much easier to plan for.

With the June 15 Constitutional budget deadline approaching , it's getting easier if not easy to pick state bills that have a chance this season. A few measures affecting land use and planning didn't survive the suspense file or were otherwise pulled. But a lot is still up in the air. Cap and Trade - The Sacramento Bee's Dan Walters is reporting at http://bit.ly/1h9bbT0 that three proposals are now in play for the use of cap-and-trade carbon auction proceeds for environmental, transit and housing purposes. We've discussed two of them previously at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3494: Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's proposal, with its strong emphasis on transit-oriented affordable housing, and the prior proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown. Walters reports, however, that a third version was adopted by the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee as of May 23 with $450 million for transit and rail and some "sustainable communities" funding. Prop 13 Reform - AB 2372 , which would block a split-ownership tactic for avoiding business property reassessments, passed out of the Assembly suspense file May 23. As we've also discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3494, the measure has historic support from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The state's tracking page on the bill with text, status and a committee analysis is at http://bit.ly/1i0mbN1. A bill to restore some limited variation in parcel tax rates, Sen. Lois Wolk's SB 1021 , also discussed in our prior writeup, had passed the state Senate and has been with the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation since May 12. If you're keeping score at home: a suspense file tally - The California Special Districts Association posted spreadsheets on Dropbox of bills' fates in the May 23 hearings on Assembly and State Senate suspense files. See  http://bit.ly/1tKgJVX for the Assembly and http://bit.ly/1nsbj2l for the Senate. One edgy bill that made it out of the suspense file was SB 1132 , the anti-fracking measure by State Sens. Holly Mitchell and Mark Leno. It passed with clarifying amendments. For more see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3475 and http://bit.ly/RiQt7c. Mitchell, a Los Angeles Democrat, has expressed concern for her district as close to "the largest urban oil field in the country" in Inglewood. SB 1260 , the DeSaulnier bill for a 25% affordable housing set-aside requirement on either Redevelopment-type or IFD tax-increment districts, did not make it off the suspense file at the May 23 Senate Appropriations hearing. Another ambitious housing bill, AB 2175 (Daly & Ting) to strengthen renters' rebates, also stayed stuck in the Assembly suspense file May 23. AB 1537 (Levine) - This bill to change Marin County's status from urban to suburban would reduce default zoning densities for the county from 30 to 20 units. The Marin IJ has analysis at http://bit.ly/TQD1Jd. The measure passed the Assembly May 19 and was awaiting committee assignment in the Senate Rules Committee. SB 968 (Hill) - Billionare Vinod Khosla has reportedly hired lobbyists to fight SB 968, Sen. Jerry Hill's bill to have the State Lands Commission negotiate the purchase from Khosla of Martin's Beach, a popular privately owned beach in San Mateo County that Khosla closed to public access. The public had long been allowed to visit there for the cost of parking in a private lot. (See http://bit.ly/1pv2UIs.) Despite a reported lobbying push against the measure, SB 968 made it out of the Senate Appropriations suspense file May 23 by a vote of 5-2. SB 270 (Padilla) - State Sen. Alex Padilla, also a candidate for California Secretary of State, continued to advance his bill for a statewide plastic bag ban, SB 270. Sacramento Bee columnist Mariel Garza wrote this weekend at http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/18/6411959/mariel-garza-ban-single-use-plastic.html that Padilla was facing attack ads from the plastic industry over the matter. But the bill has passed the Senate, has survived one Assembly committee vote, and next goes to Assembly Appropriations. AB 2493 (Bloom) - Post-Redevelopment funds retention This bill by Assemblymember Bloom, D-Santa Monica, would return some $750 million to successor agencies to finish redevelopment projects. By the end of April it had passed two Assembly policy committees and had passed out of the suspense file at Assembly Appropriations. For Bloom's comments in the local Santa Monica Lookout see http://bit.ly/1jwkF9e. The League of California Cities, which supports it, has a tracking page and support letter at http://bit.ly/Q8J612. SB 1129 (Steinberg) - SB 1129, a post-redevelopment cleanup bill with League of California Cities support, would give cities' successor agencies more authority in several areas, notably to enter contracts. It was heard May 5 in Senate Appropriations and passed out of the suspense file with amendments on May 23, receiving a second reading and further amendment May 27 on the Senate floor. For an endorsement statement by the City of Glendale see http://bit.ly/SvBvvz. The League's comments on this and a crop of other March-introduced bills on the Redevelopment wind-down are at http://bit.ly/1igufww. SB 1 (Steinberg) - This bill emphasizing transit-oriented "smart growth," in a quasi-revival of Redevelopment, remains on the "Inactive" file. For background on this and other efforts to fill the vacuum left by Redevelopment's demise see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3480   AB 2280 (Alejo) - This bill to re-create some elements of Redevelopment with a housing emphasis passed the Assembly May 8 and was referred to two Senate policy committees. See League of Cities analysis at http://bit.ly/OUOtRg. SB 33 (Wolk) -  SB 33, which would remove the requirement of a popular vote from infrastructure finance districts, remained formally dormant but still informally under consideration, as discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3480. AB 2729 (Medina) - Would expand use of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, or "I-Bank" to finance more infrastructure surrounding shipping and transport. Brought to a hearing for discussion April 22 but not moving at present. AB 1404 (Leno) - San Francisco Redevelopment housing backlog San Francisco-specific SB 1404, originated by the city government, passed the State Senate May 12 and went to two Assembly policy committees. The measure would both require and allow the successor to the city's redevelopment agency to replace over 5000 units of affordable housing that were destroyed during 1955-1975 "urban renewal". See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3480. AB 2292 (Bonta) - Freight rail, redevelopment sites AB 2292, per the Assembly Local Government committee's analysis, would "allow an infrastructure financing district in the Oakland Army Base, Howard Terminal or Coliseum City in the City of Oakland to finance public capital facilities or projects that include freight rail." All three sites are subjects of major redevelopment planning; the latter two are competing sites for pro sports stadiums. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3476.) Per the author's statement in the analysis, "we need to include freight rail as an eligible expense for IFDs" to improve the city's transportation capacity and emissions reduction through rail use. The measure was ordered to a third reading in the Assembly on May 23. AB 2549 (Ridley-Thomas) - Milpitas post-redevelopment The Assembly has passed AB 2549, to create a local commission to address Milpitas' especially deep post-Redevelopment funding losses. It is before the State Senate's Governance and Finance Committee. SB 391 (DeSaulnier) - Affordable housing via recording fees SB 391, which would raise funds for affordable housing with real estate recording fees, remains formally before Assembly Appropriations, having passed the Senate last year. It did not go anywhere in the May 23 suspense file hearings. AB 2417 (Nazarian) - Recycled water AB 2417, on "purple pipe" distribution of recycled water, passed the Assembly May 23 and moved to the Senate. It would create an exemption from CEQA for new or existing recycled water pipelines of less than eight miles. The Associaton of California Water Agencies (ACWA), which backs the measure, had background in April at http://www.acwa.com/news/state-legislation/acwa-sponsored-ab-2417-clears-first-committee. AB 1739 (Dickinson) - Groundwater management Another ACWA-backed bill, AB 1739, passed out of the suspense file May 23. Per the water committee's legislative analysis it would require "sustainable groundwater management in all groundwater subbasins determined by the Department of Water Resources... to be at medium to high risk of significant economic, social and environmental impacts due to an unsustainable and chronic pattern of groundwater extractions exceeding the ability of the surface water supplies to replenish the subbasin." See http://www.acwa.com/news/groundwater/assembly-committee-approves-groundwater-legislation SB 1077 (DeSaulnier) - SB 1077, which calls for a tax based on vehicle miles traveled, made it out of the suspense file May 23. The Southern California Association of Governments has been talking it up (see http://bit.ly/1nkxKTG) but the measure was questioned last fall on privacy grounds (see http://lat.ms/1jwnuHj). SB 1439 (Leno) - Ellis Act restrictions State Sen. Mark Leno's Ellis Act restriction measure, SB 1439 (discussed previously at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3477) now has a heavy weight of tech industry endorsers behind it (see http://beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=12611). The measure went to a third reading May 13 in the Senate. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano's AB 2405, which would have limited the Ellis Act more strongly and provided tenant litigants with other procedural protections, failed to clear the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 29. SB 1451 (Hill & Roth) - CEQA procedural restrictions A widely shared commentary by the Miller Starr Regalia law firm at http://bit.ly/1q9qPkX is arguing for SB 1451, which would limit the ways petitioners could place allegations of CEQA violations on the record. Principally, it would exclude allegations from court review if the alleged violations were known, or could have been known with reasonable diligence, during the public comment period, but were brought to the agency's attention at another time. The legislative summary and the Miller Starr essay describe the measure as designed to stop use of "document dumping" as a tactic to delay a decision or preserve a record. The bill has passed the State Senate Environmental Quality Committee. However, it may be doomed for this season: a hearing set for May 6 in Judiciary was canceled at the author's request, and Arthur Coon, author of the law firm's commentary, posted again May 27 saying he had been told the bill was stopped by "organized labor interests." See http://bit.ly/SfjoZW. SB 69 (Roth) and AB 1521 (Fox) - Restore Vehicle License Fee revenue These two somewhat different measures, both supported by the League of Cities (and discussed previously at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3464), would restore features of the 2004-2005 budget deal's "VLF-property tax swap" and transfer back vehicle license fee income to local jurisdictions, undoing the work of 2011's SB 89, which repurposed the vehicle license money to help with "realignment" additions to the functions of county carceral systems. (Compare http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/about_cdcr/docs/realignment-fact-sheet.pdf.) The two current bills would especially help recently created municipalities such as Jurupa Valley. Per an AB 1521 legislative analysis, "SB 89 had the effect of eliminating over $15 million in the Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLFA) revenues in 2011-12 from four newly incorporated cities (Menifee, Eastvale, Wildomar, and Jurupa Valley)." SB 69 passed the Senate last year, but with a different text focused on education funding. It was amended to substantially its current form in September 2013, then sat with formally unchanged status until it began to move in the Assembly a few weeks ago. It was read a second time and amended in the Assembly on May 6 and moved to the Rules Committee. AB 1521 made it off the suspense file May 23 in the Assembly. It passed the Assembly May 27 and is now before the Senate. The most recent floor analysis shows no opposition on file. AB 1513 (Fox) - Residential property: possession by declaration The California Association of Realtors was sponsoring a measure, also supported by the California Police Chiefs Association, described as meant to assist landlords, security companies and police in removing squatters from vacant properties. It would allow a landlord to declare ownership of a property, register it as vacant, and challenge allegedly unauthorized occupants to obtain or present proof of a right to remain within 48 hours. Some tenant activists had begun campaigns against the measure because they argued it could create an extrajudicial eviction process, giving landlords an end run around the more procedurally complex and time-consuming procedures of the standard California "unlawful detainer" eviction. (See e.g. http://bit.ly/RjmiN5 and http://killthebillcoalition.com/about/) Assembly bill analyses as posted on the measure's official page at http://bit.ly/1iooOZ2 set out the dispute in detail. Opponents listed as of the May 16 floor analysis included the statewide Tenants Together group and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The measure passed the Assembly May 19 and is with the Senate Rules Committee for assignment.

When a mobile home park's owner proposes to convert it from space rentals to resident ownership, a local agency must "consider" the results of a survey of resident support. Residents have never had the definite right to prevent conversion by a vote -- not even under the new SB 510, which allows (but does not require) local agencies to disapprove conversions based on lack of majority tenant support. But resident surveys do carry some weight. How much? In 218 Properties v. City of Carson , California's Second District Court of Appeal considered two conversion applications, filed in 2009, in which majorities of survey respondents opposed conversion. Although SB 510 was not binding for cases of that vintage, the court viewed the newer law as "instructive on what the Legislature may have envisioned all along." On that basis it found the Carson City Council properly disapproved a proposed conversion at the Park Granada Trailer Lodge, owned by 218 Properties, LLC, where 20 of 26 renters answered the survey and all 20 opposed conversion. However, it agreed with the trial court that the council should have allowed conversion of 225-space Imperial Avalon park, where only 82 residents responded to the survey: 46 against, 18 in favor, and "18 did not state an opinion". In mobile home park conversions, the very first sale of a previously rented space removes the whole surrounding park from local rent control. (After that first sale, state-level protections, which may be less strict, still limit rent increases for low-income tenants in conversions under Government Code Sec. 66427.5.) State law therefore requires a survey of residents' wishes as part of a local review to consider whether the park owner's true purpose in beginning to sell spaces is to switch entirely to resident ownership (viewed as legitimate)  or only to end the application of local rent control (viewed as a "sham"). Reviewing pre-2014 conversion law, the court cited Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1487 and Goldstone v. County of Santa Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1038 for the rule that local agencies are entitled to base some part of their conclusions on the residents' wishes. It cited Chino MHC, LP v. City of Chino (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1049 for the countervailing rule that (in its own paraphrase) "a local agency may rely on the survey to find the conversion is a sham, but it may not make that finding based solely on a lack of majority support among the residents for the conversion." Under Chino, it said, either majority disapproval or the landlord's subjective wish to avoid rent control was not enough to stop a conversion. In light of those cases plus the implications of SB 510, the court considered not only the surveys from the Park Granada and Imperial Avalon parks, but the overall realism of the respective owners' plans to convert to resident ownership. At the larger Imperial Avalon park, it said, the owner "expected to sell 25 to 35 percent of the park's lots to current residents in the first 180 days" -- but that was unlikely at Park Granada, where all the survey respondents opposed conversion and all or most residents were low-income. Lacking "overwhelming" evidence that the Park Granada property would truly convert to full resident ownership, the court agreed the council had acted properly in disapproving that conversion. Turning to an alternative argument by the city of Carson, the court found the Council also could not properly reject the Imperial Avalon conversion based on inadequacies in its required Tenant Impact Report. It agreed with the trial court that the Carson council could not properly second-guess a finding by the city's planning commission that the report was complete, and that if the council wanted more information it should have asked the owner for it before declaring the report insufficient. In concurring, Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow relinquished her prior dissenting opinion in an unpublished 2010 case, Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson , Case No. B211777, which, she wrote, was later denied review by the Supreme Court. She had argued that Sec. 66427.5 as it then stood did not allow a local agency to reject a conversion based on opposition in a residents' survey. Now, she wrote, in light of subsequent rulings and developments, "that view will no longer carry the day," and at any rate "Cases going forward... will need to be addressed under the new statute." The case is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B241969.PDF. Staff reports from the Carson Planning Department on the parks are at http://carson.ca.us/content/files/pdfs/planning/sr/2010-03-09/71207.pdf and http://ci.carson.ca.us/content/files/pdfs/planning/sr/2010-02-23/mobl.pdf.

(This is a companion article to our report on San Jose's stormwater and encampment challenges at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3495.) Leslee Hamilton, executive director of the Guadalupe River Park Conservancy , says "The biggest challenge to me being successful in my job is the presence of homeless people." Hamilton speaks glowingly of the Conservancy's programs in science and nature education, which reach about 4600 children a year. She says the program has a chance to inspire kids who have few other chances to study natural habitats. "Kids get off the bus here and their eyes get wide." But because of encampments, Hamilton said teachers sometimes feel unsafe and donors become concerned about safety. Though she saw the safety issue as "largely the perception," its effect is major: a report of a survey on the Guadalupe River Park showed 30 of 76 people who answered open-ended questions "mentioned homeless issues, security and/or safety." Among campers she meets, she said, there truly are some who "I don't feel safe interacting with." The Guadalupe River has been a subject of energetic camp evictions for more than 20 years, and was the subject of a flood-control and parks project on the Guadalupe River from 2001 to 2005. The project cost $327 million, including $99 million in Redevelopment funds -- sums that impose perspective on the homelessness response program budgets of a million or two at a time. (See http://www.sjredevelopment.org/ProjectGallery/GuadalupeRiverFloodControlFacts.pdf.) Part of the Conservancy's work is with the the area near the airport where the former large camp was evicted. It's a former subdivision where houses were demolished because of their nearness to the runways. She said volunteers there were growing roses and orchards: "We're slowly converting it to gardens." Detriments from continued encampments on the Guadalupe River are real, she said, ranging from runoff pollution to more inventive damage: shopping carts used as fish traps; makeshift stairs cut into the banks. A friend who does EIRs told her "someone would be in jail by now" if a business did anything similar. She pointed out a YouTube video dramatizing the contrasts: a naturalist who was fortunate to spot king salmon spawning in the urban reach of the river also filmed trash in the water nearby. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNMrODZ_Hgk Like many administrators speaking on the subject, Hamiilton mentioned a need for better regional cooperation among the small and sometimes insular municipalities of the South Bay. She saw the Los Angeles region as an encouraging model. Meanwhile, she noted, San Jose lost some affordable housing funds in the dissolution of Redevelopment, and rents kept going up. She had heard a developer say rents needed to rise even more downtown before it would "pencil out for him" to turn a downtown parking lot into housing. "Rents are so bloody high now, it's just hard to imagine," she said.

The transit-focused housing proposal from Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, is being portrayed as the main state-level hope for new affordable housing funds this legislative season. Redevelopment is gone, Gov. Brown's proposed successor institutions to Redevelopment are weak on housing, bond funds for housing are running low, and the veterans' housing bond issue on the June ballot carves out a  sympathetic subpopulation rather than address the whole need. So that leaves Steinberg's proposal for the proceeds from state cap-and-trade carbon auctions, which as proposed in April emphasized transit-oriented development and "smart growth", and called for at least 20% to go to affordable housing. We summarized the plan in April at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3477. The Governor's cap-and-trade proposal emphasizes high-speed rail, other transportation, and varied further projects with environmental preservation aspects (but with $100 million for grants via the Strategic Growth Council). It hasn't budged much in the May Revise per the CA League of Cities summary at http://bit.ly/1lDa76W. Backers of the Steinberg plan are promoting a study by the advocacy group TransForm (see http://bit.ly/1lkA5M8) reporting that poorer people who live near transit are more likely to use it than richer neighbors with the same access. See StreetsblogLA at http://bit.ly/1hZ78Dp for details, but also for a thoughtful argument in comments about whether U.S. transit construction patterns may put "transit villages" too near polluting freeways, with health consequences for residents. Meanwhile the Air Resources Board issued its greenhouse gas emissions inventory for 2012 in a bouncy press release at at http://bit.ly/1oP4AMF, but as parsed by the Environmental Leader publication at http://www.environmentalleader.com/2014/05/19/california-emissions-rise-1-6/ it shows a 1.7 percent increase from 2011 to 2012 in total greenhouse gas emissions -- see also the main report at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-12_report.pdf. The Air Resources Board's first AB32 scoping plan update appeared on its site May 15. See  http://bit.ly/QQx9NQ and http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Governor Brown is still stumping for his high-speed rail project, which he seeks to back with a large proportion of cap-and trade revenues, recently defending it passionately to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board: http://bit.ly/1sNWTH7. The estimated cost of the Fresno-to-Bakersfield segment rose another billion dollars in early May to $7.13 billion according to the LA Times at http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-bullet-train-costs-20140508-story.html. However, the state High Speed Rail Authority has approved the project's 20,000-page environmental impact report for that segment (http://bit.ly/1o0UvyS). Per the LA Times , "Construction on the first 29-mile segment through Fresno is supposted to start by July." 9th Cir upholds Salton Sea summary judgment (This summary was updated May 28, 2014) The Ninth Circuit ruled May 19 that Imperial County and its Air Pollution Control District had standing to sue the Department of the Interior over its Environmental Impact Statement allowing contracts for diversion of Colorado River water from the Imperial Valley to Southern California coastal water systems, principally San Diego's. However, it found the EIS was not wrong under the National Environmental Policy Act, and so the transfers properly went through. The concern in the EIS was that diverting water away from the Salton Sea would shrink it, exposing more fine dust along its shores and worsening local air quality. Finding that the district court made the right decision for partly wrong reasons, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court's grant of summary judgment to throw out the case. The Associated Press reported "Critics sued on similar grounds in state court and lost." http://bit.ly/1ilSQgg The case is State of California ex rel. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District v. U.S. Department of the Interior , at  http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/05/19/12-55856.pdf. Judicial Council speeds up CEQA calendars for "leadership" projects The California Judicial Council issued new rules April 25 on expediting CEQA appeals of large developments designated by the Governor as "leadership" projects under SB 743. SB 743 requires both the trial and appellate courts to complete CEQA review of "leadership" projects within 270 days starting with certification of the administrative record. The Council's report suggests it struggled to set rules that might help parties meet that extremely tight deadline by filing and serving petitions quickly after certification. Other rules on the expedited calendar include tightened briefing schedules, a case management conference within 30 days of the petition's filing, and a hearing on the merits 80 days after that. Notices of appeal must be filed within just five court days. For the whole rule text with its staff report see http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140425-itemM.pdf . A recording of the approval meeting is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/25710.htm. For details see http://www.ceqadevelopments.com/2014/05/12/spring-2014-ceqa-roundup/#more-812 and a detailed description from Holland & Knight at http://bit.ly/1h2wVKG. A Prop 13 breakthrough? AB 2372, by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, and Assembly Revenue & Taxation Committee Chair Raul Bocanegra, D-San Fernando Valley, has won surprising support from business and antitax groups, even the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, for a compromise that represents new willingness to nibble at the edges of Proposition 13. The measure would not disturb California's generations-old property tax freeze at its core, but would stop businesses from ducking reassessments of their new real estate purchases by dividing up formal ownership of new properties. The San Francisco Bay Guardian weekly credited the crucial difficult work of the negotiation to Bocanegra: http://bit.ly/1qR5I7n. The LA Times has more background at http://lat.ms/1jPJusv and, on the Jarvis organization's historic concession, at http://lat.ms/1mpihSR. The state's tracking page on the bill with text, status and a committee analysis is at http://bit.ly/1i0mbN1. To antitax groups, the measure could be a lesser evil rather than a desired goal. Former LA Times reporter Anthony York asked on his Twitter feed if the Jarvis group was "preempting split roll, or stoking momentum?" https://twitter.com/anthonyyork49/status/466609572653051904. The Sacramento Bee 's Dan Walters likewise suggested at http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/13/6402618/the-buzz-compromise-reached-on.html that "The deal falls well short of a full 'split roll', which would completely remove Proposition 13's limits from business property, long a goal of liberal groups." A bill actually is afoot in the Legislature that opponents are calling "split roll" but it's arguably not a "full split roll" either -- it's only an effort to legislatively overrule the 2013 case of Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District (analysis from Meyers Nave at http://bit.ly/1lXJM5d, text at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A129295A.PDF.) Sen. Lois Wolk's SB 1021 would allow school districts to impose variable rate parcel taxes according to property type. It has drawn opposition from the California Apartment Association (see http://www.caanet.org/news_events/caa-keep-fighting-split-roll-parcel-tax-fund-school-districts/) and an April legislative analysis lists a long string of further anti-tax and business opponents. The measure further seems to be a popular punching bag for right-wing bloggers online. However, as of May 12 it had passed the state Senate and was before its first Assembly committee. Drought and Water Notes Drops in the bucket of the ongoing water crisis:  The State Water Resources Control Board issued three different agenda revisions in preparation for its May 20-21 agenda, which will consider the possibility of "curtailment" orders blocking water use by some holders of post-1914 water rights. The main curtailment discussion, on rights in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, appeared at first as a resolution proposed for approval but now appears only as a public workshop to receive comments. A proposed curtailment resolution "due to insufficient flow for specific fisheries" still appears on the agenda but it only appears to affect three creeks feeding the Sacramento River in Tehama County. See the May 20 entries at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/calendar/. As of  June 1, a new agency will be managing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), also known as the Delta water tunnel project. The Sacramento Bee has details at http://bit.ly/ToEiXK. North Delta Community Area Residents for Environmental Stability was objecting that the BDCP had unfairly printed its 40,000-page EIR only in English although the report itself acknowledges that many residents speak only other languages, principally Spanish: http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=25830 The East Bay Express was calling the whole thing a "boondoggle": http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-water-tunnel-boondoggle/Content?oid=3922258 Recycled water is gaining ground as the drought continues. Healdsburg is now making available free municipal recycled water and Paso Robles is considering the same: http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=news&content=132713 ACWA's town-by-town tally of water-saving restrictions was updated May 13 at http://www.acwa.com/content/local-drought-response. It's a daunting read. The city of Ukiah was considering sharing water with groundwater-starved Redwood Valley (See http://bit.ly/1oM1NGZ -- and more on Redwood Valley at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3459.) Lake Cachuma, serving important parts of Santa Barbara County and now down to 36% of capacity, had agreed with local water managers to cut their allocations by 55%: http://bit.ly/1jPO6Pn Over opposition from the California Coastal Protection Network (see http://bit.ly/Sd3Iqm), Santa Barbara was moving towards reactivating its mothballed reverse-osmosis desalination plant: http://bit.ly/1mDeJe3 It estimated that going through with the restart would cost almost $29 million: http://bit.ly/1lCpyLj Hemet, San Juan Bautista, Hollister and Delano were having problems with nitrates in drinking water: http://www.pe.com/articles/water-693943-nitrate-nitrates.html http://www.pe.com/articles/water-693957-jensen-city.html http://bit.ly/1k1mI69 http://bit.ly/1j4He0u Slate reported 10% of California's water is going to almond farming: http://slate.me/1ov9Bww In other news -- The Los Angeles City Council was considering legalizing street vendors: http://bit.ly/Sd6kEQ There's a discussion of ideas for an LA food vendors' program at http://myla2050.maker.good.is/projects/streetvendors. Trial began over public access to Martin's Beach, a private stretch of the San Mateo County coast that the prior owner had opened to the public in exchange for a parking fee. Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla, the current owner, faced questioning in court from the Surfrider Foundation's attorney, the redoubtable Joe Cotchett. For the court drama, which has included a visit to the beach itself, see http://bit.ly/1kkqjvA and http://bit.ly/1gN8Bw2. The case is No. CIV 520336 in San Mateo County Superior Court, available via http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/civil/default.asp . The next item on calendar is a dispute over a subpoena to Khosla. The trial itself is now set to resume July 1, 2014. Unsuccessful parties and others have filed requests to depublish the Woodland "urban blight" EIR case that we discussed at www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3472. For a little discussion see http://www.ceqadevelopments.com/2014/05/12/spring-2014-ceqa-roundup/. The updated online docket is at http://bit.ly/1qrIrFt. State Sen. Alex Padilla, also a candidate for California Secretary of State, continued to advance his bill for a statewide plastic bag ban, SB 270. Sacramento Bee columnist Mariel Garza wrote this weekend at http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/18/6411959/mariel-garza-ban-single-use-plastic.html that Padilla was facing attack ads from the plastic industry over the matter. But the bill has passed the Senate, has survived one Assembly committee vote, and next goes to Assembly Appropriations. Sacramento's planned Kings arena would cost $477 million, of which $255 million would be a public subsidy, raised largely by a bond issue to be paid off partly by city parking revenues: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/18/6413166/will-sacramento-take-the-gamble.html They're counting on raising those parking revenues "by as much as 50 percent in the next seven years": http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/19/6414161/higher-parking-rates-are-central.html Forest City Development is already looking ahead past the likely June passage of San Francisco's Measure B on waterfront height limits. It's reportedly already working toward a November ballot measure to approve its planned major development on Pier 70, at the former vehicle impound lot that was previously the Union Iron Works shipyard. See http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-68840. And see below for an image taken at an open house last fall in the old factory's massive main Building 12. Until recent years the pictured corner was where impounded RVs went to await the crusher. Now it's airing out the ghosts and getting ready for new things.

<5/21/14: this article has been updated and corrected following further comments from jack liebster of marin county.> It wasn't on the epic scale of the Santa Monica Mountains fight, but the Coastal Commission heard passionate arguments about farmers' development rights for most of May 15 before approving a revised Marin County land use plan. Despite that approval, the meeting ended with two or three big battles still left to fight before the 1981 Local Coastal Program will be fully revised: the specific zoning laws and ordinances of the implementation plan are deferred to a meeting later in the year; the Commission agreed to await a study to rule in detail on preparations for sea level rise in coastal low-lying settlements; and environmentalist objectors may still file suit over an alleged lack of cumulative-impact CEQA analysis for the effects of changed land use rules. Centrally debated at the meeting was a broadened definition of principally permitted uses for "agriculture", both allowing more construction approvals and insulating some of them from the right of appeal to the Coastal Commission by defining them as "principally permitted uses". On a social policy level, the question was whether allowing more development rights on farms would help existing farm families and farming practices maintain continuity, or whether it would encourage luxury "hobby farms" to supplant productive agriculture. The "agriculture" definition, as approved, allows clusters of homes including "intergenerational homes" to reach 7000 square feet, plus 540 for garage and 500 for office space. Since most existing farmhouses are modest older structures, that allows generous room to build a second or even a third house. The right to build out, however, is not absolute: for example, the clusters are allowed per farmer, not per buildable lot, and second "intergenerational homes" are a conditionally permitted use. Prior housing approvals in West Marin's C-APZ Coastal Agricultural Production Zone have been sleepy: Jack Liebster, principal planner with Marin County's Community Development Agency, said the county had only approved 13 homes in the C-APZ zone since 1987. Those 13 are distinct, however, from approvals in the coastal "villages" and nearby areas not zoned agricultural. Those, he said, might have had "a couple hundred" housing approvals in the same time. As approved, the land use plan authorizes further residential and other small-scale building on farm property in the two-thirds of the coastal zone regulated as agricultural. Proponents argued that newly authorized "intergenerational homes" (not necessarily required to house blood relatives) would allow farm owners, many of whom are aging, to keep family members -- potential successors -- in the farm environment even if they didn't always work in agriculture. Liebster, in an interview, said some of the local farm families went back six generations "and they want to stay on their land. You don't do farming for any other reason than, you love it, because it sure doesn't make a lot of money." Opponents, however, argued that the ability to build "intergenerational" homes as principally permitted uses on the property -- and, as a conditional use, second "intergenerational" homes on larger parcels of 180 acres or more -- would create incentives to spin off 120- or 180-acre sections of active farms to serve as "estates" or "mini-mansions" for gentleman-farmer luxury purchasers who might not take agricultural production seriously. A comment letter from the West Marin Environmental Action Committee (EAC) further suggested "it could serve as a disincentive to continue Williamson Act contracts." Rancher Sally Gale, speaking in public comments, supported the plan, saying it was pro-agriculture and "agriculture supports the environment." She praised the authorizations for intergenerational homes, small processing facilities as "principally permitted uses", and on-farm retail sales, saying all contributed to keeping the next generation in farming. She only would have preferred that paid farm tours be allowed without making them conditional uses. The rules as passed authorize exceptions to the buffer zone distances around watercourses. But Amy Trainer of EAC told the Commission that experienced environmental activists knew the tendency of such an exception, once allowed: "It will become the rule; it's meant to." As to affordable housing, Liebster said "The LCP is obviously not a housing element or an affordability plan. However we did make provisions for removing barriers to farmworker housing," in compliance with state legal requirements to leave farmworker housing out of density calculations. He said farmworker housing would be allowed up to 36 beds in group living quarters per legal lot, or 12 units or manufactured housing spaces, so long as it serves people working directly on the farm where they live or at nearby farms,  Bed and breakfast rentals on farms, however, are conditional uses. Even in inland, eastern Marin -- targeted for denser population since the 1973 General Plan -- Liebster said Marin County finds it painfully difficult to create affordable housing. In public comment at the hearing, Kim Thompson, executive director of the Community Land Trust Association of West Marin (CLAM), said the county suffers from "significant underproduction of housing" and displacement had worsened in the last two years, including due to Internet-mediated short-term rentals competing with long-term tenants. "We have perpetually internally displaced families and singles," she said. Requesting a show of hands, she asked, "Who is concerned about affordable homes? Anybody?" Hands went up. She thanked them. And her two minutes to comment were over. County staff and Commission chair (also Marin County Supervisor) Steve Kinsey noted at the meeting that although "principally permitted use" project approvals generally would not be appealable to the Commission, some appeals would be available as of right in areas of statewide interest, such as buffer zones near Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) and coastal zones nearest the shore -- but Trainer, who was a leading organizer against the new "agriculture" building rights, said those areas would be a small proportion of the whole. "It's a rollback absolutely," she said in an interview. "This is a terrible statewide precedent that the commission removed from itself oversight over parts of two-thirds of Marin's coastal zone." Liebster responded on May 21 that decisions in large areas of the zone are appealable to the Commission: "It's a big area and in fact we tried to measure it and it's like, more than 11,000 acres out of the 30,000 acres that the Coastal Commission estimates is in the C-APZ zone." He said "that includes all of the wetlands and streams in primary sensitive habitat areas." In other areas, where a principally permitted use right was invoked for a project, appeal above the county level would be by writ petition directly to the courts. But Trainer's letters and several speakers' public comments emphasized the Commission's function as an institutional check on local action. Trainer told the Commission at the hearing: "Do your job as the gatekeeper." Trainer further saw the county as failing to perform needed CEQA analyses, both individual and cumulative, with findings of fact, analyses of changes and offers of alternatives and mitigation measures, on the potential effects of the new land use plan. On the Sunday after the meeting she said, "If the county does not do the CEQA analysis: the individual and cumulative impact analysis required by law, then we're going to have no choice but to file a lawsuit." An EAC comment letter from Trainer before the meeting said the local coastal plan revision "is supposed to be the 'functional equivalent' of an EIR," but contended it had yet to comply with requirements under CEQA Guidelines § 15091 to reach findings needed to "prevent or minimize environmental damage". Liebster responded to Trainer's comments on May 21 saying, "There are two ways to achieve the goals and standards of CEQA. One is to write an independent EIR. The other is to put a program or project through the process of an agency that applies strict environmental rules to that program or process. And that's what the functional equivalent is." The initial Coastal Commission staff report prepared for the meeting referred to provisions of Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21080.5 and 21080.9 that exempt local government from the requirement of an EIR under CEQA for the preparation of a local coastal program, but that require the Commission to find that approval of the amendment conforms to CEQA.  The Commission report acknowledged that "the amended LUP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment." But it stated: "In this particular case, all of the proposed amendments are being approved as submitted. Thus, there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds the subject LUP, as amended, conforms with CEQA provisions." (The term "functional equivalency" is sometimes used to refer to the CEQA Guidelines § 15251 exemptions for specified regulatory processes including LCP preparation. The phrase does not appear in the main text of the regulation but presumably derives from the rule's discussion notes, which Liebster cited. Per a 2002 California Research Bureau report, "Are 'Certified Regulatory Programs' Functionally Equivalent to CEQA?" the discussion notes read, "Certification of a program formally recognizes that an environmental analysis undertaken in compliance with the certified program is the functional equivalent of a CEQA analysis." See https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/02/05/02-005.pdf. Section 15251 of the guidelines is at http://bit.ly/1jtvCbY and § 15091 is at http://bit.ly/1sVC4JP. Public Resources Code § 21080.5 is at http://bit.ly/1sVA5Fj.) Long memories at public comment Powerful suspicions and long memories characterized many anti-development public comments. Gerald Meral, recently retired deputy resources secretary for California, said the new housing on farms wasn't really restricted to farm family members and wouldn't likely address the affordable housing crisis because it would provide just a few units, far from amenities like grocery stores. Like many speakers, he said he'd been among those who helped in the original campaign for Proposition 20, the founding ballot measure for the Coastal Act. And like many, he expressed concern for the public right to appeal decisions to the Commission. Speaker Alden Bevington of West Marin, identifying himself as a systems analyst, said "If I were a developer, and I've worked with a number in my career, I could game this system as it is now proposed." He warned the Commission not to underestimate "the power, tenacity, and, um, legal departments of development capital protecting its interests." The most irritable disputes turned on specific numbers of houses that would be permitted, particularly on the origins of a calculation widely mentioned by speakers: that the new rules would allow construction of 129 more homes -- called by some speakers "mini-mansions" -- creating 1 million potential square feet of construction. A widely distributed email text, attributed to Sierra Club members, reportedly had emphasized the million square feet and the concern about appeal rights in a way some found alarmist. By Liebster's calculation, 83 legal lots existed where houses could be built for the first time, and 27 more sites existed for possible "intergenerational homes." Trainer provided slides to explain the 129-unit figure. One of these, drawing on a January 2013 Board of Supervisors staff report, counts up 83 possible new farmhouses, 15 "first" intergenerational units, and 31 additional units that would further be allowed by a zoning density of one unit per 60 acres. Supposing other restrictions such as Williamson Act contracts were lifted, the same presentation increases the potential count of units to 263, and the caption speaks of a million possible square feet. In an interview, Liebster, considering the figures a little differently, agreed it was possible to arrive at a future maximum buildout total of 1 million square feet, but he said even so that would represent only 0.075% of the "C-APZ" coastal agricultural zone's land, and that maximum buildout would be unlikely to happen "within our respective lifespans." After a debate within its afternoon deliberations, the Commission chose not to defend the foggy Marin Coast preemptively against the (currently theoretical) menace of vineyards and tasting rooms. Although the weather and soils currently make the Marin coast unsuitable for viticulture, speakers didn't rule out the chance that, between climate change and growers' innovations, someday the area could be growing grapes. Commissioner Dayna Bochco's motion, defeated 7-5, would have distinguished vineyards from other agriculture as a conditional use, not a principally permitted use. "Viticulture is different than any other kind of farming," she said. "I don't care if it's orange trees or mushrooms or any other kind of use. Viticulture is its own world." But other speakers suggested if grapes could be singled out for different treatment, so could any other crop. For development sites on bluffs, the Commission adopted a strict rule based on Southern California experience: pick a spot that will not fall into the sea for a century, even without a seawall to protect it. However they agreed to wait for a study before issuing detailed rules to address sea-level rise in low-lying areas like Stinson Beach. On coastal construction rules, Liebster said afterward, "most of these have been forged in the crucible of conditions on Solana Beach in San Diego County," where development near the edges of eroding bluffs is the issue. For Marin, he said, the Commission agreed to consider the different issue of low-lying settlements in the form of a future expected amendment. The county has grants for its study on the matter of $200,000 from the state Ocean Protection Council and $54,000 from the Commission, he said. As a stopgap measure, he said for now the Commission had adopted a rule to raise new construction, including substantial renovations, a yard above the level marked by FEMA as the area's current Base Flood Elevation. Liebster called the approach to sea level rise in a place like Stinson Beach "really a difficult problem... I can't even visualize the answer at all, so it's going to take a lot of creativity to do this." Houses could be raised on stilts, he noted, but how would they be reached? Where would cars park? For its May meeting the Commission was surrounded by a distinctive West Marin sense of context and place. Meeting in the town of Inverness on the Point Reyes peninsula, fed Hog Island oysters at an evening reception, and led by West Marin's own county Supervisor, current Commission chair Steve Kinsey, the Commission heard local public commenters speaking vigorously on and for their familiar home ground. The meeting could be less locally rooted when the Commission hears the implementation plan proposal that must also be approved to clinch Marin's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) revision. Having originally meant to hear and approve the whole LCP at Inverness, the Commission agreed about six weeks beforehand (according to Trainer) to split off the implementation plan for later review. The timing of the implementation plan hearing could be difficult, as the Commission's next meeting within easy driving distance is many months ahead: November in Half Moon Bay. Trainer suggested the meeting would likely be sooner but far out of town; Liebster was looking as far ahead as the December meeting, which will be set somewhere in the Bay Area. Showers of last-minute paper descended in the form of last-minute addenda, and then several supplemental votes on Commissioners' motions. It left all sides in cleanup mode, still trying to work out days later what exactly had been approved. The plan directly addresses coastal areas not governed by Marin's two large federal parks landholders, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore, though the federal areas may be affected indirectly by the Commission's power to enforce consistency in land management throughout the area. The land use plan, for example, does not directly affect the Drake's Bay oyster farming dispute, which concerns a federally managed area of Point Reyes. The meeting's agenda, which now appears with annotations showing Commission decisions, is at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm14-5.html.

The traditional May Revisions to Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal offer a big financing possibility for Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs), but relatively shallow support for efforts to finance and protect housing specifically. The Governor's "May Revise" proposal would "clarify" that cities and counties could securitize their Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Swap income to finance the Governor's proposed "Enhanced" IFDs, potentially doubling the districts' power over tax revenue. The proposal would allow such districts to support housing among other purposes, and would provide some protections to keep housing affordable, but the proposal offers no real replacement for Redevelopment's former 20% housing set-aside. The "May Revise" budget summary proposes to let alone the existing, relatively limited provisions for IFD creation that have been available to municipalities for years. Separately, it would authorize "Enhanced IFDs" with the new characteristics he had previously proposed, plus a few more. The Governor's prior IFD expansion proposal included a broadened list of projects that the districts could finance, and a requirement of a 55% approval vote instead of the existing two-thirds requirement.  (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3480 for details.) The "May Revise" includes a nod to the broadly expressed objection that IFDs would not replace Redevelopment's former 20% set-aside of tax increment funds for low- and moderate-income housing. The new proposal would not actually require Enhanced IFDs to build housing, but it at least would allow such districts to finance affordable housing and would require long-term affordability covenants of 45 to 55 years for any affordable housing created or replaced. It would "clarify" that the districts "must replace any low- or moderate-income housing that is removed as part of a project plan, as is required under current IFD law". While the housing concessions went a little farther than before, they didn't impress some affordable housing proponents. The Western Center on Law and Poverty posted a critical analysis of the May Revise proposal as a whole, saying it "fails to invest in poor Californians." Alongside criticisms of health and public benefits provisions, it said the May Revise "provides little in the way of new housing proposals." It said the May proposal for Enhanced IFDs "proposes some better housing protections... but there was essentially no movement on the litigation quid pro quo," meaning the continuing proposed requirement that jurisdictions wrap up their disputes with the state over distribution of ex-Redevelopment assets before using the Enhanced IFD mechanism. The Western Center analysis said proposals for the use of cap-and-trade revenues, such as those by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, are "a focus for housing advocates," but the May Revise "contains no new proposals on the use of that funding and neither the Governor nor his staff addressed the issue." As noted by the San Mateo Daily Journal , Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, wrote: "One glaring omission is the continued lack of funding for affordable housing. The Governor's infrastructure financing districts proposal is a woefully inadequate replacement for the loss of redevelopment funds for housing. The legislature must step up to address to provide a stronger alternative." Additionally, the new "Enhanced IFD" proposal would "clarify" that "monies received by cities and counties pursuant to the Vehicle License Fee Swap may be securitized to fund Enhanced IFD projects" and that, if local voters approved, an Enhanced IFD could impose "new fees or assessments to support projects identified in an Enhanced IFD project plan." In its largely positive response to the budget proposal, the California Economic Summit organization estimated that the VLF Swap securitization option "would nearly double the property tax share available to IFDs, making about $400 million available each year for local infrastructure development." Under the Governor's revised proposal, only Enhanced IFDs, not old-style IFDs, would carry the requirement that municipalities first resolve their disputes with the Department of Finance over the status of ex-Redevelopment assets and receive Findings of Completion on any required paybacks. The Governor's budget summary notes this distinction would give cities continuing access to the old-style IFD process regardless of their post-Redevelopment status. However, that's a minimal concession, since IFDs have only been approved three times in two decades; the Western Center analysis called the old mechanism "virtually unusable". (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3433.) For more details see: - The Governor's May Revision budget proposal summary (Proposed IFD changes are at Page 63): http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf - The League of California Cities analysis: http://bit.ly/1lDa76W - San Mateo Daily Journal collecting several Bay Area legislators' written responses to the May Revise, including Mullin's: http://bit.ly/1gfz7TO - The California Economic Summit response to the May Revise, including a link to figures on the VLF Swap possibility: http://bit.ly/1lzOztp - Western Center on Law and Poverty responses: http://bit.ly/1lT16rZ and http://bit.ly/1lAtRqo Further on state revenue predictions: - Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) suggesting actual state General Fund revenues may exceed the May Revise assumptions by more than $2 billion: http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3017 - Sacramento Bee on that LAO report: http://bit.ly/1mLzMwJ - LAO prediction, made earlier this May, that property tax revenues will rebound: lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3010 Cate Long's "Muniland" blog at Reuters with exegesis on the LAO property tax report: http://reut.rs/1t8CWgd

The Coastal Commission meets at the Inverness Yacht Club in Marin County starting May 14. The full agenda includes four revisions to Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). Of these, Marin County is the headliner, with a major proposed update to its Land Use Plan (LUP) that would expand the meaning of "agricultural" use, favoring housing for people engaged in the work of farms over services for visitors or housing for non-farmers. Major changes would include a concession easing permits for farmworker housing and "intergenerational homes" on farm property by making them principally permitted uses. A new provision would require expert biological site assessments for "development proposals within or adjacent to" environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). At the same time it would reduce some buffer requirements around wetlands and streams. The Commission's staff report praises the plan as emerging from a cooperative and thorough public process, but it recommends adoption only conditionally, stating recommended changes in a 145-page markup document (Appendix 6 in agenda materials for the item.) County proposals disfavored by Commission staff include the choice to regulate Marin County's southward coast in a separate "unit" from the rest. The staff report opposes a rule that "intergenerational homes" be only for members of farmers' families while recommending the total of such homes be limited to 27. A recent news report in the Point Reyes Light showed local critics questioning whether the county and Commission were headed toward overly strict provisions against hazards including earthquakes, bluff erosion, flooding and sea level rise, especially in a Commission-proposed revision that could force would-be builders to disregard existing "protective devices" such as seawalls in considering whether a site offers 100 years' future stability for a project. The other LCP proposals are amendments for San Diego, Pismo Beach and Santa Barbara. San Diego's proposal would revise notice and timing rules on rights to appeal city decisions and would clarify that the official implementing environmental quality procedures is the Planning Director, not the Development Services Director. < disclosure: the current san diego planning director is bill fulton, publisher of this publication. > disclosure: the current san diego planning director is bill fulton, publisher of this publication.> Also on the Commission's calendar are an amendment to the Port of Los Angeles master plan, a big batch of Orange County renovations, and a detailed informational report on radioactivity reaching California from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster. Links: Commission agenda: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html Marin staff report from the May 15 agenda item: http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/5/Th12a-5-2014.pdf. County LCP planning site: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/local-coastal-program Point Reyes Light : http://www.ptreyeslight.com/article/coastal-commission-set-vote-revision-lcp Fukushima staff report: http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/5/F10b-5-2014.pdf Environmental groups appeal Tahoe challenge to 9th Circuit The weary battlers over Lake Tahoe's Regional Plan Update (RPU) are in for another round. On May 7 the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore appealed the decision by U.S. District Judge John Mendez that upheld the 2012 RPU as appropriately reconciling current scientific and regulatory practice with the prior 1987 Regional Plan scheme and overarching environmental law. Earthjustice, the environmental nonprofit firm representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement based on elements of its district court arguments, saying the RPU is too optimistic about its own effects on the lake basin environment, and that its incentives to replace "aging, poorly located" projects with denser, better-mitigated urban ones will allow too much construction to serve the lake overall. It quoted Tahoe area Sierra Club leader Laurel Ames as saying the defendant Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) "has abandoned its core mission to restore and protect Lake Tahoe's environment." TRPA issued a cool response quoting Executive Director Joanne Marchetta as saying, "While the appeal makes its way through the legal process, we will continue to put the substantial environmental benefits of the plan into place." In a Tahoe Daily Tribune opinion piece, Steve Noll, former board chair of the Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce (TahoeChamber), wrote in part, "While for many of us this is disheartening I believe that the science utilized by the TRPA in the RPU was solid, and that common sense will again prevail." Links: Some of CP&DR's prior coverage on the plan and the dispute: http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3471, http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3435 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3223. Tahoe Daily Tribune coverage: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/11331878-113/plan-lake-regional-tahoe Earthjustice's statement: http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/conservation-groups-continue-to-fight-to-protect-lake-tahoe-from-development TRPA's response: http://www.trpa.org/11354/ Response from Steve Noll of TahoeChamber: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/southshore/11342023-113/plan-tahoe-area-regional Short news report, long debate in comments thread, Lake Tahoe News -- worth a glance as indicator of continuing strong local sentiment: http://www.laketahoenews.net/2014/05/trpa-regional-plan-court-decision-appealed/ SCOTUS review denial upholds LA County runoff liability (This report was updated May 28, 2014.) The Supreme Court's refusal to review a Ninth Circuit ruling has fastened responsibility more tightly on Los Angeles County and its flood control district for pollution in untreated runoff from city streets that travels through storm sewers to the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Ninth Circuit ruling, issued last August, said the two government entities needed to do more than monitor the high levels of toxins and fecal coliform: when results showed that storm sewer flow into the rivers violated the terms of existing discharge permits, the county and the district had to respond. The county had sought to diffuse responsibility for the high pollutant levels detected at its monitoring stations, arguing that part of the fault rested with private and public entities upstream whose drains feed into the county system. The water quality journal Stormwater reported the county was preparing to impose fees to pay costs of the cleanup, "an estimated $8 billion over 20 years." The ruling was a victory for two plaintiffs: the National Resources Defense Council and LA Waterkeeper (captioned under its former name, Santa Monica Baykeeper). The matter now returns to federal district court for proceedings on the remedies portion of the case, which was stayed pending the decision on liability. The LA Times' Bettina Boxall writes that LA County is already working on "green infrastructure" efforts to mitigate runoff in new projects, and "The county and cities are considering construction of regional infiltration basins to collect runoff to recharge aquifers." Links: Bettina Boxall, LA Times : http://lat.ms/1qawNCb NRDC statement: http://www.nrdc.org/media/2014/140505.asp Stormwater journal report: http://www.stormh2o.com/SW/Forum/Paying_for_the_LA_Cleanup_1965.aspx LA Waterkeeper: https://lawaterkeeper.org/news/ SoCal Public Radio: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/05/05/43977/supreme-court-says-la-county-is-responsible-for-st/ Underlying 9th Cir. opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/08/10-56017.pdf Supreme Court docket: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/13-901.htm