In the ever-lasting debate over sprawl, the most enduring argument centers on the definition of sprawl itself. The latest entrant is, perhaps, the oldest entrant: density.  As reported by Richard Florida in his CityLab  column  this week, NYU doctoral student Thomas Laidley has introduced a new method to measure sprawl. Laidley's "Sprawl Index" uses the following methodology:  "Laidley uses these aerial images to estimate sprawl at the Census block level, the smallest level available, estimating the share of metro population in those blocks below three key thresholds: 3,500, 8,500, and 20,000 persons per square mile. His index is based on the average of these three values, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of sprawl." Laidley essentially posits that density and sprawl are inversely related. And by "posits," I mean he makes a circular argument, in which he defines sprawl according to the things that he thinks define sprawl.  From this, Florida reports that it has the highest overall density of any metro in the country, Los Angeles isn't actually sprawling. He notes that "the biggest surprise" is that Los Angeles is the "least sprawling metro in the country," in part because it is so dense. Interesting, sure. But I'm not sure how surprising it is. Really, it's surprising only if you don't read much  Richard Florida .  In fact, that density figure has been reported and debated for years, not just by Richard Florida but by plenty of others ( here ,  here ,  here ). Then, as now, it's important to note that measures of density depend mainly on how you define a given metro area. You don't need a spreadsheet to know that L.A.'s urban core is not more dense than Manhattan or San Francisco. Those metros just include a greater share of vacant and low-density land than the L.A. area does. Density is a mathematical  trick , and a crude one at that.  The real reason why Laidley's project is doomed to be disappointing, if not outright misleading, is that sprawl is by definition a subjective notion. Density may be quantifiable. But sprawl is a qualitative matter. Though his heart is in the right place, Laidley is using the same modernist objective approach as did the 1950s planners who got us into this mess in the first place.  For better or worse, sprawl entails judgment of value and aesthetics. Some people use it as a pejorative; others think those people are being fussy and effete. A new "index" isn't going to settle that argument.  Granted, critics of sprawl probably agree that low densities often correlate with sprawl. Certainly the types of urban neighborhoods they prefer require high(ish) densities. But density is not enough. My own neighborhood is plenty dense. But I can't walk to the end of the block for a carton of milk, and I can't take a bike ride without taking my life in my hands. At rush hour it can take an hour to drive five miles. That's not sprawl, I guess. But if sprawl is bad, then whatever LA is certainly isn't good.  The evaluation of sprawl and non-sprawl entails, most importantly, questions of efficiency, diversity, design, walk- and bike-ability, and a whole other range of aesthetic considerations. And let's not forget the origin of the word sprawl. Sprawl is a spatial concept. It refers to territory. Any urban area that covers 13 areas codes, five counties, and thousands of square miles -- where you can't see one end from the other because the horizon gets in the way -- is sprawling. Any metro where regulations and financing mechanism encourage the paving over of farm land and wilderness is sprawling. Any metro that has dying tract homes on its edges is sprawling, regardless of what is going on in the center.  I guess I don't care how neatly a regression model, using data captured from 30,000 feet in the air, can work out when so many places before my very eyes so ugly. The quality of a city depends at least as much on the quality of neighborhoods and blocks as it does to the functioning of the region as a whole. Density and good urbanism in one part of a city does little for the people in the other parts.  We can't look at Los Angeles, or any other high-density metro, and say, "Great! It's dense. Our work here is done."  In other words, density is not an end in and of itself. Density in L.A. presents an opportunity, and a tremendous one at that. It's an opportunity to take all the people, buildings, capital, and spirit that are crammed in here at 6,100 people to the square mile and figure out how to design our buildings, transportation network, public spaces, and civic life in a way that makes the most of what we have.  That index tells us that we're No. 1 at density. So what? Let's be even better at something else.

A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the City of Sacramento's ban on camping in public parks – and allowing only limited camping on private property -- may move forward because the plaintiffs have stated a valid equal protection argument, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. In response to concerns about the homeless, Sacramento adopted an ordinance banning camping on public property and in public parks and permitting camping on private property for only one consecutive night. In 2009, the city cracked down on a group of homeless people who were camping in a fenced lot on private property with the property owner's permission. Several times in September of 2009, the homeless people were arrested and their belongings were seized even though they were camping on private property.  The homeless residents and two social service providers sued, claiming among other things that the anti-camping ordinance was unconstitutional on its faced based on a variety of grounds, including a violation of the constitutional protections of due process, equal protection, and freedom to travel. A number of other causes of action were also brought – for example, that the criminalizes the status of homelessness in a way which is prohibited under Robinson v. California (1962) 370 U.S. 660. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Change ruled in favor of the city, granting a demurrer with leave to amend. Rather than filing an amended complaint, however, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal.  The Third District upheld Justice Change on virtually all causes of action. However, the court did rule that the plaintiffs had set forth a potentially valid claim that the anti-camping ordinance, as applied to the plaintiffs, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, meaning the case can go forward in Superior Court.  "The first amended complaint alleges the City selectively enforces the camping ordinance against homeless persons and those non-homeless persons who support the right of the homeless to be in the City," wrote Justice Louis Mauro for a unanimous three-judge panel. "We must read those factual allegations liberally and assume their truth on a demurrer." Mauro went on to make it clear that the Third District was not – and did not need to – rule on the constitutionality of the anti-camping ordinance.  "Here, we conclude the allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for declaratory relief asserting an as-applied challenge based on equal protection," he wrote. The Third District ruled that the plaintiffs did not mae a sufficient as-applied constitutional challenge based on several other grounds, including: 1. Cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 2. Right to travel 3. Arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of laws 4. Substantive due process 5. Protections against vague laws.  The Case: Allen v. City of Sacramento, No. C071710 The Lawyers:  For Homeless Plaintiffs: Mark Merin, mark@markmerin.com For City of Sacramento: Chance L. Trimm, Senior Deputy City Attorney, CTrimm@cityofsacramento.org

LOS ANGELES--State-level policymakers have engaged in more than their share of debates over the future of smart grown in California this year. They've debated level of service vs. vehicle miles traveled. They've debated the neediness and definition of disadvantaged communities . They've clamored for cap-and-trade funds. They've tried to reform CEQA and get rid of CEQA (well, not quite).  By contrast, today's technical assistance workshop on concept submittals for the inaugural funding round of the  Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program was a staid affair. Today's event was one in a series of statewide meetings conducted by staff members from the Strategic Growth Council and the Department of Housing and Community Development, which are administering AHSC. The program is designed to disburse $120 million to municipalities and other entities for planning and partially funding affordable housing, transit-oriented development, and other projects that help California reduce its carbon footprint.  While the audience -- a nearly packed house of 100 or so of mostly city officials and affordable housing developers -- posed its share of questions, rancor was minimal. That's probably because the deadline for the initial applications, called "concept submittals" is February 19. Even these pre-applications are extensive, and no one has a moment to spare.  The concept submittal process is designed to help SGC staff determine whether a project is eligible for AHSC assistance. SGC will announce a short list of candidates around March 11, with full applications due April 15. Staff will evaluate those applications, pick their favorites, and submit them to the SGC board for approval by early July. As the program is new, SGC Deputy Director Allison Joe, who led the workshop, admitted that they do not know how many applications they will receive.  So, the clock is ticking.  Here are highlights of the criteria for the concept submittal round:  Projects must either be "transit oriented developments" or "integrated connectivity projects." TOD's are assumed to be near high-frequency, high-capacity transit lines while ICP's are more loosely connected to transit. SGC expects that most ICP applications will be from suburban and rural areas.  At least 40% of funding will go to TOD's and at least 30% will go to ICP's.  At least 30% of funding must go to disadvantaged communities, regardless of whether projects are TOD's or ICP's.  • \t Funds may be directed towards capital improvements, affordable housing, planning and planning of programs that support AHSC goals; all projects must have benefits that long outlast the expenditure of AHSC funds.   • \t Projects must meet statutory thresholds, including those mandating greenhouse gas reductions, implementation of Sustainable Communities Strategies; they may also meet other state priorities, including promotion of infill development, equity, and protection of natural resources and agricultural lands.  • \t Program-specific thresholds largely relate to the viability of projects. They must have their environmental clearances and entitlements, and they must essentially be shovel-ready.  • \t Projects will be scored as follows: 55% on greenhouse gas reduction, 30% on policy objectives, such as affordable housing, walkabilty, bike-ability, anti-displacement, etc.; 15% on feasibility and readiness, including leverage of different funding sources.  The application, which is found online at the state Water Resources Board's FAAST system, includes a 29-item checklist of vehicle-miles traveled reduction strategies. Every project must identify at least one strategy on which SGC will evaluate it; projects may check as many items as are applicable, but projects do not necessarily need to check multiple items. SGC is, essentially, looking for quality, not necessarily quantity. The concept proposal application asks applicants to provide detailed information about their projects, including extensive information about their finances. It's a complex  application  process but, to their credit, SGC staff made it seem reasonably  straightforward, with transparent criteria,  for those  applicants  willing to put in the effort.  One attendee wondered whether the collective effort among cities and other applicants will be justified by the amount of funding that SGC disburses. SGC staff admitted that they are running an experiment and that their efforts to essentially reconcile transportation funding and affordable housing funding -- an admittedly gargantuan task -- requires cities to be patient and cooperative. SGC staff pledged that they will push for $200 million in AGSC funding for 2016, when many kinks may be worked out.  This article has been updated since its initial public to reflect the involvement of the Department of Housing and Community Development.

The following is a fictitious letter written, by the magic of anthropomorphosis  and creative license, by the Oakland A's baseball team to the City of San Jose. It stands to reason that any statement attributed to these entities is fictitious. Only the facts are real. My dearest San Jose, This is a hard letter to write. Just a few short years ago; you asked for my hand and I was ready to accept. I felt happy about leaving the mean streets of Oakland, especially that horrid stadium, which everybody agrees is the worst place in the world to play baseball, which I am forced to share with a …  football team ! Can you imagine anything more unbecoming? My outfielders have to watch their step, for fear of getting bits of brain and bone on their clean uniforms. You, San Jose, tried to give me, the Oakland A's, what I have so desperately long for: An exit strategy! I planned on leaving Oakland, and travelling 50 miles to live with you, San Jose, in a 32,000-seat love nest, Cisco Stadium, that was to be built just for us! Oh, it was a beautiful dream, darling, but it was fated to be only a dre—(At this point, a splattered tearstain smudges the ink on the page.) Yes, darling, it was just the two of us against the world:  The hard-slugging ball club from the town that Tech forgot, and the least glamorous city in Silicon Valley. Together, we had a reason to hold our heads up: The A's would be a suburban ball club with a fan base that is rich, rich,  rich ! And you, San Jose, my funny valentine, could finally become a Destination, not just "whudda they call it, you know, that place with the airport."  Well, we had our "trip to the moon, on gossamer wings," didn't we, darling? But there was a problem. My daddy, Major League Baseball, didn't approve of the match. In 2011, I had three suitors – San Jose, Fremont and my estranged husband, Oakland. Daddy Baseball promised to study their proposals and choose a husband for me. But before Daddy made up his mind, my younger sister, the San Francisco Giants, eloped with the City of Santa Clara. They were married and, er, consummated their union quicker that we could. As a wedding present, Daddy Baseball gave them "exclusive rights" to professional baseball market in Santa Clara County, which includes the proposed site of  Cisco Stadium, only six miles away. Despite the fact that we asked first, and that Daddy Baseball never made up his mind in a timely way about which city was going to marry the Oakland A's, the marriage of San Jose and the baseball club was a no-go. That's just a fact. And facts, my dear San Jose, are something you're going to have to accept, sooner or later. Yes, we vowed eternal love. You, San Jose, vowed to fight Daddy Baseball, who was acting in a controlling way, just like the father played by Charles Laughton in  Hobson's Choice . (You can see it now and then on Turner Classic Movies. I recommend it.) Oh, gallant San Jose! You went to court, accusing Daddy Baseball with racketeering and being unfair, because he never decided who was to marry the Oakland A's. And you couldn't understand why people were laughing. You see, Daddy Baseball is very powerful.  He has an anti-trust exemption given him personally by his friend, the U.S. Supreme Court, back in the 1920s.  Even more than other sports leagues, Daddy Baseball is a power unto himself. He decides which teams get married to which cities, and which don't.  San Jose, you sued Daddy and lost, then appealed the case and lost again. Now San Jose, darling, you're about to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. Beating Daddy Baseball has become an obsession for you, like a man raving in a fever. Don't you realize that suing Daddy is like a mosquito trying to sting a catcher's mitt? The mosquito is only going to hurt himself. Besides, dear San Jose, I've met someone. He name is Coliseum City, and he's a developer. He wants to tear down my horrid old stadium in Oakland and build a new stadium on the same spot, just for me! Meanwhile, those dreadful footballers (what do they call them – The  Waders?  The Faders?) can get their own stadium, too, if they can ever stop losing long enough to sign the deal. In addition, Coliseum City says is going he's going to build lots of houses and apartment buildings and stores, which promises a good return on capital for the $2 billion (swoon!) he plans to spend on me. This guy is rich. I haven't made up my mind, San Jose, but I think this baseball club from Oakland is going to fall in love with Coliseum City, that is, if he can, er, perform.  We're going to have a modern stadium!  We're going to have sky boxes for every damn Fortune 500 in the Bay Area! I'm sorry to let you down, San Jose. You must shake this off; you're beginning to act like a stalker. Big Daddy Baseball has the muscle and Coliseum City has the bucks. End of story. I'm sorry to lose you, sort of, but I'm going to be rich, you hear me, RICH! Oakland and I will renew our vows in our new temple in front of tens of thousands of guests – maybe we'll get a ring out of it someday! Our story is just like the end of Stella Dallas, the old, old movie starring Barbara Stanwyck. I, the baseball team, am just like Stanwycks's daughter in the picture, who marries the rich boy from the high-class family.  And you, sad San Jose, are like Stanwyck, who has been rejected by her daughter and who hasn't been invited to the wedding, forcing Stanwyck to stand outside in the snow and watch her child get married through a window. Oh, the heartbreak, the ingratitude! Everybody in the audience is in tears. Thank God for Turner Classics! They don't make three-hanky movies like that anymore.  Yours, The A's

Last week's UCLA Extension Land Use Law and Planning Conference included a session on updates from the faraway land of Washington, D.C. Federal policymakers ended the year with a few new developments, and continued policies, that may be of interest to planners. This summary comes courtesy of Steven Preston, planning director for the City of San Gabriel, who collaborated with staff members at the American Planning Association's Washington office.  Pending Issues In the coming months, the continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire, and the debt limit will be reached in March. More importantly for cities, the MAP-21 law expires and, with it goes the funding for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Debates over replacement funding are ongoing in Washington -- including proposals to raise the federal gas tax -- with little resolution in sight. Extension of Tax Provisions Congress voted to extend a host of tax provisions at the end of 2014, and the president is expected to sign. These provisions include the following:  New Market Tax Credits:  Credit Rate for Low-Income Housing: 9 percent fixed rate for low-incoming housing tax projects Energy Credits: energy efficient construction of residential and commercial buildings Parking and Transit Tax Benefits: restores parity between parking and transit tax benefits for commuters Omnibus Spending Bill The Omnibus Spending Bill funds all agencies, except DHS, through September 2015. Some of the areas and programs that this budget affects include (as detailed in the APA's blog ):  Community Development Block Grants HOME Choice Neighborhoods Homeless Assistance Grants TIGER Grants Bike and Pedestrian Safety Highways and Transit Water Infrastructure Hazard Programs Brownfield Mitigation Climate Preparedness and Resilience The session also highlighted the findings and recommendations of President Obama's Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience. The task force released a tool kit to aid cities' climate resiliency plans.  FCC Wireless Communications Rules As reported in CP&DR last month, the Federal Communications Commission released new rules regarding the siting and modification of towers and antennae for cell phones and other wireless communication technologies.

Consider this headline, which accompanied a recent Citylab article on a townhouse development in Echo Park: "In Los Angeles, Density That Doesn't Overwhelm." It doesn't take much to unpack that statement. It implies that density is inherently overwhelming. The Blackbirds development, reviewed by Deborah Snoonian Glenn, consists of 18 townhomes that take advantage of the city's innovative, but underused, Small Lot Ordinance. They're being built in a hillside neighborhood that consists mainly of single-family homes. Blackbirds is a bold move for that neighborhood. But it doesn't follow that density is the problem that Blackbirds' design solves - or that density is a problem in the first place. For Glenn's part, her appraisal of Blackbirds doesn't really echo her headline. She portrays Blackbirds as a neat little development (designed by architect Barbara Bestor) that makes good use of a tight space. Blackbirds' common driveway is designed as a woonerf , which is a street meant to accommodate humans and cars alike. Even then, I'm not sure how exemplary Blackbirds is. While it may use space efficiently, the rendering that accompanies the article makes the design looks apologetic. The structure recedes from the curb and hides behind a row of trees, lest it offend neighbors who want to pretend that they're living in rural Montana. Many people in Los Angeles share this fantasy, what with their front yards and setbacks juxtaposed against traffic jams, diversity, and whatnot. But responsible commentators should know better. I suspect that Glenn does, in fact, know better. She's from New York City. She knows real density, and she probably knows how incredible it can be. But, for this post, she, or her editor, has given in to conventional wisdom. Glenn's post is, in some ways, a conversation between a reasonable article and a provocative headline. Blanket criticism of density arises all the time, and it's almost never valid. I've said so before . Let's explore, yet again, what it would mean for density to be truly "overwhelming." Can density be aesthetically overwhelming? Sure, if it's designed poorly - or not designed at all. The patchwork canyons of Hong Kong are culturally fascinating but visually assaulting. Same with the shantytowns of the developing world. Arguably worse are the Corbusian superblocks of Beijing, which are ugly, dense, and dull. But many of the most beautiful cities in the world - London, Paris, San Francisco, Amsterdam - are designed to showcase density, with little of the parking lots, setbacks, superfluous vegetation, and other gimmicks that make buildings, especially residences, in the U.S. look like they're terrified of the sidewalk and of each other. Can dense crowds be overwhelming? Sure, in Times Square or the street markets of Kolkata. Densities of human bodies might get uncomfortably, and even morbidly, high in some places at some times, especially in megacities of the developing world. But I can scarcely think of any American streetscape that wouldn't benefit from more foot traffic, more activity, and more features to catch the eye. Can density overwhelm infrastructure? Of all the concerns about density in Los Angeles, the impact on mobility is the most legitimate. While predictions about the traffic impacts of residential developments are often overblown (especially when, say, a high-density development might enable residents to live closer to their workplaces), there's no doubt that density can equal vehicular congestion. Then again, when density is well designed and well located, traffic can improve, especially when a city is adding to its public transportation system. I'm all for great design, which seems to be the goal of Bestor and of developers LocalConstruct. But I hope that architects and developers don't equate "good" with "unobtrusive." The better a design is, the  more  of it I'd like to see. Anyone can hide a masterpiece behind a gate and a lawn. Making something both noticeable and inviting poses a greater challenge - and one that is more worthy of an ambitious architect's skills and of a great city's image. And let's not forget about craftsmanship. The buildings that define the great streets of Europe rely on age-old details, like brickwork, masonry, windows, doors, and even flowers and plants, to delight passers-by. The same is true of Charleston, S.C., whose longtime mayor, Joe Reilly, recently rhetorically asked the New York Times , "The question really is, how does a building enhance the city?.... How does it enhance the street?"  Too few people elsewhere in the country are asking Reilly's questions. And yet, they are exactly the ones that planners in center cities should be answering for stakeholders, elected officials, and headline-writers alike. I hope that the next Small Lot development in Los Angeles, and similar developments elsewhere, will dare to be even better, bolder, and more "overwhelming."

UCLA Extension convened its annual Land Use Law and Planning Conference last week in Los Angeles. As always, it was a bonanza of practical information and insights for lawyers and planners who navigate California's insanely complex web of laws and court cases that govern how we build -- and don't build -- in the state.  As the panelists themselves noted, there was far too much news to convey -- about what happened in 2014 and what is on the horizon for 2015 -- than a single day's worth of presentations could cover. Nonetheless, they did an admirable job of presenting brief summaries of relevant guidelines, court decisions, and legislative actions that will affect planners in 2015.  Below are selections from the conference's CEQA update, p resented by Margaret Sohagi, Amy Bricker, and Michelle Oulette . Please refer to text of specific cases for full details.  Exemptions San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco 226 Cal.App.4th 2012 Categorical exemption for small structures applies to installation of metal cabinets on city sidewalks.  Tuolumne Jobs and Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court 59 Cal.App.4th 1059 A city can directly adopt a voter-sponsored initiative without conducting review under CEQA.  North Coast Rivers Alliance vs. Westlands Water District 227 Cal.App.4th 832 Interim contract to provide water exempt because they are considered pre-CEQA projects and continued operation of existing facilities.  Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown 229 Cal.App.4th 1416 Tribe claimed that governor did not comply with CEQA in approving casino development of competing tribe; court ruled that governor is not a "public agency" under CEQA.  Types of CEQA Documents Citizens Against Airport Pollution vs. City of San Jose 227 Cal.App.4th 788 Impacts of proposed amendments to airport master plan deemed not substantial; therefore, no need to determine whether 1997 EIR was programmatic or project-level.  Citizens for Sustainable Treasure Island v City and County of San Francisco 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 Challenge that the city abused discretion by preparing project-level EIR, rather than programmatic EIR, improperly focused on form over substance.  Thresholds of Significance Trisha Lee Lotus v. Department of Transportation 223 Cap.App.4th 645 EIR analysis determined inadequate for failing to identify levels of significance even though project was self-mitigating.  Adequacy of IS/MND Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno 229 Cal.App.4th 340 Court invalidated IS/MND for demolition of historic structure because city did not delegate authority to historic preservation committee to act as lead agency.  Rominger v. County of Colusa 229 Cal.App.4th 690 County claimed that subdivision approval was not subject to CEQA; court ruled that even if a subdivision does not include a plan, it is a project under CEQA.  Adequacy of EIR Town of Atherton v Calif. High-Speed Rail Authority 228 Cal.App.4th 314 Court held that market participation doctrine was an exception to preemption; authority properly rejected infeasible alternatives.  SPRAWLDEF v. San Francisco By Conservation and Development Commission 226 Cal.App.4th 905 Substantial evidence supported commission's determination that alternatives to proposed landfill could be economically infeasible using "reasonable person" test.  California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 EIR for retail center inadequate because of inadequate measures to counteract economic losses in city's downtown.  Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern 228 Cal.App.4th 360 Mitigation requiring FAA to review wind turbines was legal.  Paulek vs. CA Dept. of Water Resources 231 Cal.App.4th 35 Lead agency referenced discussion in EIR and was not required to repeat that discussion in the response. Cleveland National Forest et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments 4th District Case No. D063288 SANDAG's EIR rejected for failing to evaluate plan's consistency with executive order setting GHG emissions goals; EIR's analysis and mitigation of air quality and agricultural impacts inadequate; alternatives analysis deficient for failure to consider alternatives that reduce VMT.  Sierra Club v. County of San Diego Fourth District Case No. D064243 County did not adopt enforceable GHG reduction measures in climate plan.  Adequacy of Functional Equivalent Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Calif. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Projection Cal.App.LEXIS 1181 Timber management plan complied with CEQA.  Administrative Record  San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco 228 Cal.App.4th 1239 Transcripts of board committee hearings that occurred before board's final decision on a project are part of administrative record.  Procedural Issues Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo Community College District 226 Cal.App.4th 1572 Citizen challenge to tree removal barred under both 30-day statute of limitations and 180-day statute of limitations.  Ventura Foothills Neighbors v. County of Ventura 232 Cal.App.4th 429 Citizen suit to challenge county's EIR addendum not barred by 30-day statute of limitations; change in building height ruled substantial change requiring preparation of supplemental EIR, not an addendum.  Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento 231 Cal.App.4th 837 Passage of SB 743 to expedite litigation procedures for new basketball arena did not violate separation of powers because court considered it an amendment to CEQA.

As the inane "debate" over climate change drags on in the more benighted corners of our republic (Washington, D.C., included), it's becoming abundantly clear that California is no longer the place where America's fruits, nuts, and loose ends come to rest. I've been on the periphery of the stateside discussion of SB 375 for the past two years, so I know that it's not news to say that there have been many earnest, productive discussions about it across the state. Even so, I'll still take a moment to say how gratifying it is to witness an adult discussion on a topic that inspires temper tantrums in so many of our national leaders. We live in a parallel universe where people talk seriously about climate change, solutions, and economic impacts.  Yesterday's rendition, at the VerdeXchange "Green Marketmakers" Conference, featured former State Senate President Pro Tem and SB 375 author Darrel Steinberg as moderator, and Gail Goldberg of the Urban Land Institute, Lauren Faber of Environmental Defense Fund Jonathan Parfery of Climate Resolve , Tanya Peacock of the Southern California Gas Company , and Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council as panelists. A hand-picked panel, to be sure, but it still represented a perspectives issues ranging from environmental justice to development to utilities. (Disclosure: I used to work for VerdeXchange Chairman David Abel.) What's great about a panel like this is that when everyone agrees -- or at least accepts -- that the state must do something about climate change and when you understand that laws like SB 375 can be implemented well or badly and that funds like those from AB 32's cap and trade program can be spent well or badly, you get a great, nuanced discussion among people who, whatever their differences may be, genuinely have the state's best interests in mind. And there's a lot that we can do with the roughly $1 billion in annual cap-and-trade funds that are going to be distributed throughout the state (as negotiated in the 2014 budget ). People with true capitalist persuasions will recognize this as an opportunity. Again, I know this approach to climate change isn't news in California. But imagine what this panel would be like if it was at a conference center in Tulsa rather than one in downtown L.A. Here are a few highlights of the genuine debates that policymakers and members of organizations like the Strategic Growth Council may face as these policies evolve and funds get disbursed. Ideally, these funds can spur further investment and create the types of multipliers and positive externalities that would give Libertarians heart attacks. Statewide Equity:  $1.1 billion is a lot of money, but not when it's spread among 38 million people and hundreds of jurisdictions. The demographic split between northern and southern California -- separating the southern 19 million from the northern -- is, according to Parfery, roughly contiguous with Los Angeles' Wilshire Boulevard. He encourages lawmakers to keep this counterintuitive boundary in mind. Disadvantaged Communities:  25 percent of cap-and-trade funds must go to disadvantaged communities. Now policymakers must figure out what qualifies as "disadvantaged," ensure that those funds actually go to those communities -- and provide them with due benefits. Gentrification & Displacement:  SB 375 isn't only about transit oriented development. But TOD is a big part of it, and the prospect of gentrification is the most interesting and controversial potential impact. Critics argue that shiny new TOD's will attract wealthier residents who will displace poor residents. Goldberg noted that if this happens, it's doubly ironic, since new, higher-income residents may be less likely to use public transit while lower-income refugees may end up getting pushed into the auto-centric periphery. Regionalism:  Wunderman's participation brought up one of the more subtle, but crucial, issues surrounding intra-state governance. Increasing focus on climate change and regional planning requires greater regional coordination, not just among governments but also among agencies, businesses, and stakeholder groups. Peacock noted that SB 375 can provide the financial framework for a weightier version of regionalism. CEQA:  SB 375 is at the heart of the debate over CEQA reform. If the threat of CEQA-based lawsuits curtails the development of TOD's and high-density housing, then the state's two most powerful environmental laws are working at cross-purposes. Of course, some expect that glaciers will form in Death Valley before significant CEQA reform arrives. High-Speed Rail:  California's high-speed rail system will "change the way we operate as a state," according to Wunderman. It will have direct impacts on the cities with HSR stations -- especially those of the Central Valley -- and the system could change residential and commuting patterns throughout the state. If Bakersfield can become a bedroom community of L.A., then planners have to get going. VMT's vs GHG's:  Ever since the Model T rolled out, and especially since Americans fell in love with SUVs and other gas-guzzlers, reduction in pollution and GHG's has been synonymous with lowering of aggregate vehicle miles traveled. Now that some cars, including electric vehicles, emit far less pollution, ought the state still discourage driving and are the tools of SB 375 sufficient to do so? These questions are vexing, to say the least. But, contrary to the forces of ignorance that are raging throughout this country, we are fortunate to have the chance to debate them, even if we're destined to come up with a few wrong answers along the way. You might be interested to know how many times federal climate change policy was mentioned. The answer: zero. The federal government, for obvious, lamentable reasons, is a nonentity. A newly arrived alien would never know that California isn't its own country. Faber emphasized that foreign governments are now looking to California as a model while, apparently, our own federal government is rendered irrelevant. I imagine that a lot of the same folks who deny the existence of climate change would consider that a victory.

As the inane "debate" over climate change drags on in the more ignorant corners of our republic (Washington, D.C., included), it's becoming abundantly clear that California is no longer the place where America's fruits, nuts, and loose ends come to rest. I've been on the periphery of the stateside discussion of SB 375 for the past two years, so I know that it's not news to say that there have been many earnest, productive discussions about it across the state. Even so, I'll still take a moment to say how gratifying it is to witness an adult discussion on a topic that inspires temper tantrums in so many of our national leaders. We live in a parallel universe where people talk seriously about climate change, solutions, and economic impacts.  Yesterday's rendition, at the VerdeXchange "Green Marketmakers" Conference, featured former State Senate President Pro Tem and SB 375 author Darrel Steinberg as moderator, and Gail Goldberg of the Urban Land Institute, Lauren Faber of Environmental Defense Fund Jonathan Parfery of Climate Resolve, Tanya Peacock of the Gas Company, and Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council as panelists. A hand-picked panel, to be sure, but it still represented a perspectives issues ranging from environmental justice to development to utilities. (Disclosure: I used to work for VerdeXchange Chairman David Abel.) What's great about a panel like this is that when everyone agrees – or at least accepts – that the state must do something about climate change and when you understand that laws like SB 375 can be implemented well or badly and that funds like those from AB 32's cap and trade program can be spent well or badly, you get a great, nuanced discussion among people who, whatever their differences may be, genuinely have the state's best interests in mind. And there's a lot that we can do with the roughly $1 billion in annual cap-and-trade funds that are going to be distributed throughout the state. People with true capitalist persuasions will recognize this as an opportunity. Again, I know this approach to climate change isn't news in California. But just imagine what this panel would be like if it was at a conference center in Tulsa rather than one in downtown L.A. Here are a few highlights of the genuine debates that policymakers and members of organizations like the Strategic Growth Council may face as these policies evolve and funds get disbursed. Ideally, these funds can spur further investment and create the types of multipliers and positive externalities that would give Libertarians heart attacks. Statewide Equity:  $1.1 billion is a lot of money, but not when it's spread among 38 million people and hundreds of jurisdictions. The demographic split between northern and southern California – separating the southern 19 million from the northern – is, according to Parfery, roughly contiguous with Los Angeles' Wilshire Boulevard. He encourages lawmakers to keep this counterintuitive boundary in mind. Disadvantaged Communities:  At least 25 percent DELEON LEGISLATION of cap-and-trade funds must go to disadvantaged communities. Now policymakers must ensure that those funds actually go to disadvantaged communities – and provide them with due benefits. Gentrification & Displacement:  SB 375 isn't only about transit oriented development. But TOD is a big part of it, and the prospect of gentrification is the most interesting and controversial potential impact. Critics argue that shiny new TOD's will attract wealthier residents who will displace poor residents. Goldberg noted that if this happens, it's doubly ironic, since new, higher-income residents may be less likely to use public transit while lower-income refugees may end up getting pushed into the auto-centric periphery. Regionalism:  Wunderman's participation brought up one of the more subtle, but crucial, issues surrounding intra-state governance. Increasing focus on climate change and regional planning requires greater regional coordination, not just among governments but also among agencies, businesses, and stakeholder groups. Peacock noted that SB 375 can provide the financial framework for a weightier version of regionalism. CEQA:  SB 375 is at the heart of the debate over CEQA reform. If the threat of CEQA-based lawsuits curtails the development of TOD's and high-density housing, then the state's two most powerful environmental laws are working at cross-purposes. Of course, some expect that glaciers will form in Death Valley before significant CEQA reform arrives. High-Speed Rail:  California's high-speed rail system will "change the way we operate as a state," according to Wunderman. It will have direct impacts on the cities with HSR stations – especially those of the Central Valley – and the system could change residential and commuting patterns throughout the state. If Bakersfield can become a bedroom community of L.A., then planners have to get going. VMT's vs GHG's:  Innovations in engine technologies might throw a wrench in SB 375, so to speak. Ever since the Model T \t\t rolled out, and especially since Americans fell in love with SUVs and other gas-guzzlers, reduction in pollution and GHG's has \t been synonymous with lowering of aggregate vehicle miles traveled. Now that some cars, including electric vehicles, emit far less \t pollution, ought the state still discourage driving and are the tools of SB 375 sufficient to do so? These questions are vexing, to say the least. But it's incredible that we have the chance to debate them, even if we're destined to come up with a few wrong answers along the way. You might be interested to know how many times federal climate change policy was mentioned. The answer: zero. The federal government, for obvious, lamentable reasons, is a nonentity. A newly arrived alien would never know that California isn't its own country. Faber emphasized that foreign governments are now looking to California as a model while, apparently, our own federal government is rendered irrelevant. I imagine that a lot of the same folks who deny the existence of climate change would consider that a victory.

In addition to the state Supreme Court dispute on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's action, three other Newhall Ranch cases continue in litigation, all brought by plaintiffs and attorneys overlapping with the group before the high court. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3461 for more links on these cases.) Advocates filed suit in 2011 challenging Los Angeles County's approval of the project-level EIR for the Landmark Village phase of the project. The writ petition in that matter, No. BS136549, was thrown out by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John A. Torribio in February 2014 and was appealed in May 2014. In the Second District Court of Appeal the matter was assigned to the Fifth Division. Now captioned as Friends of the Santa Clara River v. County of Los Angeles , Case No. B256125, it was argued and submitted January 6, 2015. The Mission Village phase received county approval for its January project-level EIR approval in 2012. It was challenged as of June 2012 . After two years' litigation in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the writ petition, No. BS138001, was denied in June 2014. The petitioners appealed in August 2014. Their attempt to be reassigned to a Second District division other than the Fifth was rejected in October. The case continues as CA Native Plant Society v. County of Los Angeles , No. B258090. A similar group of advocates filed a federal complaint March 6 in the U.S. Central District of California, challenging the federal side of the parallel state and federal review processes on environmental resources. The suit was primarily against the Army Corps of Engineers but initially also against the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), objecting to the EIS certification and the Section 404 permit issued under the Clean Water Act, and alleging noncompliance with other environmental laws and the National Historic Preservation Act. The Newhall Land and Farming Company joined the case as intervenor. It is Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , Case No. 2:14-cv-01667-PSG-CW, initially assigned to Judge Audrey B. Collins but more recently to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez and Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. Plaintiffs in the federal case responded to defendants' opening dismissal motions with an amended complaint last summer. On September 26 the court narrowed the scope of the case, dismissing the EPA and some individual officials as defendants, but allowed claims against the Corps to go forward. Preliminary steps were taken toward summary judgment motions over the winter. As of early January 2015, plaintiffs had amended their complaint a second time per agreement among the parties. The court meanwhile required that a mediation attempt be made by the end of April. More information on the Newhall Ranch controversy is readily available online, though sometimes difficult to parse because information and arguments have traveled in so many braided channels for so long. CDFW has its own environmental review page for the project with an exceptionally clear site map. The developer, Newhall Land and Farming Co., has posted a promotional site showing what homebuyers and others could gain from the project. The Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, saddled with Newhall review processes for a generation, has relevant Web pages including the specific plan , the initial Landmark Village phase, the second-calendared Mission Village phase , and the overarching Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan . The environmental and community groups that have fought the project for a generation each maintain their own Web sites, but many point to a presentation, " Wildlands of the Santa Clara River Watershed " (11.3 MB), using maps and photos to show what the ecosystem could lose. Lynne Plambeck, who has fought the Newhall Ranch proposal since its start as head of the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment (SCOPE) said, "It's too late for the LA River. They can't take the houses out. We have the opportunity to not put the houses in." Editor's Note: The CP&DR e-mail blast of Feb. 3, 2015 contained a misstatement; only one of the four pending Newhall Ranch court cases is before the California Supreme Court.

The Newhall Ranch environmental review litigation, itself a mighty matter of land use legend, has an important strand of its multiply braided conflicts awaiting an oral argument date before the state Supreme Court.  The parties' briefing is complete. The court has accepted a deep layer of amicus briefs from state-level land use players. And with the confirmation of Justice Leondra Kruger, the court has finally returned to full membership. So the court has little reason to delay setting an argument date. Disputes over the proposed Newhall Ranch planned development have been a mainstay topic in Southern California land use politics for two decades . If completed as envisioned, the project would create a city of nearly 60,000 people in northwestern Los Angeles County. The site is at the edge of Los Angeles' current urban footprint, along the Santa Clara River north of the Six Flags amusement park, southwest of the junction between Interstate 5 and Highway 126. Debates about the Newhall Ranch site affect the Santa Clara River system, described by its advocates as "one of the last free flowing natural riparian systems left in southern California." They also provide occasions for public conversation in Los Angeles about the limits of suburban expansion.  The case before the state Supreme Court, Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Game , No. S217763, is one of the four currently litigated Newhall Ranch cases. In accepting the case, the high court granted review only on three questions out of a larger dispute. The eastward end of the Newhall Ranch project site along the Santa Clara River, looking west The first question asks if environmental mitigations that involve catching and moving fish are acceptable for one of California's very few "fully protected" species, the Unarmored Threespine Stickleback.  The second asks if it was proper for a state-level lead agency to treat public comments as late because they came in after the draft environmental review (DEIR) stage -- where the only subsequent comment period was offered by a federal agency, in the concurrent process for its related final environmental impact statement (EIS).  The third question asks whether the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly the Department of Fish and Game) properly accepted Newhall's choice of a baseline to measure its promised greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions under AB 32. In an approach derived from existing Air Resources Board practices, Newhall set as its baseline an unbuilt "business as usual" version of the project, and measured GHG "reductions" by comparing that to the actual plan. Environmental advocates argue this was unfairly manipulating expectations by setting the opening bar too high.  The Newhall Ranch project began its first review processes in 1994, starting environmental review in 1996. The county approved a programmatic EIR in 2003 for a specific plan covering the whole huge project of almost 12,000 acres. That version proposed up to 21,308 dwelling units to house up to 57,903 people in five "villages" with mixed-use development, business parks, designated parks and open space, several schools and a golf course. More recent designs call for 19,812 residential units on a developed area of 2,587 acres of which 2,221 would be residential.  The 2003 specific plan's programmatic EIR was long ago settled as approved, but it looked toward future state and federal environmental reviews and to project EIRs for individual phases of the big plan. Those have provided grist for dispute ever since. The Newhall Ranch issues now before the State Supreme Court concern state-level permits and environmental planning approvals issued in a joint state-federal review process. The state's lead agency was CDFW, working under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The lead federal agency was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, working under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) to prepare an EIS and issue federal permits and approvals. CDFW in 2010 approved an EIR and EIS, a project-wide resource management plan, a large-scale conservation plan for preserving the endangered San Fernando Valley Spineflower, a plan to mitigate the intended alteration of streambeds, and two incidental take permits for damage to endangered species that the approved actions might cause. Environmental and community groups, including advocates for Native American cultural sites, challenged the approvals. The Santa Clara River, home to the unarmored three-spined stickleback, not far upstream from the Newhall Ranch site, during the recent drought. The river's water level and surrounding vegetation vary dramatically with rainfall conditions. The initial Superior Court opinion on the matter, by Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones, underlies the current California Supreme Court appeal. Her unhurried 38-page opinion discussed the environmental value and political/procedural history of the Newhall Ranch, arriving at a ruling in petitioners' favor. Jones' impartiality was later questioned by the Newhall Ranch in a formal challenge in late 2012, in part because of her participation in a land-use dispute in her own neighborhood. The motion to disqualify Judge Jones was rejected in a January 2013 ruling by Judge Glenda Sanders of Orange County, but Jones remains assigned to other matters, making it unlikely she will hear more Newhall Ranch cases. The appellate decision, which sided with Newhall Ranch, was by Justice Paul Turner with concurrence by Justices Richard Mosk and Sandy Kriegler, all of the Second District's Fifth Division. Turner's 113-page opinion included an extended, highly technical discussion of appropriate GHG reductions under AB 32. That analysis, Section IV.G., was much discussed on environmental law firms' blogs, including Stoel Rives' , but the appellate court insisted on excluding it from publication. It is not before the California Supreme Court. Instead, the high court granted review on three relatively narrow issues: First, the court will consider whether "take" of unarmored threespine stickleback is acceptable as part of a mitigation program to protect the endangered fish by moving them from one part of the river to another. Plaintiffs, represented by senior attorneys with the Center for Biological Diversity, a UCLA law school clinic and others, contend that stickleback may not be caught even for mitigation purposes because they belong to one of a few highly fragile populations covered by the Fully Protected Species Laws, Cal. Fish & Game Code Sec. 5515. They argue that catching stickleback is in itself an impermissible "take", and note that in practice some would die in being caught. To plaintiffs, Sec. 5515 supplements the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) by adding additional protections for "fully protected" species.  But CDFW contends that it properly chose to allow "incidental take" permits under CESA in connection with relocating stickleback, in an exercise of both administrative discretion and "common sense" for which it claims judicial deference. Newhall Ranch, whose attorneys include Mark Dillon of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP and Miriam Vogel of Morrison & Foerster, argues that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which would perform the relocation work, has independent federal authority to do so. In one of the many filed amicus briefs, attorneys with Cox, Castle & Nicholson including Michael Zischke, writing for building industry and real estate groups, argued that CDFW and the appellate court followed the settled interpretation of "take", whereas adopting Petitioners' approach would "paralyze" CDFW and stop all development on land harboring any of the 37 "fully protected species." Second, the court will consider whether comments responding to the final EIR were raised soon enough to meet CEQA's exhaustion of remedies standard. The comments concerned Chumash and Tataviam Native American cultural resources on the project site and expected runoff impacts on California Steelhead. Plaintiffs contend they raised these objections timely on the final EIR/EIS if not during the Draft EIR comment period. (A November 25 reply brief also contends the steelhead comments were raised sufficiently during the draft EIR period.) Defendants contend that, although plaintiffs did comment on those issues, and received responses to their comments from Newhall Ranch, that happened in a comment process that was required and provided only under NEPA, for the final EIS, and not under CEQA for the final EIR. Defendants argue in the alternative that the appellate court rejected the cultural resource and steelhead claims on the merits, and that the state supreme court should do the same. In an amicus brief, several California tribes argued against an over-strict reading of timeliness provisions. In addition to more technical arguments, the brief argued that if early comment cutoffs became widespread, that could worsen tribes' reluctance to participate in state rather than federal environmental processes. An amicus brief by Susan Brandt-Hawley for the Planning and Conservation League argued in part that an agency's decision not to offer a comment period or hearing on a final EIR "cannot preclude meaningful public participation" nor justify excluding evidence offered before EIR/EIS certification. The Zischke brief included an argument that "CEQA does not direct agencies when they must hold hearings, and in fact CEQA does not require hearings at all." Third, the court will consider if CDFW properly allowed Newhall Ranch to calculate its planned GHG reductions based on differences between the actual plan and a projected "business as usual" version of the project design. Plaintiffs argue that CDFW improperly allowed Newhall Ranch to game the GHG reduction requirements under AB 32, as implemented by CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.4 , by projecting the emissions from a hypothetical exaggerated, legally impermissible version of the project, treating that as its baseline, and counting as a GHG "reduction" the 31% difference between that and the actual plan's projected emissions. (The projected reduced emission would still be 269,000 metric tons of GHGs per year.) CDFW made a compact argument that it acted within its discretion to select methodologies but mainly stepped back and let Newhall Ranch argue the GHG issue under a "division of labor". In addition to the discretion argument, Newhall argued that its analysis complied with Sec. 15064.4, and that, while disclosing current existing conditions on the site -- now largely farmland -- it acted on the realistic assumption that populations grow.  Newhall Ranch argued that the "business-as-usual" baseline followed the Air Resources Board's approach to the AB 32 requirement of per capita GHG reductions from 1990 levels to 2020 levels. It said the ARB had set the example of "assuming emissions controls remain static between 1990 and 2020" as "an analytical construct." The developer argued the project should get credit for its environmentally conscious features, including more than 10,000 acres of open space, plans to protect drainages and wetlands, energy efficiency, rooftop solar, provisions for public transit, walking and biking trails, and "close proximity of homes to jobs and services".  A Sierra Club amicus brief focused on the GHG issue, arguing that the "business as usual" baseline was "predicated on an alternate reality" in which GHG emissions had not been further regulated since 2005. The Sierra Club amicus presumed that Executive Order S-3-05 created a substantive emissions reduction target -- a position placed in doubt by the ruling in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments , discussed at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3632 . An amicus brief by attorneys with the Nossaman and Best, Best & Krieger firms, among others, amplified several CDFW and Newhall arguments on the GHG review baseline, then closed by arguing that a ruling for plaintiffs would be disruptive. It sided with Justice Patricia Benke's dissent in the San Diego matter, arguing as Benke had that too much executive power should not interfere with agency discretion.

In the latest step towards an alternative to redevelopment in Los Angeles, city officials are considering the creation of an "infrastructure district" to fund a $1 billion revitalization plan for the Los Angeles River. The district has been made possible by a new tax-sharing law designed to replace tax-increment financing that had been used by the hundreds of redevelopment agencies shut down by Sacramento in 2012.  The Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District will funnel a portion of future property taxes in the district into the revitalization project. Funds will go towards creating wetlands and wildlife habitats, landscaping near the interstate and constructing a new tributary. However, the districts will likely only be able to collect about 60 percent of what the now-defunct redevelopment agencies collected, partially because, unlike with redevelopment, funds cannot be diverted from schools and other special districts without the districts' approval. Acknowledging the limitations of this type of financing, attorney Jon E. Goetz told the Los Angeles Times, "Redevelopment was a power tool, and this is more like a hand tool." Court Validates Sale of Ontario Airport to L.A.; Dispute Rages On In the ongoing battle between the City of Ontario and Los Angeles World Airports, a San Bernardino county judge tentatively ruled that the regional airport should not have been sold to Los Angeles in the 1980s. However, the statute of limitations governing the sale ended in 1989, thus validating Los Angeles' ownership. The decision is a setback for Ontario, which is trying to regain control of the airport. The city has offered LAWA $250 million while LAWA is asking for nearly double that amount, contending that it has outstanding liabilities from a 1998 renovation of the airport. Litigation will continue as Ontario claims that LAWA breached its contract by allowing traffic to drop precipitously, from 7.2 million annual passengers in 2007 to 3.9 million in 2013. San Franciscans Win Fight Against Shadows Residents in San Francisco concerned about access to daylight scored a victory this month. For residents near Victoria Manalo Draves Park in San Francisco, sunshine is a precious resource. So when a developer proposed a six-story residential project that would cast a shadow on the park, residents pleaded with the Recreation and Park Commission to reject the project. Officials voted 5-0 to reject the project, recommending that the Planning Commission do the same. It is the one multi-use park in the neighborhood, which has much less acreage of green space than other San Francisco districts. Residents who spoke out against the development also cited gentrification as a reason for their opposition to the development. "Some may laugh about the importance of sunlight and the relevance of a shadow on land processes," San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim told the S.F. Examiner. "But let's face it, San Francisco is a cold city and affected by sunlight." Results Unclear in L.A.'s Longstanding Cash for Transit Program  A 23-year-old law designed to get Los Angeles workers to stop driving alone to work may not be as effective as lawmakers hoped. The law, passed in 1993, requires companies with at least 50 employees and with leased parking spaces to offer cash to workers agree to give up their parking spaces in favor of commuting methods such as walking, biking, or taking mass transit. Twenty-one years later, the California Air Resources Board, which is in charge of overseeing the program's implementation, has not kept track of many employers and workers are participating in the program.  Critics say that the eligibility rules have only applied to about 3 percent of free parking spaces provided by employers in California. In areas where the program has been implemented, though, researchers have shown that the program has been effective, dropping the percentage of employees who drove to work from 76 percent to 63 percent. According to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 90 percent of commuters in Los Angeles and Orange counties receive free parking at work. San Diego Faces $3.9 Billion Infrastructure Backlog The City of San Diego has released a comprehensive report estimating that the city needs $3.9 billion in infrastructure upgrades including roads, sewers, and storm drains. The report contends that, over the past several decades, the city's infrastructure has crumbled as politicians have dragged their feet in creating any long term plans for repairs. Officials now face the task of finding sources of funding for the repairs, with only $2.2 billion available, leaving a $1.7 billion gap. A significant portion of the needed funding comes because of new state rules requiring upgrades to storm drains to decrease pollutant discharge. Lemon Grove Planning Commission May Dissolve The mayor of the San Diego County city of Lemon Grove is seeking to dissolve the city's Planning Commission, saying that the City Council can do the job of the planning commissioners and save the city time and money. However, the city council has been hesitant to carry out this request. This week it called on city staff to determine the costs and effectiveness of the planning commission. Mayor Mary Sessom claims that having the City Council perform the duties of the planning commission could save the city thousands of dollars in wages. However, Former Planning Commissioner Racquel Vazquez said that it was important to have an additional "layer between special interests and those who are in elected office" in the city through the planning commission.