LOS ANGELES -- Many of the young urban planners in Los Angeles live exactly where you'd expect them to live: the dense, colorful, decidedly urban neighborhoods in and around downtown Los Angeles. They ride bikes and take trains and, in many ways, live the life that they are trying to design.  Then there's me. I live on the Westside. So the Expo Line light rail (see july 2012 feature story "New Light Rail Opens Up World of TOD Possibilities" ), currently running from downtown to Culver City and, eventually, to Santa Monica -- is as close to a godsend as I'll see in my lifetime. (I'm not holding my breath for the subway.) While you just need to look at a map to see that the line, in whole, serves us Westsiders nicely, I can't help but lament that Metro overlooked some important details. It's important to remember that the speed of a transit line doesn't depend only on how fast the rolling stock moves but rather on the speed, ease, and comfort of the entire trip, door to door. Put together, Expo suffers some annoyances that could turn off discretionary riders and slow down everyone:  Los Angeles Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne has already excoriated the "aggressively banal" aesthetics of Expo's stations; I can scarcely improve on his assessment . The platforms and their canopies are flimsy, spare, and forgettable. The "weaving" metaphor is both untrue (South LA and the Westside are not quite a big, happy, multicultural families), and it's incomprehensible in the design. You should watch out anytime architecture is based on a metaphor—and an untrue one, at that.  Though Metro's otherwise convenient parking structure at the La Cienega/Jefferson station sits on a major corner, it has only one driveway. And it allows drivers to exit in only one direction: eastward. The problem is, anyone who's going to be parking there will naturally be heading anywhere but east, meaning that everyone has to do a confusing, and perilous, three-point turn on to side streets.  The La Cienega platform hovers tantalizingly at eye-level with the parking structure's third floor. Yet, the absence of a bridge (albeit an expensive one) means that commuters have to go down a set of stairs, cross a driveway, and climb up more stairs before they can catch the train (and their breath).  Inexplicably, some of Expo's ticket machines are not located on the platforms--or even in the same zip codes. Metro placed them at street-level for elevated stations and some of the machines for at-grade stations are across the street. Since Metro's light rail trains run on an honor system, latecomers have every incentive to jump the turnstile, as it were, if they're in even the slightest hurry. The ideal rail platform is no platform at all. In many European cities, you just step off the train where it stops. Maybe you have a bit of a curb to designate the stop and make egress easier. On the Expo Line, even the at-grade stations present a gauntlet for riders. For instance, the Pico Bl. platform funnels riders off the train in the wrong direction, backwards into wall of an adjacent building -- without any wayfinding to help riders to likely destination: the heavily trafficked Staples Center/Convention Center complex two blocks away. In fact, it's set up so that if you want to get to Figueroa Bl., you basically have to cross and re-cross the tracks and then jaywalk across Flower St. Finally, Metro has populated the Expo Line with what seems to be its most decrepit pieces of rolling stock. I don't think that Westsiders necessarily need rail cars straight out of the wrapper. But dingy, banged up, graffitti'd cars don't exactly complement an otherwise pristine line.  So if you park on the top floor of the La Cienega garage, fumble with your cash, and get turned around at Pico, you're going to be out of luck if you expect to arrive in time to see Andrew Bynum dominate some fool at the opening tipoff.  These complaints may be trifles for any given passenger, but, collectively, they are nontrivial in a business that operates on thin margins and in volumes on the order of 16,000 riders per day (and counting). Compared to driving, a 10-minute savings might attract a slew of discretionary riders, whereas a 5-minute savings might not. On a potentially transformative project that cost almost $1 billion, these are all solvable problems that would have made a promising piece of infrastructure that much more useful.  I'll gladly ride Expo when I can. But my Eastside friends know that they can still expect me to be late to the next downtown urban planning happy hour. I may need a few minutes to find parking.

It's not quite the Golden Spike, but the completion of Phase I of the Los Angeles Expo Line light rail marks a momentous occasion in the history of westward rail expansion. Built on a former trolley right-of-way, the Expo Line connects downtown Los Angeles with the Westside via rail for the first time in decades. Whereas Los Angeles' old Pacific Electric Railway had been built in virgin territory in order to spur new development, the Expo Line is but a filament, woven into built-up neighborhoods. Expo-adjacent neighborhoods are no streetcar suburbs, however. Now that the Westside once again has the "T," efforts to figure out the "OD" have only just begun. The opportunity to explore a whole new typology on the Westside has planners and developers excited�and anxious. "There are opportunities that exist along Expo that don't exist along other proposed or recently constructed alignments in California," said Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Director of the Center for Transit-Oriented Development at the transit advocacy group Reconnecting America, which published a major report on TOD in Los Angeles County in 2010. "But there's these issues of equity that need to be somehow addressed and mitigated." On its eastern end, the Expo Line serves ideal destinations: downtown and the University of Southern California, with over 50,000 students and staff. The Expo Line cuts transit travel time between downtown and USC to seven minutes from almost a half-hour. On the north side of campus, a massive planned residential and retail complex, The Village, is being touted by USC officials as a 10-minute walk from the two stations (See sidebar "Design Glitches Add Precious Minutes to Expo Trip" .) Heading west, the Expo Line presents seemingly ideal opportunities for transit-oriented development. Residents who live along the line might never have to endure the 10 Freeway ever again. A second phase is expected to connect to Santa Monica in 2015. "The Expo Line Phase I has significant opportunities for the whole area and significant opportunities in terms of increasing the housing stock for the area and opportunities to make the Expo stations regional hubs for housing development," said Faisal Roble, senior city planner for the city's Southeast Region. Los Angeles City Council Member Bernard Parks, whose district includes much of the Expo Line's route, envisions mixed-use development at higher densities than the area currently has. He said he supports zoning changes to allow more mixed use development and higher elevations. Currently, land use in the area is segregated, with commercial strip malls clustering at major intersections and residential neighborhoods off the major boulevards. Roble estimated that Phase I, which cost $930 million to construct, could prompt the development of up to 6,000 new housing units in the area by 2030. However, South Los Angeles offers few easy places to put any new development, much less 6,000 units. Simply put, vaunted TOD's like Oakland's Fruitvale Station or Walnut Creek's Contra Costa Centre have are difficult to insert into the urban fabric of South Los Angeles. Thorne-Lyman equated Expo with San Francisco's 3rd Street line, a streetcar-style line that runs through the low-income area of Bayview-Hunters Point. Unlike many of the great east-west boulevards in Los Angeles, the line's namesake, Exposition Boulevard, is a secondary thoroughfare fronted largely by relatively low-density residential uses and even some light industrial uses, such as auto yards and recycling centers. The line's six stations between USC and its current terminus at the intersection of Venice and Robertson boulevards do not have ready-made urban villages. "In terms of the retail and office development, the opportunities are limited precisely because the stations along the Expo Line probably cannot compete with the adjacent downtown districts that we have," said Roble. Roble added that commercial development will likely include "neighborhood-oriented retail uses and small offices, such as doctors offices, dentist offices and others that the community relies on a daily basis." Inserting new development will, therefore, be incremental and subtle. "I think the community fully endorses development as long as development is not overdone�as long as it's bringing amenities to the general public," said Council Member Parks. "I don't think we'll have a drastic change in the types of communities in the district." The main challenge is that of finding parcels large enough to make transit-oriented development�either mixed use or wholly residential�worthwhile. Developers could attempt to assemble parcels, but in order to get the acreage they would need, they might have to negotiate with dozens of small landowners. "There's a lot of small, teeny parcels and there's all this weird industrial property, and it certainly seems like it could be refurbished, but that's going to be a challenge," said Hornstock. This process will, of course, have to take place without the assistance of a redevelopment agency. "With the fall of redevelopment, we've lost a significant tool in the process to assemble large enough properties together to make it meaningful and worthwhile to do a larger-scale project," said Tom Wulf, a senior vice president at Lowe Enterprises. Wulf's firm has a development agreement in place for a large mixed use development, including a hotel, 150 residential units, and nearly 200,000 square feet of office space, at the Culver City terminus. (Several other major TODs are planned for the Culver City end of the line, where larger parcels have been available and the city has been aggressively promoting development.) Moreover, Roble said that many of the lots directly adjacent to the line are relatively shallow. So, he said, much of the new development associated with the line could take place several blocks from the line itself. The Los Angeles Department of City Planning has been developing what it calls a Community Plan Implementation Overlay (CPIO) District, which superimposes certain rules on TOD-friendly areas�generally a quarter�mile radius around a station�without changing the areas' respective community plans. These overlay zones are going in around dozens of transit stations in the South LA planning area, including existing Blue Line and Green Line stations. Mindful of community opposition to rampant development, planners have devised incentives to promote what they consider beneficial, neighborhood-serving uses�and to gently nudge-out nuisance uses. Roble said, for instance, that a development that includes a health clinic or that installs extra greenery will get certain perks, such as allowances for increased density. "We will look at elements that have inhibited place-making, such as recycling, tire shops, all the nuisance uses that plague our corridors will now be regulated through the CPIO," said Roble. "The beauty of this overlay zone is that it's a focused element within that community, as opposed to a specific plan that would be very comprehensive." Roble said that the CPIO will not prohibit unwanted uses but rather will control them by imposing maximum numbers of "placemaking-inhibiting" uses in a given area and making sure that they are spread out. Though it controls some small parcels along the line, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority has taken only a tangential role in promoting TOD around Expo. (By contrast, Metro has been a major developer along the Red Line, where the agency has considerable landholdings.) Metro has developed a grant program to help local planners develop and implement TOD plans around its stations, and Los Angeles has received $3.1 from that program to draft a specific plan for Expo. "Funding is to promote any kind of regulatory change that supports transit oriented development," said Jenna Hornstock, Deputy Executive Officer and Countywide Planning at Metro. "It could be an amendment to an existing plan, a specific plan�..anything like that." Metro officials hope that increased development will equate with higher ridership. However, they acknowledge that, no matter how much TOD is built, not everyone will be riding the train. "While we're super-excited about the Expo Line and, I think, over time it's going to alleviate traffic, any time you bring in density to the really congested Westside people are going to say you're bringing in more traffic," said Hornstock. Perhaps the most delicate issue facing planners is that of addressing affordable housing. The Expo Line runs through relatively poor neighborhoods filled with older housing stock. In a city with a chronic shortage of affordable housing, city officials are wary of anything that would displace existing residents. Some affordable housing advocates claim that TOD tends to push out less affluent residents�who are often the most transit dependent�and lead to gentrification. "Do we keep the housing stock that's there to preserve the low-income residents or are there opportunities to develop something that's a higher-quality building stock or adding more units near transit in really location-efficient areas?" said Thorne-Lyman. Parks said that he favors new commercial/residential mixed-use development, which can add amenities while maintaining the number of residential units. He does not, however, want to be dogmatic about pursuing affordable housing. "I think affordable housing is important," said Parks. "But I don't believe that you can build a community only with affordable housing. You don't have a community unless you have a balance." Acknowledging that developers find it "excruciating" to seek entitlements and lobby for rezoning when they want to build high-density projects, Parks hopes that the CPIO and new community plans will make the area more welcoming to developers. "I think developers are often looking for places that they can be certain about the development requirements and what can be built by-right," said Parks. Contacts:  Jenna Hornstock, Deputy Executive Officer and Countywide Planning, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 213.922.6000 Bernard Parks, Los Angeles City Council Member, 8th District, 213.473.7008 Faisal Roble, Senior City Planner for L.A. Southeast Region, 213.978.1168 Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Director, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, Reconnecting America, 510.268.8602 Tom Wulf, Senior Vice President, Lowe Enterprises, 310.820.6661 Photo Credit: Steve Hymon/Metro

As if on cue, several cities have already filed suit to block the penalty provisions in Assembly Bill 1484, the budget trailer bill passed two weeks ago. AB 1484 was intended in large part to help successor agencies with matters such as disposal of assets and expenditure of bond funds. It also includes a demand that successor agencies immediately pay "claw-back" payments to local taxing entities; if they fail to do so, then the Department of Finance can garnish cities' property and sales tax monies. DOF recently announced that it would not levy fines until August, at the earliest. A coalition of five San Diego County cities -- Chula Vista, National City, Oceanside, San Marcos and Vista -- have filed a joint suit against the state and county.  Other cities that have reportedly filed suit include El Cerrito in Contra Costa County, Galt in Sacramento County, Selma in Fresno County and Apple Valley in San Bernadino County.  Some of these cities have paid under protest, while others have failed to pay entirely. Statewide, AB 1484 assessments range from less than $1 million to over $10 million in some cases.   Update:  The board of the League of California cities voted unanimously Friday to authorize the filing of a lawsuit against AB 1484 on behalf of the League's member cities. The League staff contend that AB 1484's sales and property tax "claw-back" provisions violate multiple provisions of the state constitution that were adopted by the voters of California in 2004 (Proposition 1A) and 2010 (Prop. 22). League Executive Director Chris McKenzie said in a statement: "AB 1484 represents a clear and present threat to the ability of cities to meet the public safety and other vital public service needs of the city resident of California. We also strongly believe the sales tax and property tax "claw-back" provisions violate the constitution and are inconsistent with other parts of AB 1484 that declare that redevelopment successor agencies are separate and apart from city governments." The League has not announced if or when it would file suit.

Despite the tumult caused by that the demise of redevelopment, the recent perils of the cities of San Bernardino and Stockton did not stem from redevelopment-related costs. If soaring pensions costs and operational expenses were the immediate cause of the bankruptcies, the underlying cause did not stem from overly ambitious redevelopment schemes but rather from the prolonged housing bust that has choked off revenue to the cities (and, not to mention, financially crippled many of their residents). Stockton has already filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, while San Bernardino had scheduled a fiscal emergency vote for July 17 authorize the bankruptcy filing. A third city, Mammoth Lakes, also filed for Chapter 9, apparently to fend off a $43 million judgment owed to a developer, and appears unrelated to the problems in the larger cities. A June 26 fiscal report from the City of San Bernardino sums up the problem: Costs "continue to outpace revenue due to increased operational expenses and significant rapid declines in property taxes revenues, as a result of a drop in property values and decline in sales tax revenue." That's a lot of causality in just one sentence. In Stockton, the list of creditors in the Chapter 9 filing tells the story. The city owes nearly $272 million in pension costs, including $147 million in unfunded pension contributions to CalPers, the public employee pension system, and another $124.28 in pension bond payments to Wells Fargo. Redevelopment-related bonds represent at least $142.98 million, including $10.84 million owed to the state Department of Boating and Waterways for work done on the controversial Stockton marina, which some local residents have cited as an expensive luxury for a largely working class farm community. Stockton took on much of the debt in the decade prior to the 2007 credit freeze, when home prices were growing and high-profile projects like the marina and a convention hotel seemed feasible. Currently, however, Stockton is a study in civic misery, with a 22% unemployment rate and one of the highest foreclosure levels in the state. The city has slashed its budget repeatedly, laying off nearly a third of its police force and fire fighters—a tough call in a city rife with gang warfare and the second highest murder rate in California. The next big dates for the Stockton bankruptcy are July 20, when the city is scheduled to make public the key points of the mediation between the city and creditors mandated by state law, and August 23, the next court hearing scheduled in Sacramento. In San Bernardino, the city's financial report, prepared in anticipation of the City Council vote to declare a state of fiscal emergency, offers some broad parallels to Stockton: falling revenues and looming pension obligations. In all, the city faces a $46 million shortfall in 2011-12. Property tax revenues alone have fallen $11.69 million from their peak of $30.5 million in 20-07-08. Unfortunately, the city seems to have been caught by surprise in part due to two years of inaccurate estimates by staff, according to the Los Angeles Times. Sale of city owned real estate, including redevelopment assets, may provide marginal assistance, at best, according to the city's own report. Currently, the city and the successor agency own or participate in commercial real estate with a "book value" of about $300 million (roughly, what it was worth when purchased) with a current market value of $100 million. The city is entitled to 18% share of any sale, or $18 million. San Bernardino is considered a secondary or tertiary market by institutional investors, however, who are channeling their money into safe, income-producing properties in places like San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Not coincidentally, on July 17, a task force co-chaired by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Richard Ravitch reporting on the financial condition of California and five other states seems to draw similar conclusions: "While state revenues are gradually recovering from the drastic decline of the Great Recession, they are not growing sufficiently to keep pace with the spending required by Medicaid costs, pensions, and other responsibilities and obligations," says the report, adding: "This (decline) has resulted in persistent and growing structural deficits in many states which threaten their fiscal sustainability." The report identifies several "major fiscal threats," including Medicaid spending growth, underfunded retirement promises, "eroding, narrow and volatile" tax bases, impact of the federal deficit reduction, and "local government fiscal stress." Beyond the dismal numbers in both Stockton, San Bernardino, and elsewhere throughout the state, the question remains whether the timing of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies was hurtful to California cities in the long run. In both cities, however, the proverbial camel's bank was broken with or without real estate liabilities.

For many cities that have endured the painful process of dissolving their redevelopment agencies, the bloodletting has begun anew.  Last week, the legislature passed, and Gov. Jerry Brown signed, Assembly Bill 1484, a budget trailer bill meant to clarify aspects of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and liquidation of their assets. AB 1484 salvages billions of dollars worth of bond funds, protects certain loans between cities and former redevelopment agencies, and gives cities a degree of control over bond proceeds and properties owned by former redevelopment agencies.  "Given that the legislature in their wisdom decided to eliminate redevelopment, at least we're getting a few more crumbs," said Robert Zur-Schmiede, deputy director of Development services at the City of Long Beach.  For some, however, AB 1484 is a Trojan horse, which essentially gives the Department of Finance the key to cities' coffers. AB 1484 requires that, as of July 12, cities relinquish local taxing entities' share of the 2011 property tax distribution that had gone to redevelopment/successor agencies. Cities that did not make full pass-through payments to their respective taxing entities were required to make up the difference.  "While we welcomed cleanup legislation for the redevelopment dissolution bill, there are many provisions in AB 1484 that require us to complete numerous additional steps and add layers of approval that further complicate and greatly lengthen the dissolution process," said Victorville City Manager Doug Robertson.  For many public officials, AB 1484 is the nearly unthinkable culmination in a series of efforts by which Sacramento has exacted money from local redevelopment. But whereas previous actions, including old Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund payments and the dissolution of redevelopment itself, were based purely on tax increment money, AB 1484 garnishes funds from municipal sales and/or property tax revenues.  Because of this so-called "tax claw-back" provision, many local officials are incensed, claiming that AB 1484 is an unprecedented intrusion into local affairs.  "Draconian is an overused word and probably isn't strong enough," said Larry Kuhn, city manager of Vacaville.  The claw-back ties the fate of redevelopment agencies to that of their host cities in new, powerful ways. Redevelopment agencies had been wholly separate entities from their host cities, and the vast majority of host cities agreed to serve as successor agencies only because AB 1X 26 treated successor agencies as separate legal and financial entities. AB 1484 changes that relationship by forcing cities to pay assessments from their own tax bases.  "Had this type of penalty been included in the original dissolution bill, many cities would have thought twice about becoming the successor agency," said Robertson. DOF informed every city of its required payment—many cities owed nothing, while others owed in excess of $10 million—on July 9, and the payment was supposed to be made by July 12. City officials have complained of the inordinately quick turnaround (as a trailer bill, AB 1484 was drafted and approved with relatively little public discussion), and many say that their assessed payments are much higher than they ought to be.  Many cities paid their assessments in order to avoid a penalty of 10% of the amount owed imposed by AB 1484. But they have done so under protest, thus reserving the right to challenge the amounts owed and possibly get refunds once DOF recalculates the amounts. McKenzie said that the League does not yet have an authoritative account of AB 1484's assessments or cities' responses statewide.   Even if some cities' burdens are lightened, many will find themselves in dire financial straits.  "The real threshold of pain here is the potential to lose tax revenue and to pay fines when it's such a hard time for cities and they're already losing redevelopment," said Larry Kosmont, a consultant who is working with several cities on their dissolution process. "I think there will be some causalities." The bill received overwhelming support from Democrats in Sacramento. Sen. Alan Lowenthal was one of the few who objected.  "The claw-back should never have been approved," said Lowenthal. "It turns an already difficult situation for the cities into one that is intolerable." Brown's argument, however, is that the state's budget woes are less tolerable still. The funds identified in AB 1484 would be dedicated to education and therefore indirectly relieve some of the state's budget woes.  "County auditors are sending bills to successor agencies based on the calculations done by the state of dollars owed to counties, cities, schools, community colleges and special districts," said Evan Westrup, spokesperson for the governor. While almost everyone in the redevelopment community had clamored for a fix to the hastily drafted dissolution legislation, AB 1X 26, AB 1484 was not what they had in mind. AB 1484 includes many provisions—inserted nearly verbatim—from AB 1585 (Perez) and SB 986 (Dutton), which had broad support but failed in the legislature. The penalty provision and DOF control thereof was not, however, part of those bills.  "We said, fine, put a penalty in it for the successor agencies if they don't follow the law, but we want a judge to stand in judgment not a department of state government that has proven time and time again that their number-one agenda is to take as much money as possible," said McKenzie. "It's really unfair for everybody involved for DOF to play the role of judge, jury and administrator."  McKenzie also suggested that garnishing city property and sales taxes was a violation of Proposition 22, the 2010 ballot measure that protects local government funds. AB 1484 would, therefore, be unconstitutional.  While cities see the penalties as excessive, DOF may have had little choice if it hopes to reap the estimated $3 billion that dissolution was supposed to reap for the state this fiscal year and last year.  "If you're going to have a dissolution process, someone has to enforce it. It's either going to be someone like the DOF or the attorney general," said Kosmont. "No one is going to like to be put in the position of sheriff." Since Brown first proposed redevelopment dissolution in January 2011, those estimates have been revised downward, with some saying that the state will net less than $1 billion.  Then again, AB 1484 includes provisions that may confer significant benefits on cities and that undo some of the clunkier provisions of AB 1X 26. For cities whose books are in order and do not owe anything to their taxing entities, AB 1484 is largely positive.  "I think it actually did some very good things for successor agencies and cities," said Tiffany Bohee, interim executive director of San Francisco's successor agency. "In San Francisco we didn't have anything disputed on the two ROPS that we submitted….no dispute whatsoever. We worked very hard to comply with every aspect of the law before and after." ROPS refers to "Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule," the semiannual list of items that successor agencies must submit to DOF in order to receive state monies to pay for what they claim are legitimate debts left over from redevelopment activities. Cities that are not quite so liquid as San Francisco  have to muddle through a thicket of pros, cons, and pros that might actually turn out to be cons.  Cities' ultimate fiscal liberation lies in what AB 1484 calls a "certificate of completion," which DOF issues once a successor agency has paid off all of the money it owes to the state and to local taxing entities; this includes the equivalent of the former 20% set-aside that it must pay into the Low-Moderate Income Housing Fund.  Upon receiving a certificate of completion, cities and successor agencies receive the following benefits:  * Loan agreements entered into by cities and former redevelopment agencies are considered enforceable obligations so long as oversight boards deem them to have been for legitimate public purposes. Critics had contended that cities had loaned money to redevelopment agencies—and vice-versa—in order to shield money from the state. But some note that these loans were intended to help cities and RDA's avoid bonding or bank loans, which would have incurred higher interest rates.  * Bond proceeds from bonds issued by the end of 2010 may be used for the bonds' original intended purposes, according to their bond convents. The prospect of having to defease bonds—at considerable expense—was considered one of the more egregious oversights of AB 1X 26. * Successor agencies do not have to conduct a fire sale to liquidate real property assets, as many had feared, and may retain properties for public purposes; those purposes can include redevelopment plans and even sale at a later date. Properties may be transferred to cities. Successor agencies must draft property management plans, to be approved by their oversight boards and DOF. Some are nervous that the certificates of completion will not be as final as they seem, since DOF could veto items on cities' certificates when they review cities' ROPS requests. Many city officials, however, are delighted by the provisions in AB 1484, in part because it allows them to continue with a semblance of redevelopment.  "The long-range asset management plan is actually very good because it provides great flexibility for cities and successor agencies to identify which of their properties or assets they want to keep or dispose of pursuant to existing redevelopment plans or purposes," said Bohee.  Kosmont noted that with cities being able to control the fate of their properties, "the state will get a better land use result."  Regardless of those benefits, almost everyone involved with RDA dissolution expects that AB 1484 will inspire litigation—on top of the rancor that it has already created.  "It's a colossal house of cards," said McKenzie. "They're not going to get the funds that they wanted, and, more importantly, poisoned the well of the relationship between the state and cities by over-reaching, by being punitive, and by being extremely disrespectful to their peers at the city level." Whether it is respected or not, the state has vowed to fight for the funds that it believes taxing entities should receive.  "The state is prepared to do what we need to do to make sure the law is administered effectively and that counties, cities, schools, community colleges and special districts receive the funds they should under law," said Westrup, Brown's spokesperson. Contacts:  Tiffany Bohee, Interim Executive Director, San Francisco Successor Agency, 415.749.2588 Doug Robertson, Victorville City Manager, 760.955.5029 Larry Kosmont, President, The Kosmont Cos., 213.417.3300 Laura Kuhn, City Manager, City of Vacaville, 707.449-5100 Alan Lowenthal, State Senator-Long Beach, 562.495.4766 Chris McKenzie, Executive Director, League of California Cities, 916.658-8200  Evan Westrup, Spokesperson, Gov. Jery Brown, 916.445.2841  Robert Zur-Schmiede, Deputy Director of Development Services, City of Long Beach, 562.570.6555

A few weeks ago the nation's public radio listeners let out a collective sigh of lament when the Tappet Brothers announced the discontinuation of Car Talk. Cars are so much of who we are that it's no wonder that Car Talk was public radio's highest rated show. It's also no wonder that there's no outcry for a "Public Transit Talk" - though two authors are trying to change that.   Whether one assaults the sound barrier in a Veyron, caresses the biosphere in a Prius, or simply tries to get to work on time in a beater, most drivers in most American cities share one thing in common: utter indifference to alternative modes of transportation. Buses and trains, to say nothing of cyclists and pedestrians, blend in with all other mundane bits of urban infrastructure, evoking no more passion or scrutiny than do streetlights or garbage cans.  Two new books are unlikely to convert (or even be read by) the already uninitiated. But they do illuminate nuances--and even joys--of public transit in ways that drivers may never appreciate so long as they remain pinned behind their own wheels. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking About Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives," by Australia-based transit planner Jarrett Walker, presents itself as a sort of "Public Transportation for Dummies," explaining in abstract, but remarkably clear, terms the logic that governs public transit systems and the choices--some technical, some ethical--that transit planners and operators make.  "Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile," by travel journalist Taras Grescoe, is what you get when an enthusiastic passenger boards one of those transit systems�even the imperfect ones�and finds in them a measure of rhapsody usually reserved for hot rods and luxury saloons. It's telling that the two books have nearly identical sub-titles, which situate public transit at the very heart of not just cities but, indeed, of what it means to be human in the modern world.  'Human Transit' Walker directs "Human Transit" at the typical automobile driver--who may not understand where all those buses are going, or why--and at the typical taxpayer. Of course, in most cities, this person is often one in the same. Without referring to any particular city, Walker aims to inform everyday stakeholders and would-be activists about the approaches that professional transit planners take when they decide to add a bus line or hike up fares. Walker doesn't single out urban planners, but to the extent that urban planning and public transit are becoming ever more intertwined, "Human Transit" offers land use planners a handy, readable opportunity to understand the work of their mobility-obsessed counterparts.  Transit agencies worry a lot about routes, fares, and headways�all of which Walker discusses. But Walker emphasizes that agencies must also make some excruciating subjective choices about the type of service they offer�and to whom. Indeed, those two issues are, in large part, one in the same.  Many transit advocates (and critics) tend to view transit through what Walker might characterize as myopic frameworks, which assume that transit systems have one goal and that all resources should be directed towards that goal. In California, the influential Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles has long lobbied, and sued, for L.A. Metro to run more buses to serve minority, transit-dependent riders. They claim that shiny new light rail lines in relatively affluent areas have implicitly led to long, circuitous, and transfer-filled commutes for poor riders. For every pampered lawyer who rides heavy rail from his apartment in Koreatown to his Bunker Hill office (or from her four-bedroom in Pleasanton to the Transamerica Pyramid), someone else is on a hellish 2-hour zigzag so they can vacuum the floors in those very same homes and offices.  But wait, implies Walker. Though the indignation of the BRU may rumble down from a seeming moral high ground, it represents only one of many legitimate choices that transit planners can make. Indeed, planners and stakeholders alike must first decide what a transit system is for. Certainly, it can move people who have no other way to move. But it can also combat traffic. Or pollution. Or it can maximize revenue. Or it can make a city more liveable. It can even stoke development.  Let's take the intertwined goal of reducing the twin menaces of pollution and traffic. These go away only when drivers abandon their cars. But if a transit system is focused on transit-dependent riders, then there's no net gain. So, sometimes, a transit system might have to do a little primping in order to attract the discretionary rider, whose ridership creates a net benefit. Likewise, a system could be dedicated to serving suburban commuters who travel during peak traffic hours, or it could be dedicated to serving the constant throb of a center city.  Ultimately, Walker faults agencies and stakeholders alike for failing to discuss these fundamental values questions, the most basic of which he boils down to "ridership vs. coverage"--"coverage" meaning equity or social justice.  Walker extends this sort of debate to all aspects of transit. Cash vs. swipe cards. Point-to-point vs. hub-and spoke. Express vs. local. Heavy rail vs. light rail vs. BRT vs. local bus. Peak service vs. off-peak service. Speed vs. frequency. (Walker cautions against making the "motorists' error:" while motorists care about speed, frequency is far more important for transit riders.) The list goes on.  We learn that the speed of a bus line depends nearly as much on the amount of time it takes to accept and discharge passengers as it does on the speed of traffic. The overall density of a city matters not nearly as much as does the number of people living at very high densities. That's the trouble, in fact, with many cities in California: many have high average densities, but they rarely reach those Manhattan-type proportions where mass transit really works.  Much of Walker's technical discussions aren't any more riveting than they sound. And yet, on the whole, it emerges as a surprisingly un-tedious exercise in armchair planning. Walker loves and believes in public transit, but his awareness of the costs and tradeoffs render him a shockingly neutral advocate (if such a thing is possible). On the one hand, Walker is trying to encourage stakeholders to advocate for better transit systems. But, no matter how closely you read Walker, the complexities, and ambiguities of planning for public transit might still induce mental gridlock (while actual gridlock grows all the worse).  'Straphanger' If Walker's account is an admirably dispassionate affair directed at "clear thinking," Grescoe's is specific, exuberant, and unapologetically biased. Grescoe is fascinated by all forms of non-automobile transportation, from Moscow's czar-worthy subway stations to each one of Copenhagen's 560,000 bicycles.  "Straphanger" often reads more like travel literature than like anything related to engineering or policy, and so much the better. Transit systems attract Grescoe the way the Eiffel Tower does tourists. What we get is a fascinating tour of some great world cities from what Grescoe would argue is the most crucial part of their respective infrastructures. You can't do much with the Eiffel Tower except snap a picture of it. But millions of Parisians can�and do--live, day-in and day-out, in the Paris Metro.  Grescoe is not immune to cities' above-ground charms, but they are almost beside the point. Though his enviable itinerary includes the likes of New York, Tokyo, Vancouver, and his hometown of Montreal, Grescoe does not dwell on them as cities per se. Rather, he sees every city as a fascinating problem, each of which can be solved�well or poorly�by transit. Grescoe of course chooses his cities wisely, seeking places where transit works well or where cities are at least trying.  In each city, Grescoe offers a bit of history of each system. He catalogs the public officials, local stakeholders, and finance mechanisms that gave rise to them. He offers glimpses of Robert Moses, Baron Haussmann, Joseph Stalin, and Los Angeles' own Antonio Villaraigosa. Likewise, Grescoe evaluates the ways in which the systems complement (or not) its respective urban fabrics. In a thicker volume, these accounts would get tedious. But Grescoe offers a palatable mix of history, politics, engineering, and whimsy in each chapter to keep things moving.  Indeed, public transit offers as good a point of reference for comparing cities as does anything else. Every major city has transit and, therefore, every major city can be described and evaluated based on the form and function of its transit network. In visiting cities on four continents, Grescoe discovers idiosyncrasies and delights that seem to surprise even him:  -The world's subway systems carry 155 million passengers daily -- four times the number that fly on commercial flights. -25% of Paris' municipal budget goes to transportation infrastructure. -Tokyo's busiest subway station handles more passengers in three hours than New York's Penn Station does in a day. -Some of the developed world's worst traffic jams take place in Moscow, where only 9% of the surface area is dedicated to transportation�as opposed to 30% in most US cities. -Phoenix has enough excess single-family homes to last it through 2050. Amid his enthusiasm for strap hanging, Grescoe never entertains the idea that non-auto transportation could be bad for a city--regardless of the cost. For him, investment in public transit is almost always a good investment, one that greases a city's economic wheels and creates stronger communities. Indeed, Grescoe himself is the ultimate discretionary rider, and possibly the kind of person that the Bus Riders Union loves to hate: an educated, upscale resident who uses transit for amusement and righteousness.  In his younger years, Grescoe witnessed a gruesome highway death in his rearview mirror, inspiring him never to own a car himself. "My animus against automobiles runs deep," writes Grescoe, "but I come by it honestly." Even if his interests coincide with those of the transit-dependent, it's unlikely that he could fully appreciate their needs and their experience of transit. It's safe to assume, for instance, that Moscow's more destitute citizens don't draw quite the same inspiration from those underground chandeliers as Grescoe does.  Of all the cities Grescoe visits, the ones that get the lowest marks are, predictably, Phoenix and our own Los Angeles. Phoenix's lone light rail line looks like a squiggly, microscopic strand of DNA floating in the indiscernible blob of the Valley of the Sun. It's a lost cause. (By contrast, Grescoe loves Philadelphia, calling its working-class train network one of the country's best.) Grescoe takes a more nuanced attitude towards Los Angeles. On the one hand, he praises its attempts to put a tourniquet on sprawl. For over a decade the region has been shoehorning a motley collection of light rail, bus rapid transit, subways, and transit oriented developments into what has become a dense, mature metropolis. But Grescoe stops short of true praise. He calls the Gold Line a means of procuring "the billion-dollar taco," meaning that the region has spent mucho dinero on a train only to end up in East L.A. "This is one city," writes Grescoe, "that even the most visionary planners and politicians might not be able to redeem." Did I mention that Grescoe is from Montreal?   Grescoe concludes Straphangers with an ode to his hometown, whose Bixi system pioneered the use of bike-sharing for intra-city transportation. Of course, Bixi's success owes itself largely to the form of Montreal: largely flat, well-off, and full of charm. Indeed, Grescoe steers clear of the world's less-charming places. He never endures the crush of a Lagos or a Mumbai. Long-gentrifying Bogota is as close as he gets to the developing world. He makes a compelling argument that its Transmilenio bus rapid transit system is at least partially responsible for the city's recent prosperity. Grescoe would likely find plenty to capture his interest in some of the world's rougher spots, but, for the moment, his odd cruise around the world is at least a three-star affair.  Whether the costs and benefits of transit outweigh those of private automobiles will be forever debated. Grescoe, at least, offers a few tantalizing reasons to tip the scales in favor of busses and trains. He also reveals that which every urban planner already knows--every city is unique, and every transportation system is unique. Grescoe goes so far as to imply that the soul and culture of a people can be found as much in its trains, buses, bikes, feet, and, yes, cars as in its economy, politics, arts, and letters. Every city must invest in its own best vision of itself. And if there's a few bucks left over for chandeliers, so much the better.  Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking About Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives Jarrett Walker Island Press Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile Taras Grescoe Times Books

Factual Background In 2004, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors adopted a general plan. With that plan, the county adopted a programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR). The PEIR indicated that the development contemplated under the county's new general plan would have significant and unavoidable impacts on the county's oak woodland habitat and wildlife. The 2004 general plan identified two policies—options A and B—to assist in mitigating the impacts to oak woodland habitat.  Option A required that all projects impacting 10 acres or more of oak woodlands to replace lost habitat onsite at a 1:1 ratio. Option B required the development and implementation of an integrated natural resources management plan on or before 2009. The purpose of Option B was to provide an alternative to the 1:1 onsite mitigation required under Option A, and would allow developers to pay a conservation fee to mitigate impacts to oak woodland habitat. The county adopted an oak woodland management plan (a portion of the integrated management plan) and Option B's fee program in 2008 based on a negative declaration. The county tiered the negative declaration off its 2004 PEIR, finding that there would be no significant environmental impacts that had not been previously analyzed in the 2004 PEIR and that the oak woodland management plan was consistent with the county's 2004 general plan. The petitioner, the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, filed a writ of mandate challenging the board's approval of the oak woodland management plan and mitigation fee as a violation of CEQA and the county's 2004 general plan. The trial court denied the petition and the Center appealed. Discussion The Third District Court of Appeal considered whether CEQA required an EIR to be prepared before the county adopted its oak woodland management plan and corresponding Option B mitigation fee program. In reversing the trial court and granting the petition, the appellate court held that a tiered EIR was required because the 2004 PEIR did not adequately study the potential impacts of the oak woodland management plan and fee program. Specifically, the court held that "the 2004 program EIR did not assess how any mitigation measures other than Option A could lessen the impacts of development on the county's oak woodlands." (Id. at p. 1175.) The court noted that " lthough the 2004 program EIR called for an Option B to be developed, it provided no guidance as to the fee rate or use to be made of the fees collected."  The court also noted that it appears that in conceiving its oak woodlands plan, the county arbitrarily selected certain oak woodlands for protection and excluded others. For instance, the management plan focused on valley oak woodlands (3,400 acres), but not woodlands comprised of blue oaks (42,000 acres) or interior live oaks. However, the 2004 PEIR did not differentiate between oak species; it merely stated that all oak woodland habitats in El Dorado County are important.  Thus, adopting the oak woodland plan focusing only on valley oaks had the effect of excluding a majority of oak woodlands in the county from the mitigation measures to be funded by the Option B fee. As such, the appellate court concluded that "such discretionary action required an EIR to inform the County for the environmental consequences before it adopted the oak woodland management plan."  Second, the appellate court found the 2004 PEIR never determined which measurement metric for the conservation of oak woodlands should be used. Would the woodlands be measured by tree canopy cover or by total area (including the space between the canopies)? The county's selection of the canopy measurement method (identified in its initial study) would undoubtedly result in a significant difference in the amount of habitat to be preserved depending on whether the woodland being measured was open savannah or dense forest. Furthermore, the methodology would impact the amount of the fee to be paid under Option B to mitigate the loss of the oaks on their properties. In sum, the court said the measurement methodology should have been reviewed by an EIR. Third, the appellate court discussed the Option B fee rate and usage for conservation purposes. It noted that the 2004 PEIR never set a fee rate or ascertained the type of parcel that would be required to pay the fee prior to development. Moreover, the record reflected different scenarios for the use of Option B funds (e.g., easement acquisition, fee/easement mix, and purchase of fee title to oak woodlands for preservation), the impacts of which were never studied in the Program EIR. Additionally, while the 2004 PEIR highlighted the importance of connectivity among preserved oak woodlands, the County deferred the issue until the other components of the integrated plan were developed. Therefore, in acknowledging that Option B funds would not be spent on connectivity corridors (e.g., Highway 50 corridor), the oak woodland management plan was inconsistent with the 2004 Program EIR and its emphasis on protecting connectivity of habitat. Fourth, the appellate court addressed whether the county could defer environmental review of the oak woodlands management plan until such time as the entire integrated management plan is adopted. As expected the appellate court held that environment review must precede project approval. "The county's approval of the oak woodland management plan had the effect of allowing developers to pay a mitigation fee instead of preserving a substantial population of trees onsite."  Finally, the appellate court held that the county's adoption of the negative declaration violated CEQA because evidence in the record supported a fair argument that significant effects will occur due to the oak woodland management plan and fee program. The 2004 Program EIR concluded that even with mitigation measures (e.g., Options A and B), impacts on oak woodlands would be significant and unavoidable. The County argued that precisely because the 2004 Program EIR contemplated impacts to oak woodlands as significant and unavoidable, the adoption of the oak woodland management plan would have no greater adverse environmental impact, and thus, no EIR was required to be prepared.  In what was no doubt a déjà vu moment, the appellate court recounted its holding in Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354 – mainly, that CEQA calls for an evaluation of a project's impacts on the environment based on existing physical conditions, not on an existing general plan. Because the 2004 Program EIR did not discuss details of the Option B mitigation fee program (e.g., the fee rates, collection, usage, etc.), the court held that CEQA required the County to prepare a tiered EIR for its oak woodland management plan that includes a fee program prior to adoption of the plan. The Case:  Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) (January 20, 2012, No. C064875), 202 Cal.App.4th 1156 The Attorneys:  Michael W. Graf for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Louis B. Green, County Counsel, Michael J. Ciccozzi and Paula F. Frantz, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent

Following an intense battle among some of the leading institutions in California planning, Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) has rescinded Assembly Bill 904. AB 904 would have reduced parking minimums in high-transit areas statewide, taking a step towards what many planners and developers consider a crucial reconsideration of parking regulations. AB 904 met with expected opposition from the League of California Cities and surprising opposition from the American Planning Association. The League contended that AB 904 would impose an untoward, uniform requirement on cities statewide. Dozens of cities opposed the bill, including many -- such as Turlock, Chowchilla, and Shasta Lake -- that do not even have high frequency transit, as it was defined in AB 904.  California Infill Builders Federation (CIBF) president and affordable housing developer Meea Kang said in a statement, "We sponsored AB 904 to increase the opportunities for infill development in transit areas by relaxing excessive parking requirements near transit. AB 904 (was) a simple urban planning solution that encourages affordable housing construction, promotes transit, economic development, job growth, and reinforces California's competitiveness." The California chapter of the APA opposed the bill on similar grounds. The APA officials insisted that the bill's opt-out provisions did not give cities enough freedom to account for unique conditions or to implement their own parking schemes.  The bill was supported primarily by CIBF, with vocal cheerleading from the "Shoupista" community--planners and urbanists who ascribe to UCLA Prof. Don Shoup's recommendations that cities abandon what he considers arbitrary parking requirements. AB 904's supporters had expected to find an ally in the APA, in part because many professional planners have been leading the call for parking reform. The APA even published Shoup's landmark book, The High Cost of Free Parking. Supporters contended that, rather than impose requirements on cities, AB 904 would have relaxed requirements and made it easier for local planners to adjust parking standards according to local needs. They noted that the cost and labor involved with opting out would have been minimal--requiring cities to meet one of four opt-out requirements--whereas current conditions often necessitate costly and intricate planning processes if cities want to reduce parking minimums.  "There is near universal agreement that our parking minimums around transit need work. And we look forward to a healthy conversation about how best to fix them," said CIBF board member Mott Smith, in a statement. "We will work together to find solutions for California grow more affordably, sustainably and with respect for the character of our great communities."

The next time a Padre hits one out of Petco Park or a tourist orders another round of Pacificos at a bar in the Gaslamp District, many San Diegans will thank the Centre City Development Corporation. If a new plan succeeds, future kudos will go to Civic San Diego.  While many cities will retain fond memories of their redevelopment agencies, few were so lauded as CCDC, which, along with its lower-profile sister organization, the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., employed a novel combination of redevelopment and regulatory power in order to revitalize downtown and southeastern San Diego, respectively. With the demise of redevelopment, Civic San Diego--approved last week on a 7-1 vote of the San Diego City Council--combines the two nonprofit, public benefit corporations into a single entity. The boards of both corporations had previously voted in favor of the merger. The new entity will initially receive nearly $6 million in funding, largely from parking meter revenues and permitting fees. Civic San Diego will support 32 staff positions, down from the 58 at CCDC and SEDC. And it will continue to process land use entitlements in these two areas, just as it did before. Civic San Diego's immediate tasks will center on the wind-down of redevelopment and the administration of approved projects. In the long-term, it will pursue a broad mandate to stoke economic development in its project areas. Eventually, Civic San Diego's purview could expand citywide.  "I think the merger is a smart move for the city, given the fact that redevelopment and our primary funding source to implement projects has been eliminated by the state," said Jeff Graham, CCDC's vice president of redevelopment.   If the city is to retain control over planned redevelopment projects, Civic San Diego will implement them in some of the city's neediest areas while also pursuing broader economic development goals. "It's going to be a challenge," said Jerry Groomes, president of SEDC.  "But what it could mean is that we can continue to focus on this part of San Diego, the southeastern part, we can continue to implement those projects that are legally obligated or otherwise approved." Though it will not enjoy the largesse of tax-increment financing, Civic San Diego has a broad mandate to direct redevelopment in its project areas. Though Graham admitted that the details are "really a blur right now," Civic San Diego will, in broad terms, attempt to stoke private development and provide public infrastructure improvements just as redevelopment agencies did. To accomplish this goal, the new organization will have to be single-minded, at least in its early stages.  "We have to go out and make our number-one priority finding new funding sources," said Graham.  While money may be scarce, city officials say that Civic San Diego will retain one crucial advantage over traditional redevelopment: the power to direct land use planning.  Considered unique among California's former redevelopment agencies, both CCDC and SEDC served jointly as their respective areas' redevelopment agencies and planning departments, with zoning and permitting powers independent of the City of San Diego Planning Division.  Developers say that this arrangement was ideal for redevelopment and will continue to serve Civic San Diego well.  "The beauty of CCDC has been that because it's an independent, separate corporation, they've been more nimble in terms of being able to process land use entitlements and development permits," said attorney Robin Madaffer, a former district chair for the San Diego/Tijuana Chapter of the Urban Land Institute.  To promote development downtown, CCDC implemented a master environmental impact report, which essentially created ex ante approvals so that developers would not have to shoulder the burden of conducting their own, individual EIRs.  "The planning power that generally is associated with the CCDC and the ability they had to expedite things downtown was due to the fact that they had an overall master EIR that allowed the fast-tracking of projects," said Groomes.  As well, by bundling redevelopment and planning under the same roof, planners and redevelopment staff could ensure that redevelopment plans matched up with zoning codes and project approvals.  "It was critical in having being able to negotiate a public-private partnership with our redevelopment project managers for a particular project downtown and having, in the same shop, the planners and permitters who will be doing the design review and taking the project forward," said Graham.     By retaining those powers, Civic San Diego may continue to stoke development even without its predecessors' deep pockets.  "I think having Civic San Diego control its own planning functions for its geographical boundaries and be able to issue the permits gives it the ability to be more nimble and responsive," said Madaffer.   Last week San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders reportedly told a group of business leaders that he hopes that Civic San Diego can expand citywide. He praised the organization's potential for efficiency and quickness in issuing permits. He also reportedly implied that the developers would feel comfortable doing business with Civic San Diego.  As cities across the state struggle to devise replacements for redevelopment, San Diego may have taken an early lead—and may provide a model for other cities.   "Being able to keep that in place is a light at the end of the tunnel in this whole redevelopment demise," said Madaffer. "It will be a model for the rest of the state to pick up the pieces and be able to implement the things that are important and the good things about redevelopment: economic stimulation, affordable housing." Contacts:  Jeff Graham, Vice President of Redevelopment, Centre City Development Corp., 619.235.2200  Jerry Groomes, President of Southeastern Development Corp., (619) 527-7345 Robin Madaffer, former District Chair, San Diego/Tijuana Chapter of ULI, 619.252.0295

In Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council , the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, upheld the city's certification of an environmental impact report and approval of an expansion of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's medical campus. The court found that the city properly deemed the project consistent with its general plan; used the correct baseline for the traffic analysis in the EIR; used the correct baseline for the traffic noise analysis in the EIR; and contained a sufficient discussion of traffic noise impacts in the EIR. Background The expansion of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's medical campus included the demolition of several structures: an existing 72,065-square-foot building, three existing homes, and a surface parking lot. It entailed the construction of a 150,000-square-foot three-story medical office building (52 feet high) with underground parking and 3,250 square feet of storage and waste management area. These improvements entailed the rezoning the property from low-med density residential with office/planned development combining district to a public facilities/planned development combining district. The city elected to prepare an environmental impact report for the project. The notice of preparation for the EIR was issued on October 22, 2008, and a public scoping meeting was held on October 29, 2008. The draft EIR was circulated in January 2009 and the final EIR was published in May 2009, which included a reduced project description of a 120,000-square-foot medical office building (38 feet high) with a two-story (not four-story) parking garage. The city council certified the EIR and adopted the revised (reduced) project, but rejected the request for a rezoning. Neighbors, including lead plaintiff Jeni L. Pfeiffer, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the city's approval of the project contending (1) the project was inconsistent with the city's general plan, (2) the EIR failed to used the proper baseline with which to analyze traffic and traffic noise, and (3) the EIR improperly found construction noise was an unavoidable impact.  The trial court denied the petition and the neighbors appealed. General Plan Inconsistency  Appellant neighbors argued that the project was inconsistent with the city's general plan because the project entailed constructing a storage and waste management area on land zoned for low-density residential development. The court reiterated that the applicable standard of review was abuse of discretion and that a court reviews an agency's decision directly. A party seeking to overturn an agency's general plan consistency determination bears the burden of showing why, based on all the evidence in the record, no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.  Here, the court found the appellants had failed to show that the zoning excluded any use other than residential (the zone was, after all, low density with an office/planned development combining district), and that appellants' conclusory arguments that the city council failed to make express findings regarding general plan consistency between the project and the zoning of the subject property, did not illustrate unreasonableness on the part of the city. Appellants were dissatisfied with the city's consideration and inclusion of the general plan conformity issue in the draft EIR, as well as in the response to comments (final EIR). However, the appellate court found that the city's EIR was required to evaluate the project's consistency with the general plan only if the project would, in fact, be inconsistent with the general plan (which here, it would not). The court further held that the city's response to appellants' comments regarding this issue complied with CEQA Guidelines section 15088. Traffic Baseline The most significant and interesting discussion in this case pertained to traffic baseline. Appellants challenged the traffic impact analysis in the EIR, claiming the EIR improperly used hypothetical background conditions instead of the true existing conditions as the traffic baseline. The city and real party countered that CEQA does not mandate the use of a particular baseline and a baseline that deviates from existing conditions is allowed under the circumstances at issue (so long as there is substantial evidence supporting the deviation). Quoting from the Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, the appellate court stated that an EIR can take into account the normal increase in traffic over time.  The draft EIR included an analysis of traffic, which looked at existing conditions, background conditions, project conditions, and cumulative conditions (2020) of the project. The court concluded that appellants did not carry their burden in illustrating how the evidence supporting the city's decision on baseline was lacking. Then, the appellate court went on to distinguish Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn., et al. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351, decided by the same appellate district (but with a different panel of justices) rationalizing that "the traffic baselines included in the EIR were not limited to projected traffic conditions in the year 2020, but also included existing conditions and the traffic growth anticipated from approved but not yet constructed developments." Traffic Noise Baseline On the issue of traffic noise impacts, appellants argued the city used a hypothetical background traffic baseline and thus, could not analyze the project's noise impacts on the existing environment. The court disagreed and held that the appellants failed to bear the burden of proving the EIR was legally inadequate because the EIR properly analyzed existing plus project conditions over existing traffic noise levels, as well as the cumulative traffic noise impacts of the project. The court distinguished the Sunnyvale West case once again stating that the EIR showed the existing traffic noise levels were measured and compared with existing ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measures and Alternatives The final issue on appeal was whether the EIR was internally inconsistent on the conclusion of the project's construction noise impacts, and then whether the mitigation measures and alternatives for the project's construction noise impacts were adequate. Appellants argued that because the EIR summary indicated the impact would be reduced down to significant, it was internally inconsistent since the analysis showed the impact as significant and unavoidable. The court found this error irrelevant since the EIR properly analyzed the mitigation measures and alternatives of the impact.  Appellants further argued that the city was required to analyze mitigation measures or alternatives that would lessen the impact of noise construction to less than significant (down from significant and unavoidable). Notably, the EIR contained 11 mitigation measures to address the construction noise impacts. The court stated that "the relevant CEQA provisions do not require analysis of mitigation or alternatives that would reduce the impact of construction noise to a level of insignificance" and that the appellants failed to cite any authority supporting such a proposition. The Case:  Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (Oct. 28, 2011, H036310) 200 Cal.App.4th 155. Certified for publication Nov. 22, 2011.; certified for publication Nov. 22, 2011. The Attorneys: For Appellants:  Alexander T. Henson  For Respondents: Robert K. Best, John D. Fairbrook, Arthur Bernard Mark III, Trainor Fairbrook

Amid criticism from representatives of cities and successor agencies, the legislature approved Assembly Bill 1484 , the redevelopment budget trailer bill, yesterday. The bill includes provisions that streamline the wind-down of redevelopment while, critics say, granting new, and possibly unconstitutional, powers to the Department of Finance.  The bill includes some features of AB 1585 (Perez) and SB 986 (Dutton). Those bills, respectively, would have eased the process of repayment of loans that cities made to redevelopment agencies and for inventorying and disposing real estate assets.  According to analysis by the League of California Cities, several provisions of AB 1484 may be alarming to cities and successor agencies.  Most notably, i f a successor agency does not make a payment of property taxes by July 12, DOF can, by July 18, order the Board of Equalization to suspend the disbursements of sales tax funds back to that successor agency's host city. DOF can also impose fines of $10,000 per day. The League claims that this provision is unconstitutional because it essentially garnishes cities' property tax revenues for state purposes.

Call them the spawn of Assembly Bill 1X 26. In the wake of the dissolution of redevelopment, lawmakers in Sacramento have been working on a host of bills intended to, at least partially, compensate for the loss of redevelopment and to make the dissolution process go more smoothly. As the legislative season heads into its home stretch, some bills have died while others are gamely moving towards Gov. Jerry Brown's desk.  I spoke recently with League of Cities Legislative Director Dan Carrigg, who put the bills into two categories: "Post-AB 1X 26" cleanup, and "next steps." So far, the bills in the latter category have fared better than those in the former.  The bills that are dead include AB 1585 (Perez), SB 1335 (Pavley), and SB 986 (Dutton), all of which never got out of the Senate. AB 1585, which had an urgency clause and bipartisan support, was meant to be a comprehensive reform bill, supported by the League and many cities and former redevelopment agencies. SB 1335 would have enabled successor agencies to use property tax monies to remediate brownfields, which may turn out to be one of the most vexing white elephants that successor agencies now have to deal with. Carrigg said that it was "starting to become a very good bill." SB 986 would have ensured that the funds from bonds sold for a specific purpose would be spent for that purpose and not simply defeased. According to Carrigg, "in a bizarre series of events, (SB 986) had amendments that were put into it that were so problematic that the senator ended up voting against his own bill."  Several of the forward-looking bills still have some life in them.  SB 1151 and SB 1156 -- both sponsored by Sen. Darrell Steinberg -- both "need a lot of work" according to Carrigg but are still alive. SB 1151 would bill would authorize moneys to be expended for specified purposes relating to economic development and affordable housing. SB 1156 would enabled cities and counties to establish "Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities," which would carry out redevelopment-style initiatives. Both are in the Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee.  Two bills relate to infrastucture financing districts (IFD). AB 214 (Wolk) would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for creation of the district and for bond issuance. AB 2144 (Perez) would allow the creation of IFD's by cities and counties with 55% voter approval; it would allow IFD's in former redevelopment project areas, which previously were off-limits. Because the bills overlap so much, Carrigg said that the two would have to be reconciled.  Somewhat related to redevelopment, AB 1220 (DeSaulnier) would have imposed a $75 fee on each recording of a real estate instrument to be filed or recorded; the funds would then go to affordable housing. It failed in the Senate, 25 ayes to 13 noes.