Search Results

Muting one of the more burdensome requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, the First Appellate has ruled in favor of "multiple sequential adjustments" in Sierra Club v. Napa County Board of Supervisors. In 1991, the California Legislature amended the Subdivision Map Act to restrict the use of boundary line adjustments by limiting their use to four or fewer adjacent parcels. While intended to deal with the reconfiguration of large ranches without going through the subdivision process, the 1991 amendment made the process of making minor technical adjustments between contiguous parcels more cumbersome then what was necessary. Local governments and engineers developed different strategies for working around the amendments. One of those was processing multiple sequential adjustments. Napa County addressed this issue in 2009 when the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment to its code permitting sequential processing of lot line adjustments where the same parcels were involved, in circumstances in which the prior adjustment was approved and recorded. The County also concluded that such adjustments would be categorically exempt from CEQA. The Sierra Club filed suit, alleging that this policy was inconsistent with the Subdivision Map Act and a violation of CEQA. As the litigation moved forward, the county agreed to an extension of the time period for the preparation of the administrative record. The county then filed a demurrer, arguing that the petitioner had failed to serve a summons within the 90 days required by the Subdivision Map Act. The trial court rejected the demurrer on the grounds that the county's grant of an extension constituted a general appearance. The trial court then ruled in favor of the county. The Sierra Club appealed. Addressing first the county's statute of limitations defense, the appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling that the lawsuit was filed in a timely manner, concluding that the general appearance satisfied the service of summons requirement.  Turning to the merits, the appellate court concluded that the multiple sequential processing was not an "end around" of the Map Act. Relying in part on the legislative history, the appellate court, in examining the adopted language, disagreed with the Sierra Club's argument that the legislature intended to ban later adjustments of the same parcels. The appellate court also affirmed the county's conclusion that such adjustments were ministerial, and therefore not subject to CEQA.  Building upon earlier cases, the court concluded that although the county may enjoy some elements of discretion when processing a lot line adjustment, the discretion which could be exercised to shape the proposal was not sufficiently meaningful to justify the application of CEQA. The Case:  Sierra Club v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (April 20, 2012, A130980) ___Cal.App.4th ___. The Attorneys:  For the Appellant Sierra Club: Block, DeVincenzi & Zelazny, Kevin P. Block  Counsel for Respondents Napa County:  Robert Westmeyer, County Counsel; Laura J. Anderson, Deputy County Counsel; Miller Starr Regalia, Arthur F. Coon

If urban planners in many California cities had their way, every street-level unit in their downtowns would house restaurants, bars, boutiques, and all sorts of other stores, all teeming with life. They might even have a pet store or two. Unfortunately for some cities, "how much is that banker in the window" doesn't have quite the same ring.  But, thanks to zoning changes that some cities are instituting, storefront bankers—not to mention accountants, lawyers, and internet startups—may soon feature more prominently in downtown streetscapes.  Several years ago the City of San Jose adopted an ordinance permitting only consumer-oriented businesses in its street-front units. They were to be the bricks-and-mortar establishments to complement Silicon Valley's internet-oriented economy.  But the recession has, needless to say, taken its toll on those businesses, and with the economy so has gone San Jose's downtown plan. The city reports street-level vacancies of around 30%. That means that one out of every three windows in the city's downtown is blank. Not exactly part of the city's recipe for a resurgent downtown.  "We're simply not seeing it at the street level and it creates a greater sense of blight and sense of lack of safety for folks who simply don't see the vitality on the sidewalk," said San Jose City Council Member Sam Liccardo.  Last month Liccardo introduced an ordinance designed, if not to reverse this trend, then at least to take advantage of it.  "The greatest enemy of urban revitalization is a vacant storefront," said Licardo. Facing demand from offices, Liccardo said he "came to the realization that if you can be with the one you love, love the one you're with." Liccardo said that successful retail requires a round-the-clock presence of both residents and workers. San Jose is pursuing a plan to add 10,000 residents to its downtown, but that plan is in its infancy.  The ordinance does not invite offices to move in en masse. San Jose's includes restrictions: offices cannot fill corner suites; extant tenants cannot be displaced by offices; and the amount of space given to offices will be limited on a per-block basis. Liccardo says that plenty of office-based businesses are eager to fill in some of those gaps.  Nearby Redwood City, itself a hearth for Silicon Valley tech businesses, is doing much the same. Its downtown has struggled to realize its downtown plan. But recent demand for office space there has caused the city council to reconsider its restrictions.  Officials in both cities stress that these ordinances are meant as temporary stopgap measures, meant to take advantage of unique economic times. With the tech industry booming, the office market appears to be strengthening while the consumer market remains soft.  Neither, however, wants to sell their cities soul simply to get the lights back on. Laurel Prevetti, San Jose's assistant director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, said that she is eminently wary of the ways that different kinds of offices present themselves to the street. She cited the co-working office NextSpace as a model for an office that's almost as good as a retail store.  "They did something very different: they essentially opened their windows, used vibrant pink colors, and opened windows," said Prevetti. "It is outward-looking. It is very inviting. That's a great example where office is not a deterrent." Less appealing scenarios involve closed blinds and the sort of quietude that would cause passers-by to pick up their pace.  "We've had other offices like insurance companies and such where they essentially put their…back office stuff looking out on to the street: computer tables, the backs of desks," said Prevetti. "The worst case is when they completely put up blinds and have no attempt to …do anything that would add to the street life of the city." Redwood City is looking for the same types of businesses as San Jose is.  "We want transparency," said Redwood City Vice-Mayor Jeff Gee. "We don't want rows and rows of cubes. We want to make sure that the windows and storefronts look alive and are not all black." Whether or not the cities return to all-retail strategies, the demand that they are seeing may signal a new trend in the way that businesses approach their offices. They may find, in fact, that certain businesses will want to compete with retail establishments even when the rents rise.  Gee said that offices have taken interest in Redwood City because of the downtown's proximity to a Caltrain commuter rail station. The balance among downtown uses may therefore have as much do to with cultural shifts as with economic cycles.  "Today, right now there's a demand for office space from a lot of technology startups," said Gee. "That has been driven, of all things, by the train….the new generation of workers really don't want a car."  Prevetti said that this trend applies not only to youth-oriented internet startups but also to more venerable firms. She cited interest from corporate tenants, such as Oracle software and the accounting and consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, who may be seeking office space that appeals to their new recruits.  "We're finding that as we attract more use and recent graduates from college, they want to be part of an active downtown," said Prevetti. "They want to be able to go out, grab a coffee, come back, have a collaborative space." For both San Jose and Redwood City, relaxing their downtown regulations represents small steps to combat the recession and institute creative, low-impact economic development strategies. Though neither city is responding directly to the loss of redevelopment, it is on city officials' minds.  "We recognize we're in an era of bold ideas about revitalization," said Liccardo. "Without money to incentivize (development), we need to think about how we provide some relief to restrictions that city government often impose on development." Before every city trades its dining tables for cubicles, the Silicon Valley officials cautioned that these strategies may not be for everyone, especially in places where office demand is weak or nonexistent.  "A lot of it is pretty fine-grained when you look at downtown revitalization," said Prevetti. "Other cities if they're interested in going down this course to do it very mindfully." Contacts:  Jeff Gee, Vice-Mayor of Redwood City, 650.780.7220 Sam Liccardo, San Jose City Council Member, 408.535.4903  Laurel Prevetti, Assistant Director, Planning Building and Code Enforcement at City of San Jose, 408.535.3555

The staff of the Strategic Growth Council has issued recommendations for the awarding of a total of $20.7 million for Urban Greening Grants to communities throughout the state. Funded by Proposition 84, the Urban Greening Grants complement the Sustainable Communities Planning Grants, which are also awarded by SGC. This is the second of three rounds of funding, to total $90 million.  SGC staff evaluated 270 proposals and have recommended funding for 67 projects and plans. Project funding would directly fund the implementation of greening projects, such as tree planting or park construction, whereas plan funding enables agencies and municipalities to draw up long-term strategic plans. Roughly 75% of the recommended funding goes to plans.  The Trust for Public Land will receive the largest grant, of $1 million, to acquire property for wetland restoration in Santa Barbara County. For a complete list of recommended awards, please click here (pdf).

With funding for planning growing ever more scarce around the state, some localities received a windfall last week from the Strategic Growth Council. SGC announced recommendations for its second round of Sustainable Communities Planning Grants. If the recommendations are adopted, a total of $24 million would be disbursed for 43 projects around the state.   SGC awarded $20 million in the first round of Sustainable Communities Planning Grants in December 2010 and expects to award the final round in 2013. The grants, which will total $65 million, are funded by the 2006 water protection act Proposition 84. For this round, SGC received 137 applications requesting a total of $73 million. Though SGC staff acknowledge that granting $24 in the second round leaves a relatively sparse sum of $13 million for third-round projects, the staff report contends that the number of high-quality proposals warranted a larger total award for the second round.  Not surprisingly, some of the largest awards are earmarked for the metropolitan planning organizations that are implementing of Senate Bill 375. SCG staff are recommending awards between $885,000 and $1 million each to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the Southern California Association of Governments, the San Diego Association of Governments, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and the Fresno Council of Governments. Numerous cities and counties also received grants for planning related to climate change. The biggest winner among cities was East Palo Alto, which may receive $1 million to revamp its general plan.  Applicants were scored on a 100-point scale. Proposals from Ventura County, the City of Gridley, and the City of Oakland top the list with scores of 96.33, 96.33, and 96.0, respectively.  For a complete list of recommended awardees, please click here ( pdf ).

Observers of the California Environmental Quality Act may find it refreshing when a court lays it on the line. And that is exactly what Division Eight of the Second Appellate District did in addressing CEQA's requirements for baseline selection for projects with future implementation dates.  Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction  provides a counterweight to recent decisions from the Fifth and Sixth Appellate Districts, setting a stage for a possible California Supreme Court review. The case involves an EIR prepared for the second phase of a Los Angeles Metro light rail line extending from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica. While the EIR used existing physical conditions in a number of impact discussions, the lead agency used a future scenario to measure the project's impacts on traffic and air quality. The lead agency's rationale was that 2009 population and traffic numbers, as compared to forecasted numbers, were less reliable in assessing impacts for a project with a completion date of 2015, at its earliest. A group of residents in Cheviot Hills—a relatively upscale neighborhood of single-family homes—filed a CEQA challenge, asserting that the use of a future baseline scenario violated CEQA, pointing to the recent decisions of  Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale  (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 and  Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48. The appellate court in  Neighbors  critically reviewed not only  Sunnyvale  and  Madera,  but also the California Supreme Court decision in  Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District  (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, reaching several noteworthy conclusions. First, the  CBE  court dealt with baseline in a case involving an existing operation, looking at a hypothetical baseline of maximum permitted activity, a baseline which overstated actual current conditions. Second, the  Neighbors  court went on to say that to the extent that  Sunnyvale  and  Madera  stood for the proposition that CEQA precluded the use of a future baseline, "we disagree with those cases." The court went on to uphold the balance of the EIR challenges. However, the court ordered published only that portion of the decision pertaining to the baseline. Comment: In taking a different path to the baseline, the  Neighbors  court concurred in a critical point well known to planners: in the right set of circumstances, a CEQA evaluation of a project compared to existing physical conditions will lead to information which is less useful and reliable to the public and the decision-makers. Given that CEQA is intended to foster more informed decision making, rigid adherence to the use of existing physical conditions in every instance may miss the mark in terms generating meaningful analysis. Lead agencies, when following  CBE , would be well served to the follow the Metro's use of a variable baseline, utilizing existing conditions for many, if not most, of CEQA's impact discussions. The Case : Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction  (April 17, 2012, B232655) 2012 Cal.App. LEXIS 434. The Attorneys: Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside: John M. Bowman and C.J. Laffer for Plaintiff and Appellant. Nossaman: Robert D. Thornton, John J. Flynn III, Robert C. Horton, Lauren C. Valk and Lloyd W. Pellman for Defendants and Respondents Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority and Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority Board William W. Abbott is a partner in the Sacramento law firm of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP.

Over the past month, California cities have been learning the fate of countless redevelopment projects—touching everything from graffiti-removal programs to nine-figure transit-oriented developments to billion-dollar stadiums. For many, the news is not good – especially now that the California Department of Finance has gotten into the act.  April 15 was the deadline for successor agencies to submit Revised Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS)—essentially lists of projects and assets that they believe should continued to be funded from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund even while the state appropriates the remainder of agencies' former tax increments. ROPS replace Estimated Obligation Payment Schedules, which have prevailed since redevelopment agencies officially went out of business Feb. 1.  In an effort to harvest as much funding as possible for the state and other taxing agencies—and, therefore, prevent cities from appropriating more than their fair share of trust fund monies—ROPS's were to undergo several layers of scrutiny. By April 15 all ROPS's were to have been approved by each successor agency's seven-member Oversight Committee, made up of representatives from each respective RDAs' major taxing entities and audited by their respective county auditor-controllers.  The crucial step in the ROPS gauntlet is, however, the review by the Department of Finance. AB 1X 26 requires DOF, along with the state controller, to issue the final say on the validity of items on successor agencies' ROPSs.  DOF has taken a hard line on redevelopment since February – and, in dealing with the ROPS's, has not hesitated to call out items that, in its estimation, runs afoul of the dissolution legislation. DOF has denied tens of millions of dollars worth of projects in many cities; in some cases, denials have totaled in the hundreds of millions. DOF officials seem to be paying particular attention to the many asset transfers that occurred between cities and redevelopment agencies last year in anticipation of the end of redevelopment.  In many cases, DOF has refused to allow high-density or transit-oriented projects to go forward – a move that makes sense in financial terms but seems to run counter to the Brown administration's urban development policy goals. And in at least one case, DOF is asking a local government to kill projects funded by federal dollars. "We haven't done a metric in terms of this many were denied for this, this many were denied for that," said H.D. Palmer, DOF's deputy director for external affairs. But at one point last week, Palmer said that DOF had received 274 ROPS's. Of those, 46 were automatically denied over technicalities such as formatting. DOF issued letters for 164 of them and approved 29 free-and-clear. DOF has taken on extra staff in order to comply with the required three-day turnaround once a successor agency has submitted its ROPS (many did not meet the April 15 deadline and instead turned them in late).  DOF seems to be interpreting AB 1X 26 more conservatively than even successor agencies' oversight boards, which were expected to be conservative themselves insofar as oversight board members represent taxing entities that stand to gain from the freeing up of tax increment funds. As it turns out, many oversight boards have been sympathetic to the agendas of former redevelopment agencies.  "They were in accord on every issue," said David Gouin, director of housing and economic development for the City of Santa Rosa. "The oversight board saw everything as adding value to all taxing entities. They did not take much time to  conclude that they should adopt the ROPS and pass along a positive recommendation to the Department of Finance."  Those accords matter little, however, if DOF disagrees.  "We've heard from our members that DOF is kicking back a substantial number of ROPS submittals, including ones that have been signed off on by the oversight boards," said Patrick Whitnell, general counsel for the League of California Cities. The types of denials that DOF has issued defy easy categorization. Some automatic denials have been over paperwork problems, such as when Santa Rosa's successor agencies have listed multiple funding sources on one line of its spreadsheet. DOF has also questioned many successor agencies' administrative costs.  Most notable is the challenge of interpreting AB 1X 26. Though legislation clearly forbade the signing of new contracts following June 28, 2011, many of the state's 400 or so successor agencies find themselves in gray areas because their respective redevelopment agencies were involved in unique, complex deals that the statute does not explicitly allow or forbid.   Whitnell cautioned that the League has not conducted a formal survey of its members, but initially, many of DOF's objections fall into what he described as "ten different categories." Among them, the largest category is that of unexpended bond funds.  In some cases, DOF would like successor agencies to defease bonds by paying them off early or diverting funds to other projects – and therefore paying off the bonds with other funds. Whitnell noted that many bonds cannot be redeemed early. Therefore, successor agencies would have to pay them off by taking out loans at prohibitively high interest rates.  DOF has also questioned many agreements between cities and redevelopment agencies. AB 1X 26 forbade new agreements as if its effective date, June 28, 2011. These agreements, which often include transfers of assets, joint ventures between public agencies and private developers, and scores of variations thereof.  One major category of obligations that the legislation seems to have missed are those that encumber future property tax funds for deals that do not lend themselves to traditional contracts. On a relatively minute scale, Omar Dadabohy, director of community development for the City of Stanton, said that the Stanton's successor agency must pay for utilities for an affordable housing complex. That obligation is implied but not explicit enough for DOF.  "They're saying there's not going to be a contract in place," said Dadabohy. "Well, there's not going to be a contract in place. I don't have a contract with Southern California Edison. They're not being open or flexible."  Meanwhile, in Santa Rosa, the redevelopment agency is asking DOF to approve a $120 million for the redevelopment of New Railroad Square, a major transit oriented development focused on a commuter rail line scheduled to begin service next year. TIF monies were to be used to fund affordable housing at the site and to do toxic remediation.  "It creates just what the state, county, and city would like to have: higher density uses along a rail station," said Gouin.  DOF has thus far refused to fund that project.  In West Sacramento, the redevelopment of property previously owned by Sacramento-Yolo Port District is in a similar state of limbo.  That deal that has already gone through but, like many other deals across the state, it relies on future TIF funds to complete the deal through a "performance pass-through agreement." West Sacramento Public Finance Manager Paul Blumberg said that the contract does not specify exactly how much TIF monies would be needed because the deal involves multiple funding sources and therefore it was not advantageous to indicate specific dollar amounts in the original contract – especially because no one anticipated that redevelopment would soon cease to exist.  Blumberg said that DOF has rejected this deal because it claims that the city and port district are, effectively, one in the same, because the city appoints members to the port commission. Therefore, the deal is considered an impermissible city-agency agreement rather than a permissible third-party agreement.  Also in West Sacramento, the master planned Bridge District redevelopment was to rely on $144 million in redevelopment funds, as well as a combination of other funding sources, including Proposition 1C infrastructure bonds. While the deal was signed before the AB 1X 26 deadline, DOF is questioning whether it actually constitutes a contract.  "These agreements….didn't specify specific amounts going to each element because you've got a number of funding sources," said Blumberg. "All of the commitments have been made to this district that clearly describe the use of tax increment and firmly make that commitment."  DOF has even questioned agreements that including funding from the federal government. Bakersfield Economic Development Director Donna Kunz said that while DOF has unsurprisingly questioned $4.2 million in interagency loans, it is also asking the successor agency to eliminate projects funded by three loans from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Kunz said that the city would be submitting additional documentation in the hopes of getting that item approved.  Generally, Whitnell said that DOF has erred on the side of questioning those requests that the legislation does not explicitly permit.  "Our take on it, based solely on reports that we've received from our membership…is that DOF seems to be very conservative in its interpretation of AB 1X 26 to the point where in certain instance," said Whitnell. "We're not entirely certain that they're interpreting it correctly." Some officials feel that DOF has been stretching its authority.  "In one respect we weren't surprised," said Stanton's Dadabohy, which got $218 million worth of obligations denied. "We expected that the state would try to challenge every item and take our local tax dollars. And we were surprised by the basis for some of the comments." Dadabohy said that part of his surprise stemmed from the fact that his staff had worked closely with DOF staff to ensure that the ROPS was prepared properly.  This approach, said Whitnell, could mean that the process of approving and denying obligations could effectively extend for years—and get far more contentious than it has been thus far.  "This could lead to some legal disputes down the road with respect to the position that DOF is taking," said Whitnell.  DOF that it is interpreting AB 1X 26 strictly and consistently.  "We're measuring every one of these submissions by the same yardstick, which is based upon what is in AB 26," said Palmer. "Does it fall within the definition of an enforceable obligation or does it not?"   Palmer said that successor agencies have had ample opportunity to understand what DOF's position would be on different types of obligations. As well, DOF staff members have been working directly with successor agencies on their ROPS's in an effort to avoid denials, resubmissions, and confusion.  "Understanding that this is a very complicated process, we have been very forward-leaning in trying to get as much information out there to help successor agencies and oversight boards understand that is permissible and not permissible under AB 26," said Palmer.  Successor agencies have been resubmitting their ROPS's to respond to DOF's comments, and they have been submitting documentation to support items that were questioned or unclear. In instances where it seems unlikely that DOF will approve an obligation, cities have been instructed to simply leave them off their revised ROPS's for the time being so that further discussions can take place.  Henceforth, successor agencies will be submitting further ROPS's every six months. It is assumed that each iteration will include fewer obligations as former redevelopment projects are paid off and wound down. Many successor agencies prepared both 2012 ROPS's simultaneously, as the next submission date is July 1.  For cities, each ROPS carries the fear that DOF may not approve projects that had been considered both permissible under AB 1X 26 and crucial to the city's well being.  "We're anxious about each and every one of them," said Gouin. "Each and every item is important."  Contacts:  Paul Blumberg, Public Finance Manager, City of West Sacramento, 916.617.4575 David Gouin, Director of Housing and Economic Development, City of Santa Rosa, 707.543-3200 Donna Kunz, Economic Development Director, City of Bakersfield, 661.326.3765 H.D. Palmer, Deputy Director for External Affairs, California Department of Finance, 916.445.3878 Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel, League of California Cities, 916.658.8200

When Axl Rose first stepped off the bus from Indiana, took the stage at the Whisky, and screeched out the opening lines of "Welcome to the Jungle," he probably wasn't thinking about parking. But he might as well have been.  West Hollywood's Sunset Strip—home to music clubs, restaurants, and rock star mayhem—offers a chaotic array of parking options along its winding, two-mile stretch of Sunset Bl. Nighttime prices often top $20. Similar conditions prevail a half-mile south along Santa Monica Boulevard, where gay nightlife, boutiques, and restaurants attract visitors from all over the Los Angeles area.  Finding places for all of those visitors to park is the goal of an innovative parking scheme that the city adopted last month. While it is not a comprehensive reform, a new "parking credits" program represents an incremental effort to aid both drivers and local businesses—particularly those that are seeking to change their uses—by cataloging available parking spaces and allocating them collectively among businesses that occupy 10,000 or fewer square feet.  This means that the city will keep track of the number of available spaces in the area and will issue credits rather than force businesses to identify specific spaces, either onsite or off-site, to fulfill their parking requirements.  The program is a response to a perceived stagnation among local businesses.  "(The city) realized that Sunset Boulevard, the rock n' roll capital of the world, was filling up with vacancies, and so were the avenues of art and design," said Mott Smith, whose firm Civic Enterprises consulted with West Hollywood. "People couldn't satisfy their parking requirements." The program will start by allocating only public spaces, but West Hollywood Public Works Director Oscar Delgado said the city intends to include private spaces as well. The first area of the city where the program will go into effect is a triangle encompassing the western end of Santa Monica Boulevard and Melrose Boulevard. Delgado said that the Sunset Strip is the next likely participant.  In total, the city has identified 12 potential districts, ranging from roughly four blocks to ten blocks long, that it intends to institute in the coming years. They will cover roughly 25% of the 1.9-square-mile city.  City officials contend that many parcels had been effectively locked into their uses because of parking requirements. Retail spaces that wanted to convert to restaurants had to find more parking. Meanwhile, landlords of restaurants often felt locked in, because to de-intensify would mean either giving up scarce spaces or hanging on to, and paying for, spaces that they didn't need.  "We're not having everybody be responsible for providing their own parking, especially when we have surplus parking," said Delgado.  Many businesses in the city have gotten used to paying what consultant Mott Smith described as "extortion" prices from places like office garages and car washes that leased surplus spaces so that businesses could fulfill their city-mandated requirements. Scholars such as UCLA's Don Shoup have noted that these requirements are often arbitrary and too crude to create finely detailed places. Currently in West Hollywood, retail requires 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet while, at the upper end, nightclubs require 14 spaces per 1,000 square feet.  "People wring their hands about what should the right parking requirements be for particular uses— ‘I think mortuaries should be 3.2 spaces per coffin' and so on and so on," said Smith. "And you never get to the right number." Moreover, in West Hollywood at least, many businesses' patrons never even used the spaces that businesses have been paying for.  "They're paying often $100 per month for fake spaces that nobody ever parks in," said Smith. (That monthly fee is, of course, on top of the rate that patrons pay to park.) By creating a flexible system that pays attention to the actual number of available spaces and to actual parking patterns, the program is ultimately intended as an economic development tool. City officials hope that it will allow properties to be put to their highest and best use rather than be constrained by the old parking requirements.  The business community has so far welcomed the program.  "We're very excited about it," said Genevieve Morrill, president of the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. "It's something that the city has been needing to do for a quite a long time. We're such a dense community, it just makes sense that people may park once."  Delgado and Smith both said that the key to the program is the biannual parking counts that will determine how many spaces are being used at any given time.  "With the parking credits, you're selling how much parking is available versus how many striped spaces there are," said Delgado.   Delgado said that this program will, in the long run, promote a more vibrant, pedestrian-oriented commercial neighborhoods.  "We're promoting park once and walk around," said Delgado.  This program arises at a time when cities across the state have been forced to develop new strategies to promote development and economic development now that their redevelopment agencies have been shut down.  Though not every city attracts rockers, gay club-goers, and art aficionados in quite such high numbers—much less spaces that cost $100 per month—any city with complex parking problems in dense commercial areas could stand to benefit from adopting a similar program.  "Where it's ideal is cities that have a built-in mixed use," said Delgado. "Let's say they have a lot of office space during the day and at night they have vacancies. It allows them to intensify and change their uses during the evening."  The hope, for the city, is that parking credits can make West Hollywood, and others, less like jungles and more like paradise cities.  Contacts:  Oscar Delgado, West Hollywood Public Works, 323.848.6375 Geneveive Morrill, West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, 323.650.2688 Mott Smith, Civic Enterprise Associates, 213.403.0170

California's relentless, ever widening budget deficit has claimed another victim: redevelopment's affordable housing funds.  Released today, Gov. Jerry Brown's revised draft  (pdf) of his 2012-13 budget addresses a deficit that has risen to an estimated $15.7 billion, up from an estimated $9.2 billion at the beginning of the year. The May appropriates all remaining cash assets that had been held by redevelopment agencies. This move effectively does away with funds that many had hoped--and expected--would be preserved even as redevelopment itself had been dissolved. Roughly $1.4 billion currently sits in the former redevelopment Low & Moderate Income Housing Fund.  Senate Bill 654, sponsored by Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg (D-Sacramento), would have restored the housing fund to localities that had sponsored redevelopment agencies. It is currently is under consideration in the legislature, having passed out of committee but failing to win urgency designation. SB 654 had received widespread support from both cities and affordable housing activists. Preservation of affordable housing had been considered by many to be the one part of redevelopment that had to be salvaged.  If adopted, the budget revise would appropriate all monies in the trust fund, thus rendering SB 654 moot.  As Bill Fulton reported in March, Steinberg recently said, "I don't know what the May revision is going to say about the state's revenue. If May keeps us stable, then boom – aggressive all the way to the governor's desk and I think he would likely sign the bill. If however growth is slow, we're going to have difficult decisions to make." It would appear that those difficult decisions are in the offing.

Ahoy there! Weary of California? Exhausted by redevelopment battles, EIR lawsuits, lack of transit, lack of money, the impossibility of getting anything done in Sacramento? We have a solution for you: Live on the ocean!  No, we're not talking about a cruise ship, nor a well-appointed yacht, nor even a party boat stocked with poppers and wine coolers.  This idea is infinitely better: an entire city floating by itself in the middle of the ocean!    Balderdash, you say? Stuff and nonsense? Ah, foolish one, you're mistaken.  This is a serious proposal—serious, that is, as Biosphere II and Newt Gingrich's proposal to rebuild colonial Jamestown on the moon. Take a gander at the press release: The Seasteading Institute, it says, is a "nonprofit organization that works to enable sea-steading communities." These floating cities in international waters will "allow the next generation of pioneers to peacefully test new political and social systems."  The founders are Peter Theil, billed as a "technology entrepreneur and philanthropist," and Patri Friedman, described as a "social entrepreneur/political theorist."  Mr. Friedman is also the grandson of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, the idiot who claimed that workers are free agents who can negotiate their salaries with employers as equals.  I guess sound social theory runs in the family.   Anyway, back to the blue waves: "The first seasteaders," says our release, "will likely be entrepreneurs operating single-purpose businesses on ships just outside territorial waters, where they will be free to explore new opportunities outside the jurisdiction of coastal governments." Such as defending themselves against Somali pirates, drug smugglers or any warship that decides to board their floating atoll of self-congratulatory enlightenment. Remember, they're drifting in international waters, so there's no Coast Guard to call.  But there's no place for cynics in seasteading:  "…(T)he Institute's primary objective over the next few years is to support the formation of seasteading businesses that can eventually scale up into thriving autonomous ocean communities."  Naturally, these floating islands will be utopian communities. "The most successful can then inspire change in governments around the world," says the release. Please note that this utopia is based neither on any political or economic theory, but simply the choice of terrain, as if living on the sea by itself will make us better people. And why not? Coleridge's Ancient Mariner experienced moral improvement while at sea, so why not you? Frankly, dear, you could use some moral improvement. Now, every great idea deserves a conference, even one with an admission price of $715. Accordingly, the Seasteading Institute is sponsoring a conference, from May 30 to June 2, intended for "entrepreneurs, investors, engineers, ocean law experts, maritime professionals and other forward-thinking individuals who want to learn about where they fit into the future of seasteading," says the press release. The same source promises a  "landmark event for the development of oceanic cities across the globe." Why a landmark and not a "seamark event." Such as a buoy, perhaps? Or maybe that floating island of trash in the Pacific, reportedly the size of the state of Maine? If you seasteaders are still serious, this land-based mammal offers you a challenge: When you can make cities on dry land work properly, and put an end to traffic congestion, overcrowded housing, land-use disputes between developers and home owners, unemployment, massive waste disposal issues, or the tension between rich and poor, then – and only then-will I allow you to take an ocean voyage on a floating city that has no reason to exist.  Otherwise, you are simply running away from your urban problems in a fantasy that psychologists call the "flight to wellness." Except when the sea is high, and your wellness turns into a sleepless night of nausea. But don't try limping back to San Francisco: We've converted your old house--to a seafood restaurant. "When you sip our world-famous Clam-tini ®," says the menu, "you'd swear you were on a floating island in the middle of the sea."  For more information, visit: http://www.seasteading.org/conference2012 . Or watch a few episodes of Battlestar Galactica and you'll get the idea.

The transit activists, it seems, are storming the gates in the Bay Area.  Their target for the 2012 election season is the open District 3 seat on the Bay Area Rapid Transit, and a victory could signal the maturation of an insurgent trend years in the making.  In an era dominated by Tea Party challenges to the political establishment, it is instead transit activists who are battling against BART's status quo.  Activists have become increasingly frustrated over the last decade with BART's focus on system expansion and job creation through dubiously justified construction projects than with improving core services and keeping up with runaway structural deficits. The genesis of the conflict can be traced back to the  Oakland Airport Connector  (OAC) project.  Studied since the 1970s, BART dreamed of connecting the nearby Oakland Coliseum station with the Oakland Airport.  The $130 million project was sold to Alameda County voters in 2000 as part of the Measure B half-cent sales tax.  But the OAC went through as series of gross mutations, shedding system features while ballooning in cost.  By 2010, the cost estimate for the OAC had more than quadrupled to $550 million.  The system would no longer connect to BART, requiring riders to switch to an adjacent station and ride on a pulley-operated tramway.  The overhead tramway would run slower than the existing AirBART bus shuttle system while the fare would cost twice as much.  The ridership projections over the existing system were viewed dubiously, as were the claimed job-creation figures. Promised stops along the economically depressed Hegenberger Corridor, a major element in selling the project to the public, were removed from the plans due to cost overruns.  The much cheaper, and faster, dedicated-lane Bus Rapid Transit option was tabled for primarily political reasons. With core services being cut back on the BART system, a fleet of train cars nearly 40 years old, and fabric seating that was found to contain  dangerous viruses, bacteria, and fecal mater , transit activist groups like  TransForm  and  Urban Habitat  swung into action against what they saw as a wasteful, duplicative project.  The most visible opposition to the Oakland Airport Connector came from a cadre of young blogger-activists, often writing under pseudonyms: the now-shuttered ABetterOakland, run by  Vsmoothe  (Echa Schneider);  Future Oakland  &  The DTO , both run by  DTO510  (Jonathan Bair);  Living in the O , run by  Oakland Becks  (Rebecca Saltzman);  TransBay Blog , run by  Eric C. ;  Systemic Failure , run by Drunk Engineer; and many others. Vocal opposition to the OAC turned into a Title VI civil rights complaint with the Federal Transit Administration, leading to the  withdrawal of $70 million in stimulus funds .  Opposition further coalesced around the candidacy of urban planner and former Executive Director of the East Bay Bicycle Coalition,  Robert Raburn .  While incumbent Carole Allen Ward, a staunch OAC proponent, trumpeted her role in using BART for job creation, Raburn focused on transit service, access, and equity.  Raburn unseated Ward in an upset in 2010 � campaigning primarily on a platform built around his opposition to the Oakland Airport Connector.  But even with the election of an anti-OAC board member, the Oakland Airport Connector project simply refused to die.  While he convened an inquiry on the OAC, Raburn found that BART staff  had plowed so much money into the project  so as to make it nearly impossible to shutter without a massive financial loss.  Raburn grudgingly acquiesced, pivoting focus to service issues.  He helped steer budget surpluses towards  replacing bacteria-infested seating  rather than temporary fare reductions, getting BART to prioritize  replacing their 40-year-old fleet of passenger cars , and had a hand in the ouster of  OAC-supporting BART manager Dorothy Dugger . With a new election cycle upon us, another transit activist tested in the gantlet of the Oakland Airport Connector is running for the BART Board.  This time it is  Rebecca Saltzman , author of  Living in the O , who is a main contender for the District 3 seat.  This election should see less acrimony than the last, as District 3 incumbent Bob Franklin is stepping down to run for a seat on the Oakland City Council (a seat being vacated by Councilwoman Jane Bruner in  her  run at Oakland City Attorney). Saltzman is from the new school of transit advocates, more concerned with service enhancements, improving headways and hours of operation, system upgrades, and transit equity than she is with system expansion.  BART staff and longer-tenured board members, however, are still looking outwards rather than in.  BART had a recent  groundbreaking for their system expansion to San Jose  (the projections for which have been  roundly criticized in the past ), and is in the process of pushing through an expansion plan to the  suburban/exurban community of Livermore   (criticized for its  freeway-median alignment and low ridership projections ). What this all means for the future of BART has yet to be determined, but we may look back on this coming election as a tipping point in how Bay Area leaders think about transit, and the future role that transit advocates will play in making those decisions. Christopher Kidd was the founder and former writer of the LADOT Bike Blog.  He currently works as a planner at Alta Planning + Design in Berkeley.

I live too close to Century City and Beverly Hills to objectively report on the what is shaping up to be the most bitter land use battle in California: that of uber-wealthy Beverly Hills versus uber-ambitious Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Here's my best shot at an update.  Last week the Metro board gave an historic go-ahead to the  westward extension  of the Los Angeles Purple Line subway. Though environmental and engineering documents for the subway have been certified for the entire 9.6-mile extension—which would pick up at the line's current terminus, two miles west of downtown, and extend roughly to the 405 Freeway – the segment that was approved stops short of that long-sought western reach. A beleaguered, marginalized, forlorn hamlet stands in its way.  For the past two years, this entity has claimed that Metro is imposing itself on a powerless little town. Civic leaders have described it as David vs. Goliath, with Metro as the Goliath. Residents who are confined to 10,000 square-foot mansions and condemned to navigate Los Angeles traffic in such mean conveyances as Maseratis and Aston-Martins have launched all manner of epithet against the transportation authority because of a plan that could, they say, blow up, or cripple, Beverly Hills High School.  Though it is in the 90212 zip code, in the city's humble southern portion, Beverly Hills High School is nonetheless one of the finest public schools in the region, so much so that generations of students have faked Beverly Hills addresses in order to gain admission. But, according to the Beverly Hills City Council, the Beverly Hills Unified School District board, Metro poses a grave danger to future Brandons, Brendas, and Andreas. The community is irate about Metro's preferred alignment ( link to map), which would put a station at Constellation Boulevard, in the middle of Century City, run the line directly under the school. Beverly Hills would prefer a station on Santa Monica Boulevard and a subsequent alignment that would run under Santa Monica Boulevard. School board president Brian Goldberg thinks that future pupils should fear for their lives. "We don't feel that MTA (Metro) has done their due diligence with respect to uncovering potential safety concerns with the number of abandoned oil wells, methane gas, saturated soil, the impact that it may have on 80-year-old buildings on the high school site," said Goldberg. The city has requested a special hearing in front of the Metro board before the alignment is approved. It will take place May 17. Back on campus, junior class president Jason seems more concerned about getting an education than fighting one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the nation. "I feel as though hysterics have been a factor here," said Jason. "People are blowing this issue out of proportion, giving it more attention than it deserves." (I agreed to obscure Jason's name because he is a minor, and probably doesn't want to be associated with what he considers an embarrassing spectacle.) For the past two years, debate about the subway has been the loudest conversation in Beverly Hills since the trial of Lindsay Lohan. Though Metro has held innumerable public meetings on the proposed subway dating back to at least 2006, it wasn't until late 2010 that civic raised concerns that some of the 17 alignments that Metro had published in its Alternatives Analysis might pose a problem. Originally, the most clear and present danger – articulated by then-School Board President Lisa Korbatov – was that terrorists would use the subway to blow up the school.  This premise assumes that these terrorists have no access to a motor vehicle and have never seen Shannen Doherty's early work in "Heathers." The debate has since shifted to less fanciful grounds. "We're not asking MTA to mitigate terrorist attacks," said Goldberg. Many in Beverly Hills believe that the Constellation station is a conspiracy instituted by Century City developer JMB Realty. Or it could be that JMB is one member of a loud chorus that thinks it's silly to put the station at Santa Monica Boulevard, immediately across the street from a golf course, rather than in the middle of the second-largest office district in the city. There's discussion about earthquake faults too, with dueling seismic analyses, that seems unlikely to be resolved. Goldberg said the school board has narrowed their protests down to two main concerns: things that would blow up if underground excavation takes place, and things that would not get built if underground excavation does not take place. School officials simply do not trust Metro to construct tunnels safely and, in particularly, avoid igniting underground pockets of methane gas. "If we're in control…we would be able to manage that process and we will be the ones that are responsible for mitigating, not MTA," said Goldberg. "I'm not going to leave the safety of our students in the hands of an MTA board whose only goal is to tunnel underneath the high school." Goldberg stressed that the city does support the subway—just not the tunnel under the school. A video produced by the PTA rendered some of these outcomes in gripping "A-Team"-era special effects.  Metro officials contend that fireballs and carnage are not exactly in their best interests either.  "If we did anything that was unsafe, not only would it undermine that project but it would undermine everything that this agency is trying to do," said Jody Litvak, community relations manager for Metro. (Disclosure: Litvak and I both serve on the board of a local civic organization.) Litvak also pointed out that the agency has constructed dozens of underground miles in the county without incident. She said that some of those tunnels run under schools, as do segments of Bay Area Rapid Transit. Goldberg's second major contention is that the tunnel—the top of which would be a full 50 feet below grade, even accounting for the campuses sloping topography—could impede future building projects to expand and modernize the school. He explained that the Division of the State Architect must approve any school development plans, and he feared that the presence of the tunnel could make the State Architect balk. Metro officials say that they are more than willing to collaborate with the school district to try to accommodate future development. If only the district would collaborate with Metro. "I'm sure we could and I'm sure we would be willing (to collaborate), but we're in a situation right now that makes it difficult because we were told some time ago that all communications between Metro staff and school district staff had to go through attorneys," said Litvak. "There's been a fair amount of saber-rattling leading one to infer the likelihood of lawsuits." Jason, the junior class president, would prefer that all the adults in Beverly Hills quit their drama and let the subway take its course. He said that most of his schoolmates—they being the children that everyone wants to protect—likely feel the same way. He even conducted a Facebook poll to find out. "The majority of the people who answered my poll said they didn't care, which to me translates as they're not really interested in our school putting up the fight that it is," said Jason. He has clearly been learning lessons that the school board has not approved. "Subways run under all over metropolitan areas. They go under commercial buildings….they go under other public buildings," said Jason. Meanwhile, he continued, "the likelihood of a fatal automobile crash is very real, despite the safety precautions and airbag regulations designed to protect us. However, we drive anyway. To fight the subway is to drive away modernization." In the course of raising hell against Metro, no one in Beverly Hills seems to have the patience to listen his point of view. "I feel as though this issue is highly political, governed by homeowners and businesses," said Jason. "Regardless of what I say…the board responses to its voters, so that's where the power is." Editors of the school paper, the  Highlights , did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did Gabrielle Carteris.  Goldberg was quick to point out that Beverly Hills itself is not as powerful as some might think.  "We don't have private citizens that are writing checks to BHUSD," said Goldberg. "The perception that somehow we have wealth and means--maybe individual families who send their kids to our schools have that—but the district is suffering." A version of this article appeared on  Next American City's  daily blog.

Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, when the Environmental Protection Agency told a property owner to jump, in some cases the property owner's only possible response was "how high?" No so anymore.  Last month, in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency , the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that places a limitation on how far the EPA can go to compel property owners to comply with the Clean Water Act.  To enforce the act, EPA officials often issue "administrative compliance orders" to property owners whom it determined were discharging pollutants or otherwise harming wetlands on their property. Chantelle and Mike Sackett had been cited for doing just that and received a compliance order halting their construction of a home near Priest Lake, Idaho. Refusal to follow the order would have come with a fine of $37,500 per day.  Plaintiffs claimed that EPA policies unfairly prevented property owners to contest these fines.  "Our main objection was that the EPA was imposing the threat of ruinous fines and even criminal prosecution without any proof of violation or an opportunity to be heard," said Reed Hopper, principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the plaintiffs. "There was simply no accountability." On a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that a compliance order--and the threat of fine--could be subject to a suit because, according to the justices' decision, the agency treated the order as a "final ruling" without any other procedural remedies for the property owners. This ability for a property owner to now sue for a "pre-enforcement review" may give EPA officials pause when issuing compliance orders in the future.  "I think it's a great step forward for property rights and the rule of law and due process," said Hopper.  How large a step it really is--and what practical impact it will have--is debatable.  On the one hand, the ruling is arguably the most significant land-use related ruling since 2005's Kelo vs. New London decision, which upheld the right of governments to invoke eminent domain for the purposes of economic development, and 2006's Rapanos v. United States, which narrowed the scope of waterways and wetlands that were protected under the Clean Water Act.  (Not coincidentally, some of the ambiguity in Sackett stems from the Rapanos ruling; the Sacketts' property is not technically a wetland but rather falls under the more ambiguous category of "waters of the United States.") Thus far, Sackett does not appear to have far-reaching legal impacts.  Many observers note that the ruling was intentionally narrow and applies only to the specific type of compliance order that was at issue in the Sackett case.  "The decision was very narrow and leaves open to EPA the ability to enforce the law either using  the same mechanism, but also being prepared to go to court, or using different mechanisms and slightly different approaches," said Devine.   The has not announced any new policies as a result of the decision.  "EPA will of course fully comply with the Supreme Court's decision, which the agency is still reviewing," said Bill Keener, spokesperson for the EPA's San Francisco office, relaying a statement from EPA headquarters.   Notably, the Sackett decision does not place any new constraints on the EPA. The burden remains on the landowner to object to EPA compliance orders through litigation.  "There's nothing in this decision, as I read it, that limits EPA's ability to warn dischargers when the agency believes someone is violating the Clean Water Act," said John Devine, staff attorney in the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If the EPA wants to use that approach, it needs to be prepared to spend the resources to litigate the issue of the discharger's liability under the law when it issues the order." Hopper, however, said that just that threat of litigation may be enough to prompt the EPA to issue compliance orders more conservatively, or to do more research before issuing orders.  "What we're after was to try to make, for the first time, the EPA accountable for its enforcement action," said Hopper. "The agency is going to have to do more than just a drive-by type evaluation." Even so, Hopper said that the ruling is likely to affect only a few of the roughly 3,000 compliance orders that, according to CNN, the EPA issues each year.  "It will have no effect on that whatsoever," said Hopper. "The only cases that are going to be brought to court are going to be those in which the agency is acting at the margins." However it affects the EPA's practices, the Sackett decision seems unlikely to rile activists in either the property-rights movement or the environmental movement. Though the Kelo decision did not actually set new legal precedent, it still galvanized property-rights advocates and spawned a slew of new state laws meant to restrict the use of eminent domain. Because the Sackett ruling restricts government power--albeit only slightly--no such response is expected.  "Here we have a decision that struck down governmental power, so there's nothing for people to react to," said Sean Hecht, executive director of the Environmental Law Center, UCLA Law School. "Government just has to decide how it's going to change how it does business as a result. No one's going to get up in arms about an abusive power based on a decision like this." Though the EPA issues Clean Water Act compliance orders all over the country—3,000 per year, according to CNN—California poses a particular challenge to EPA officials because of the diversity of the state's wetlands, which do not always adhere in reality to the federal definition thereof. Nonetheless, there appears to be little reason to believe that the ruling would affect California any more or less than it would any other state. If anything, fewer opportunities to issue compliance orders may arise in the first place.  "The wetlands there tend to be small, vernal pool types….water features that are only questionably subject to control under the Clean Water Act," said Hopper.