It's a wonder that this afternoon's CalAPA sessions didn't also include presentations on mom and apple pie. Some oft-forgotten vestiges of Americana were on full display in the two sessions that I visited, one on promoting main street-style retail and the other on urban agriculture.  Los Angeles-based landscape architect Mia Lehrer discussed opportunities for inserting agriculture into California cities. She began by noting that agriculture has not always been consigned to the prairies.  Far from it. Agriculture flourished in ancient Rome and many other cities of the past. There's no reason, she said, why urban agriculture couldn't help solve contemporary crises such as those of urban food deserts and petroleum-intensive industrial agriculture. Her most provocative proposal was to turn one of Griffith Park's six golf courses into an agricultural oasis. It sounds crazy, until you consider that urban golf is pretty absurd in the first place. She suggests that dropping a seed into a hole might be a more worthwhile pursuit than is shooting for a hole-in-one. A concurrent panel envisioned places where all those 18th-fairway tomatoes and aubergines might end up: a traditional main street with thriving stores. I'm always amazed at the difficulty of implementing retrograde urban forms. A century ago, you couldn't build a commercial area that wasn't a main street. Now, they're revolutionary and very difficult to promote.  One idea proposed by Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design, is that of residential-retail townhomes. Mom and pop would live above a storefront, from which they would purvey whatever goods and services they see fit. They would be condominiums -- not rental apartments -- and therefore the residents would assume the risk that might scare off lenders and owner-developers. Accommodated by form-based codes -- allowing any type of business -- this typology creates density by creating residences above retail spaces and cuts down on vehicle miles traveled since the shopkeepers would have a commute consisting of one flight of stairs. Importantly, it promotes local businesses rather than chains and thus has the potential to create unique places and economic multipliers. One hundred years ago, those multipliers were necessary -- because goods didn't magically arrive from China. Today, it's a choice that, some say, cities would be wise to make.  Parolek also discussed ways to create "new" main streets by creating streets rather than strip malls on large parcels. Parking lots would give way to walkable and drive-able streets, and buildings would be multiple stories, to accommodate live-work townhomes. Importantly, Parolek noted that these new streets should become true public spaces, under municipal jurisdiction. It's a radical notion in an age when cities have largely gotten out of the street game and ceded the creation of (semi-) public spaces to developers. Yes, the administration of public spaces can be expensive, but Parolek claims that as cities compete for scarce sales tax dollars, those with better places will ultimately reap more revenue.  It might not be Mayberry, but it probably beats Walmart.

As the implementation of SB 375 approaches and the Pacific Ocean rises ever higher, one of the greatest technical challenges facing planners is that of defining and measuring "sustainability." Judging by this morning's session "Translating Sustainability into Practice: Tools for Measuring Community Sustainability" at the California American Planning Association conference,  that task is going to be about as easy as creating cold fusion.  That's ironic, since cold fusion would solve a heck of a lot of our sustainability problems.  The session's premise is that, in essence, everyone wants to be sustainable, but, even if people know it when they see it, they are woefully under-equipped to measure it. What, then, to make of such a nebulous, all-encompassing concept such as sustainability?   Presenters Matthew Burris and Jason Pack described their experience writing a report for the Urban Land Institute's Orange County chapter. They put the problem poetically, citing the Iroquois tradition of considering the next seven generations in any major decision. How, they asked, could you fit seven generations into a zoning code?  They started with 255 definitions of sustainability, as collected on the blog Computing for Sustainability . For ULI, they whittled those down to a few categories of criteria, with 3-4 criteria per category. The categories include things like environment, socioeconomics, resources, and economics. In other words, just about everything that could possibly comprise the public realm.   After some more whittling down, they presented their criteria to ULI. The response: "deep fear."  It seems that folks at ULI who previously supported Burris' and Pack's project had a change of heart when confronted with concrete recommendations for how cities address sustainability. Pack described the response as, "One of the most surreal experiences of my professional life." The takeaway, they said, was not a revolutionary new way of measuring sustainability. Instead, it was the realization that entrenched business practices might not embrace sustainability, despite the best of intentions.  Walker Wells of Global Green USA presented an alternative scenario. He suggested that competing definitions and microscopic measures of sustainabilty are beside the point. He proposed that, for a city, sustainability entails a framework, with three componennts: 1) a long-term vision; 2) an evaluation tool; 3) a management tool, such as a dedicated office of sustainability. To heck with the 250-plus definitions, Wells said. What cities need is an official with an office and real power.  Wells then introduced the Star Community Index , being developed by ICLEI. Scheduled for launch next year after four years of development, STAR is a "LEED for cities," according to Wells. It lists a range of criteria -- not unlike the ones that Burris and Pack developed for ULI-Orange County -- and offers cities a guide for implementing a range of sustainability strategies according to their own needs. Wells said that the premise of the Star index is that cities should not fixate on "lofty goals" because, of course, "there's no way to measure them."  Cities are supposed to pursue lofty goals, but they can only implement the strategies that they can measure. And those strategies are most measurable when they're discrete. You can see where this is headed.  It seems to me that the good news -- which none of the presenters mentioned -- is that most of components of this nebulous world of sustainability are complementary. Improving public health, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and increasing walkability rarely rely on separate actions. Fixating over hundreds of definitions and minute measurements misses the point that, in many cases, just making cities nicer -- if you'll pardon the technical term -- accomplishes a slew of goals. Sustainabilty may, therefore, be more art than science. Or, perhaps, more common sense than cold fusion.

Jurisdictions across California have slowly come to accept that their environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act now must address greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, relatively few rulings exist to help jurisdictions establish thresholds by which to analyze a project's GHG impact. A recent case suggests that Assembly Bill 32, California's 2006 climate change law, may provide a reasonable guide.  In Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista , the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District found substantial evidence of a fair argument that the development of a Target store would have a significant environmental impact. The court held that the project would likely disturb contaminated soil, but it rejected challenges to the project based on air pollution and greenhouse gas impacts. The City of Chula Vista adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the construction of a Target store on a site formerly occupied by a smog check facility, a market, and existing, smaller Target store. The MND concluded the project could have significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous material, hydrology and water quality, and traffic/transportation, but that all impacts could be mitigated.  Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the approval of the project and MND.  The trial court denied the petition and CREED appealed, claiming there was substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant impact on hazards or hazardous materials, air quality for sensitive receptors, particulate matter and ozone, and greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District reversed the decision on hazards and hazardous materials, but affirmed the trial court judgment in all other respects.  On each count, the court ruled as follows:  Hazardous Materials: The court found that the administrative record contained evidence that a former gas station on the site contaminated the soil beneath the site, but contained no evidence of mitigation measures directed at the contaminated soils. Therefore, there was substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project would have a significant environmental impact by disturbing contaminated soils.  Air Pollution Impact on Sensitive Receptors: An Air Quality Assessment ("AQA") was prepared for the Project using the CEQA Air Quality Handbook created by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("District"). The District requires Heath Risk Assessment of diesel particulate matter for projects that generate substantial truck traffic or substantially increase traffic over existing levels. The AQA concluded the project would not significantly impact traffic and determined that emissions associated with construction and operation did not exceed air quality thresholds. Thus, there was no substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project would have a significant impact by exposing sensitive receptors to increased air pollution. Cumulative Impact on Particulate Matter and Ozone: CREED asserted that the project may have significant cumulative air quality impacts due to its contribution of particulate matter and NOx, since the project is located in a non-attainment area, where pollution is already above SCAQMD standards. The city evaluated the project emissions against the significance thresholds established by the district and found that the net increases over existing amounts were below the significance thresholds for all pollutants. Therefore, the court found no substantial evidence of a fair argument existed that the project would cause a significant and unavoidable cumulative contribution to an air quality impact. Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change: The city used as a threshold for its greenhouse gas analysis whether the project would "conflict with or obstruct the goals or strategies of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 or its governing regulation." CREED claimed that since the Project allegedly exceeded three other well-recognized potential thresholds of significance, a fair argument existed that the Project would have a significant impact on greenhouse gas and climate change.  The court found that the city properly exercised its discretion to use AB 32 compliance as the threshold.  CREED further challenged the city's use of a reduction target of 20 percent below business as usual. The AQA analyzed the AB 32 goal of reducing GHG to 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2020, and determined that eleven percent and 25 percent reductions in business as usual would be necessary to achieve these targets. The city then set the reduction target at 20 percent – a mid-point between the 2010 and 2020 goals. CREED claimed the 20 percent reduction target was not supported by substantial evidence. The AQA concluded that the implementation of the emission reduction program would reduce the Project's emissions by 29 percent. The court found this was adequate and found the issue of whether the target should have been 20 percent or 25 percent irrelevant.  Finally CREED argued the city should have used the 33 percent reduction set by San Diego County in its "On-Road Transportation Report," as the target. The court reiterated the city's discretion to not adopt this threshold. The court remanded to the trial court to determine whether the mitigation imposed addresses soil contamination. The appellate court directed the trial court to order the preparation of an EIR if the trial court finds mitigation for soil contamination was not imposed.  Agencies have been struggling to prepare greenhouse gas emissions analyses in the absence of adopted numeric thresholds. This case suggests, without so holding, that the common strategy of basing a greenhouse gas reduction target on the AB 32 reduction goals may be a defensible approach.  The Case Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista Filed June 10, 2011, published July 8, 2011, D057779, __ Cal.App.4th ___, The Attorneys For CREED: Briggs Law Corporation, Cory J. Briggs and Mekaela M. Gladden  For the City of Chula Vista: Bart C. Miesfeld, City Attorney, and Michael J. Shirey, Deputy City Attorney; Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP, Mark J. Dillon and Rachel C. Cook

Normandy Beach, NJ -- We have a situation at the Jersey Shore. I don't mean Jersey Shore and I don't mean The Situation.  I'm referring to the actual Jersey Shore. Here, along the state's 110-mile coastline a sense of imprisonment overpowers the hedonism. It's the same in many other East Coast states.  It's in this incongruous setting that I've been writing an upcoming CP&DR article on the future of the Coastal Commission and the retirement of its controversial executive director Peter Douglas. Douglas is known for his aggressive, expansive interpretation of the Coastal Act. Anecdotes abound about commission decisions that force land owners to abandon development plans or create easements in exchange for the right to make the most measly improvements.  Whether he's actually pulling the strings or not, Douglas makes some people's blood boil. But, here it's the absence a Peter Douglas that makes me sick to my stomach.  I went this morning to take a swim in the Atlantic. Before I went, my host stopped me and handed me a little badge, about the size of a sand dollar, with a number and a safety pin. I needed it to get on the beach. Without it, a high school girl with a yellow t-shirt reading "BADGE CHECK" would have stopped me at the edge of the dunes. Like D-Day, but backwards. I told my host here in Normandy Beach that we don't stand for that sort of thing in California. Needing permission to put my toes in the sand or get barreled by a breaking wave has never occurred to me in all my life. Beach access is a cultural value that we all share, whether we're conscious of it or not. But try going to a place where it is not an inalienable right, and--unless you're David Geffen or Barbara Stresiand--you'll discover your state fealty in a heartbeat. NorCal, Southern California, Central Coast: it doesn't matter. This coast is our coast.  I could be petty and say that Jersey's strictures don't even matter since it's not like they're keeping Big Sur off-limits. But a coastline is a coastline. Subliminally, access to the coast is what prevents a state from being a prison. If all else fails in this world--and so much has failed already--we can always put a paddle in the water and set out for the high seas. Landlocked folks can cross their state boarders and come to our shores. Ultimate freedom does not reside in Oklahoma or Kansas or Short Hills or in what you can do on your piddling piece of real estate. It's in the view from the end of the Santa Monica Pier, or the Marin Headlands, or the Cliff House.  The Jersey Shore offer no such views. Wealthy folks with summer homes buy their beach passes. The weekenders and partiers cluster in towns where booze flows freely and hoi polloi are allowed to touch the sand. Thank goodness The Situation has someplace to show off those pecs.  Say whatever else you want about the Coastal Commission and its ailing leader: at least we can show off our pecs anyplace we please.  Photo courtesy of MTV.

A ballot initiative to remove parking meters from downtown Ventura has been knocked off the November ballot by a Ventura County Superior Court judge.  Opponents of the parking meters – including several members of the local Tea Party (see CP&DR Vol. 26, No. 15 Aug. 1, 2011) – had gathered 8,000 valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. However, Judge Mark Burrell ruled that use of an initiative to remove parking meters is pre-empted by Vehicle Code Section 22508 as interpreted by an appellate court case decided in 1967. He rejected the proponents' argument that the Vehicle Code did not apply because the main purpose of the meters was to raise money, not to control traffic. In addition to ordering removal of the parking meters, Measure J also would have required 2/3 voter approval on all future plans to charge for parking on city streets and city-owned property. City officials claimed that this requirement would hamstring future attempts to build parking garages downtown and near the city's main hospital, and would even impede attempts to create new residential permit parking districts because parking permits cost $10 per year. It is very unusual for a judge to remove an initiative from the ballot prior to an election. However, past court rulings have concluded that if an initiative is patently illegal, there is no point in holding an election.  The state Vehicle Code generally pre-empts local actions on traffic regulation. Vehicle Code Section 22508 has a long history with regard to ballot measures.  In Mervyn v. Acker, 189 Cal.App.2d 558 (1961), the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that this section pre-empted a San Diego initiative that attempted to remove parking meters.  Later that year, the Legislature amended Section 22508 to permit referenda on parking meters but did not include the right to referendum. In a subsequent court case, Bragg v. City of Auburn, 253 Cal.App.2d 50 1967), the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the amended Vehicle Code section did, indeed, prohibit initiatives to remove parking meters. Since that time, the Vehicle Code has been reorganized but Section 22508 has not been amended. In court, the initiative's proponents argued that the Vehicle Code did not apply because the main purpose of the parking meter system was to establish "a municipal fee monopoly" for parking. Judge Burrell rejected the argument out of hand in oral argument and relied on the previous court cases in removing the measure from the ballot. "The court finds that the object of the Initiative is to govern a matter which is not within the electorate's power to govern through the initiative process," Judge Burrell wrote in his decision. "No purpose would be served by placing it on the ballot." Ventura introduced paid parking in approximately 300 spaces downtown last September as part of its Downtown Parking Management plan. Merchant unrest about the meters was high last fall but petered out after retailers had a strong holiday season. City officials point out there, even with the paid parking system, Downtown Ventura still has more than 2,000 free parking spaces. The initiative was put forth by three local residents – the owner of a knife-and-flag store downtown, a local Tea Party activist, and a former downtown property owner and business owner. The signatures were gathered in a period of six weeks with the active involvement of Tea Party members. Few downtown merchants were involved in the campaign. The measure received considerable publicity because it captured the attention of conservative radio personalities John and Ken, who broadcast on KFI, a 50,000-watt radio station in Los Angeles. In July, the Ventura City Council placed the measure on the ballot but also voted 4-3 to file the pre-emption lawsuit. After losing the lawsuit, the proponents decided not to appeal but focus instead on defeating the two incumbents in this fall's election who supported the meters. One of the two is longtime Ventura County planner Carl Morehouse, who is running for his fourth term on the City Council. Morehouse voted in favor of installing the parking meters but against the lawsuit.  Mayor Bill Fulton, a planning consultant and also publisher emeritus of CP&DR, supported both the meters and the lawsuit but is not running for re-election to the City Council. The Case: City Of San Buenaventura V. Preston , Ventura County Superior Court No. 56-2011-00400736-Cu-Wm-Vta

While the Tea Party movement has been trying to "take back America" on the national stage since the election of Barack Obama, Tea Party activists have also turned their attention to taking back California – and, specifically,  Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that seeks to combat climate change by promoting density in the state's metro regions.  Environmentalists and many fans of cities hail SB 375 as an important step towards both curbing global warming and creating more pleasant cities. But Tea Party activists nationwide have fought against local and regional planning efforts, often invoking the United Nations' "Agenda 21" sustainable development effort as the enemy. In California, Tea Party representatives have increasingly turned up at regional and statewide planning sessions – including a recent SB 375 "One Bay Area" workshop  in Concord, where they disrupted the meeting by challenging its premise. Steve Brandau, head coordinator for the Central Valley Tea Party, did not attend any One Bay Area meetings. But he said that he understood the speakers' skepticism about government-led planning and social engineering.  "We would be suspicious of projects that are built around population control and density control," said Brandau. "We are leery of governmental agencies and their ability, based on the track record, to develop workable solutions."   Brandau said that Tea Party supporters are likely to support the status quo no matter what policies a governmental body would propose. "We'll continue to drive whatever we want to drive until we get a better working model," said Brandau.  Despite its name, the Tea Party is not an official party or even a formal organization and therefore has no membership requirements. But they have been more vocal at planning workshops around the state. At the One Bay Area meeting in Concord, they questioned presentations from the audience. An activist who goes by the username "cvminutemen" posted on YouTube a two-hour video of the entire meeting, with a preface suggesting that One Bay Area is part of a comprehensive, global conspiracy. The preface to the video characterizes smart growth, liveable communities, and social justice as attacks on "freedom," "your prosperity," "your property rights," and "the American dream." And it ironically questions planning that claims to serve "the greater good."   (One Bay Area is the brand name for the nine-county Sustainable Communities Strategy being developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.) "There were Tea Party activists – and that's very much self-identified – no question that there was a group organized to participate in the meetings," said Randy Rentschler, spokesperson for MTC. He added that videographers by the name of Tea Party TV have filmed meetings. At those meetings, self-identified Tea Party supporters decried nearly every goal of the SB 375 planning process. Speakers criticized the plan for forcing residents into dense housing and impinging on suburban lifestyles. Speakers questioned the notion of regional planning, claiming that top-down planning would usurp local control. These and other objections at one meeting were captured on a two-hour video shot by a Tea Party supporter and posted on the Internet. "The things they brought to the table were: ‘leave us alone; we don't need your land use rules. We don't need people telling us what to do,'" said Rentschler.  At that meeting and others, participants say that Tea Party opinions all but drowned out other views, according to some.   "They were very vocal and in some respects they would get obnoxious," said Joel Ramos, a community planner with the nonprofit group TransForm, who said he attended several meetings in Contra Costa County. "I think that it was ultimately a detractor and that it devalued the overall conversation."  "The hard part with the Tea Party's participation was to get past their own agenda and think out what they want and to ask for it," said Rentschler.    Leaders of Tea Party organizations throughout the state – including the East Contra Costa County Tea Party, the East Bay Tea Party, the California Tea Party, and Tea Party Patriots – were contacted repeatedly for comment for this article over the course of several weeks. Only Brandau made himself available for comment.  Lawrence Rosenthal, director of the Center for Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements at UC-Berkeley said that the Tea Party's objections to SB 375 are not surprising. Libertarian movements have always been wary of government's use of eminent domain, and Tea Party members may assume that the construction of compact development and the empowerment of local governments to promote compact development will necessarily result in the taking of single-family homes and other private properties.  Supporters of One Bay Area insist that one of the purposes of the regional plan will be to promote density in center cities and at key transit nodes with the effect of preserving the character of many single-family areas, especially exurbs.  "The people who reside in less dense areas would probably have figured out, if they had allowed themselves, that we're not planning on doing anything to Clayton," said Rentschler, in reference to a city on the edge of the Central Valley. "The cities are taking things that you don't want."   The online video suggests that One Bay Area is advancing Agenda 21, a theme that Tea Party activists around the country have promoted. "We didn't even know about the ‘conspiracy' until we were told about it," said Rentschler. "I had to look up Agenda 21."  Agenda 21 is in fact a UN program urging cities to voluntarily promote density, public transit, and other strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whether high-density apartment buildings will be delivered via black helicopter is another matter, say the sponsors of One Bay Area.  Many of the Tea Party's concerns about SB 375 are grounded in far less outlandish concerns. Brandau said that, regardless of the particular concerns or personal inclinations, nearly all members of the Tea Party movement share a fundamental distrust for government. They believe that government actions both constrain civil liberties and fail to generate acceptable returns on investment.  Brandau said that many Tea Party members are inclined to oppose SB 375 purely because they do not trust the state government and regional planning agencies to come up with anything beneficial, regardless of what a plan might actually look like.  "We're not against infrastructure and we're not against what we would call smart planning," said Brandau. "Most of us feel betrayed by planning and these huge projects." Brandau cited high-speed rail and the as an example of planning that is destined to disrupt the livelihood of Central Valley residents in exchange for dubious benefits.  Rentschler noted that the Tea Party's anti-government ethos simply doesn't apply to places where many people live in close proximity and, therefore, have competing interests.  "In some communities there might be (no need for government-led planning).  Maybe that's in Alaska," said Rentschler. "I think that was the hard part in dealing with the Tea Partiers is that the message wasn't subtle to the complexities of the world we inhabit." Many speakers in Contra Costa County claimed that One Bay Area had arisen out of nowhere and was being imposed on an unsuspecting public. The difficulty for MTC and other regional planning agencies, of course, is that they are seeking to implement a state law that was adopted in 2008, no matter whether the Tea Party likes the law or not. Rentschler said that he knew of no Tea Party participation in any public meetings or hearings regarding SB 375 over the past few years.  Supporters of SB 375 say that Tea Party opposition is grounded in ignorance of both planning principles and the public process.  Ramos said that Tea Party supporters' combination of vehemence and ignorance threatens to undermine the public process – and even SB 375 itself.  "I would like to hope that we could move forward," said Ramos. "I've seen horrible things come as a result of politicians being scared of an angry group of loud, vocal minority groups."  UC-Berkeley's Rosenthal said that further debates are unlikely to change Tea Partiers' minds.  "If there were a key to engaging them in a way that got past their dismissiveness of this panoply of issues that they regard as elites trying to shove their fancy ideas down their throats…a great deal of progress would have been made already with the Tea Party," said Rosenthal. "Ideology, by its very nature, gives you the answers when you know nothing about the facts." Despite the seeming frustration of working with such stubborn participants, the sponsors of the One Bay Area meetings say that they welcome all participants and all opinions. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation has sponsored several meetings with the express purpose of expanding participation.   "We feel incredibly positive about the success we've had in terms of the number of people we've been able to engage in discussion and the diversity of people we've been able to engage," said Erica Wood, vice president of community leadership and grantmaking at SVCF. Rentschler said that the participation of the Tea Party, despite some counterproductive rhetoric, is a welcome component of the democratic process.  "If your comment is that climate change is fiction and you're part of a UN conspiracy, I can't do anything about that," said Rentschler. He did say, however, that Tea Party voices offer a welcome contrast the discourse that often dominates discussions in the Bay Area.  "We often get the far left comments," said Rentschler. "It was kind of refreshing to get the far right."  Retschler added that the Tea Party raises an issue on which activists along the entire political spectrum should be able to agree.  Should stakeholders be skeptical of government? "Yes. I am," said Rentschler.    Contacts:  Steve Brandau, Head Coordinator, Central Valley Tea Party, www.centralvalleyteaparty.com Joel Ramos, Community Planner, TransForm, 510.740.3150 Randy Rentschler, Spokesperson, Metropolitan Tarnsportation Commission,  Lawrence Rosenthal, Executive Director, UC-Berkeley Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements,  510.643.7237 Erica Wood, VP of Community Leadership and Grant Making, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, 650.450.5400

Sociologist Frederik Polak once said that "the future may well be decided by the images of the future with the greatest power to capture our imaginations and draw us to them, becoming self-fulfilling prophecies."  The organizers the Rethink/LA, an eponymous group consisting of some of the city's creative intelligentsia, seem to agree. The exhibit, on display through Sept. 4 at the Architecture+Design Museum,present bold visions of a future Los Angeles that should challenge the thinking and capture the imaginations of most Angelenos.  This multi-media exhibit includes photographs, interactive displays, short films, sound installations, and a 3-dimensional model. While I enjoyed all aspects of the exhibit, I was most intrigued by the series of 18 images that show what the city could be like 50 years from now.  As a public transit user and a park planner, my favorite piece was the collage by MOCK Studio, which reimagined lanes of the downtown 110 Freeway as spaces for solar powered personal rapid transit, bicyclists, pedestrians, passive and active recreation, and community gardens.  It depicts a future in which Angelenos are not completely dependent on the automobile and thousands of acres of land, including freeways, are for open space linkages, community gardens, and infill development.  This image further prompted me to consider how other auto-related uses, such as gas stations, auto repair shops, and car dealer lots, may be reused in the future. I was also fascinated by XTEN Architecture's vision of the Sepulveda Pass – between the Westside and San Fernando Valley -- which consists of a high speed rail/vehicular tunnel and a mix of cultural, park and recreational, office and related uses above.  This exciting, colorful image offers a striking contrast to the river of automobiles that characterizes the 405 today.  Another memorable image shows the seaside Hyperion Water Treatment Plant transformed into a hybrid desalination plant, water reservoir and recreation center which uses engineered waves as a training ground for amateur and novice surfers.  This proposal is based on the assumption that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will be able to meet the city's growing water demands by expanding the treatment facility to include desalination of seawater directly from the Santa Monica Bay. Since I, like probably most other planners, grew up playing or "building" with Legos, I found myself spending considerable time admiring the "Wilshire on Wilshire" exhibit, the result of an interactive planning project facilitated by James Rojas.  This 3-dimensional model is not a miniature version of Wilshire Boulevard as it currently exists; instead, it shows what the corridor could be like in 50 years.   Having participated in a similar exercise previously, I understand firsthand how this approach empowers participants by allowing them to shape and share visions in a supportive environment without the fear of providing a "wrong" answer. Rethink/LA is a wonderful exhibit for all.  Unfortunately, its audience is likely limited to only those with interests in architecture, design, and urban planning because it is housed at a storefront, specialty museum.  To achieve the organizers' goal of generating a significant dialogue with Angelenos regarding the city's future, the exhibit may be more appropriately displayed at a prominent location like the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) across the street. Rethink/LA is on display through September 4 at the Architecture + Design Museum, 6032 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036. http://www.aplusd.org/exhibitions-current Clement Lau is a freelance writer and a planner with the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.

California's redevelopment agencies have won a minor, but far from permanent victory, in their effort to shield a total of $1.7 billion in tax increment funds from the state.  The Supreme Court of California today agreed to hear California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos  (S194861), which was filed to undo a pair of budget bills that could decimate many of the state's nearly 400 redevelopment agencies. The court pledged to reach a decision by January 15.  The court also  issued a stay of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and remittance payments mandated by A ssembly Bill 26 X1 and Assembly Bill 27 X1. The stay comes at the request of the California Redevelopment Assocation and League of California Cities, which two weeks ago filed a petition for the court to throw out both laws. The laws would effectively force redevelopment agencies to shut down or to make voluntary payments to the state in order to remain in business. Agencies across the state have been deciding whether to make the payments or not, with most having to go to their respective city councils for approval. Technically, AB 27 X1 calls for payments to come from agencies' parent jurisditions, not from the agencies themselves.  The stay, in effect, prevents redevelopment agencies from being forced to make the payments until the Court rules on the merits of the case.  The court did not, however, extend at stay to the provision of the AB 26 X1 that puts a freeze on redevelopment activities prior to dissolution.   "We're very gratified that the California Supreme Court has agreed to take our case, issued the stay we requested to preserve the status quo, and that it is moving forward on an expedited basis," said Chris McKenzie, executive director, League of California Cities, in a statement. Today's ruling calls on the respondents, which include the State Departments of Finance and the State Controller's Office, to show cause for why the stay should not be granted. They are required to file a return by Sept. 9.  The court outlined the upcoming schedule in the case:  A reply may be served and filed by petitioners on or before Sept.  24. Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the  proposed brief, may be served and filed on or before Sept. 30. Any reply to an amicus brief may be served and filed on or before  Oct. 7. The court does not contemplate extending any time set out above.  The  briefing schedule is designed to facilitate oral argument as early as  possible in 2011, and a decision before January 15, 2012. Justices Cantil-Sakauye, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin and Corrigan voted in favor of the stay. Kennard, J., is of the opinion a stay should not be issued. -Josh Stephens

Assessments for services traditionally funded by property tax have faced an uphill battle after the passage of Proposition 218, the 1996 voter initiative that requires the local governments and special districts to seek voter approval for any proposed new or increased assessment before it could be levied. That hill has gotten steeper in the wake of a recent decision.  The decision from the Third Appellate District in Citizens for Responsible Government v. West Point Protection District suggests that the drafters of and voters for Proposition 218 achieved what they were after: further restrictions on the ability of public agencies to raise new revenue irrespective of the salutary purposes or modesty of the imposition.  The case involves a fire protection assessment approved by 61.8% of the vote cast in a 218 election proceeding in Calaveras County; despite this strong majority, the court ruled that flaws in the way that the measure assessed the property owners' payments made the assessment unlawful.  Formed in 1948, the West Point Fire Protection District derives most of its funding from property tax. But with a rapidly increasing service population, the demands for service outpaced tax revenues.  A study prepared for the district estimated that it would require an additional $146,000 per year (double its existing budget) to keep one full time firefighter/emergency medical technician available at all times. While that sort of service is standard in most urban areas, it can be scarce in rural parts of California.   However, neither the necessity for, nor the cost of the services is relevant to the legal question of whether or not an assessment is valid.  Proposition 218 requires that the assessments be based upon the benefits conferred to those paying the assesments. After reviewing the history behind Proposition 218 and the court decisions which followed, primarily Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431 (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 23, No. 8 , Aug. 2008), the appellate court held this assessment to be flawed on several grounds.   The court's initial ruling was that the assessment was only for general benefits, and therefore did not qualify for an assessment. The court viewed the assessment as a general expansion of services which benefitted all properties.  Since the delivery of general emergency services is a non-predictable event, this effectively precluded the existence of special benefits.  While the court's first holding disposed of the case, the court went on to say that even if one could argue that special benefits were found, the assessment was invalid as it failed the proportionality requirement. Relying on the holding of Town of Tiburon v. Bonandur 180 Cal.App.4th 1057 (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 25, No. 2 , Jan. 2010), the appellate court acknowledged that a proportionality determination was based upon the costs as measured by the relative benefits.   In finding that the assessment failed the proportionality requirement, the appellate court noted that the district's engineer had first determined the cost and then worked backwards to establish the amount of the assessments. It was, the court said, an error of oversimplification. The engineer's report also relied upon three categories for assessments:  improved, unimproved and exempt.  Improved properties would be assessed $87.58 per year, whereas unimproved properties paid $45.00.  Exempt properties paid nothing.   The appellate court concluded that this assessment structure was flawed in that all increased services would be "special benefits," with no discount for general benefits.  The formula resulted in disproportionate assessments between improved properties and those unimproved.  In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon the relative value of the properties (land and improvements) as the metric for analyzing the proportionality of the assessment.  The court also highlighted that the assessment report noted that exempt properties would receive a "major benefit," implying that assessment report authors ought to be more careful in how they write their reports. The Case:  Citizens for Responsible Government v. West Point Protection District No. C061110, 2011 DJDAR. Filed June 29, 2011. Ordered published June 29, 2011.  The Attorneys:  Stephanie J. Finelli and Robert K. Reeve for Plaintiffs and Appellants Nossaman LLP and Stephen N. Roberts for Defendants and Appellants

The process of planning for affordable housing in California just got, inadvertently, more affordable.  Among the many cuts that Gov. Jerry Brown enacted in his effort to balance the budget  is a $1 million hit to the Department of Housing and Community Development Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Fund. That fund supports the department's housing element review activities; with roughly 20 staff members, the housing element review staff will be effectively cut in half.  Cathy Creswell, acting director of HCD, said that the cuts do not signal a change of attitude or policy within the department.  "Those cuts do not reflect any lack of commitment or support for a positive state role in housing policy and in particular in the housing element," said Creswell. "It is a time of tough cuts and tough issues."  Creswell added that the department acknowledges the role that well planned housing can play in combating climate change, as mandated by laws such as SB 375 and Assembly Bill 32. She said that the department is still evaluating its staffing options but insists that the department is open for business and intends to adapt to its financial constraints.  "We are currently evaluating what we can do and what our options are to maintain this important function," said Creswell.  In many ways, the budget cuts could not have come at a better time. The implementation of Senate Bill 375 has pushed back the Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle for the state's four major metropolitan planning organizations. The RHNA process, which is renewed in five-year cycles, sets the parameters for the amount of affordable housing that local jurisdictions must account for in the housing elements of their general plans.  With this delay in the RHNA process, no housing elements are scheduled to come up for review within the next year.  "For the next year it's manageable, even with less than half the resources," said Creswell.  Whereas many HCD functions fund themselves through special funds and fees associated with programs that HCD administers, the housing element department relies entirely on the General Fund operating budget granted to it by the Legislature and governor. In the era of extreme cost-cutting, the department is being forced to take its share of the pain. Legislators had proposed a stopgap measure by which funds from Proposition 1C, an affordable housing bond measure, would be dedicated to housing element review.  Brown vetoed that provision even though cities are required by state law to produce and abide by housing elements. HCD review is intended to ensure that housing elements comply with Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation provided by the Council of Governments.  "The whole state-mandated planning system provides a counterweight to local parochialism that can sometimes affect the backbone of local elected officials and their staff," said Michael Rawson, co-director of the Public Interest Law Project.  HCD plays a consulting role, reviewing housing elements and helping cities determine if their housing elements conform to their respective MPOs' RHNA prescriptions. If housing elements appear to be out of compliance, HCD will offer recommendations—and is the only public entity with this authority. HCD, however, does not enforce compliance; ultimately, lawsuits – often brought by affordable housing advocacy groups – are the typical method by which housing elements are found to be lawful or not.  If the cuts extend into 2013, however, it may be a different story.  As the RHNA process gets back on track, a deluge of city housing elements that is expected to come in. The jurisdictions of the Southern California Association of Governments alone are expected to produce 197 housing elements.  "That is, under the best of circumstances, a huge amount of housing elements due out of one region basically at the same time," said Douglas Williford, deputy executive director for plans and programs at the Southern California Association of Governments. Rawson called it "more of a juggernaut than a rolling series of reviews."  Presumably, however, a shortage of staff and financial resources could impede the review process, or even mean that some housing elements go unreviewed. Review is not technically required for cities to adopt housing elements and implement them. However, reviews can go through multiple rounds if a draft housing element is off-base, and that process often leads to substantial changes.  "I've experienced the full gamut between it sailing through with only minor comments that you could address literally within a few days, all the way to months and months of discussion, negotiation, and meetings," said Williford, who praised HCD for being very accessible during SCAG's RHNA process.   Even cities that are diligent can wind up with noncompliant draft housing elements in part because RHNAs offer significant room for interpretation and variations among cities.  "It is arcane detail and often does require a lot of discussion. And it can somewhat differ from city to city because every city is unique," said Williford. "That is why it's not always so easy as checking the boxes." Moreover, advocates fear that the governor's refusal to fully fund housing element review could send the wrong messages to cities, especially those that are reluctant to plan for affordable housing.   It could also mean that faulty housing elements go on the books and thus become ripe for lawsuits.  "If there seems to be a creeping recalcitrance because of a perception of a diminishing state of review, that will cause more advocacy on the part of the advocates," said Rawson.  HCD is doing some advocacy of its own. Creswell said that the department will be reaching out to jurisdictions to assure them that housing elements will get reviewed while also asking for their assistance.  "We're going to be putting out a memo to all the communities we are working with to let them know that this will not affect anybody we're currently working with," said Creswell. "If they've got a housing element in with us, it will be done in an appropriate amount of time." Contacts:  Cathy Creswell, Acting Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, (916) 445-4782  Michael Rawson, Co-Director, Public Interest Law Project, 510.891.9794 Douglas Williford, Deputy Executive Director for Plans and Programs, Southern California Association of Governments, 213.236.1800

Attorney General Kamala Harris took the unusual measure of pre-emptively voicing her official opposition to the lawsuit that was filed two weeks ago to overturn the budget bills that force redevelopment agencies to either disband or pay a total of $1.7 billion in "remittances" to the state. The suit was filed by the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities in the state Supreme Court; the petition calls on the court to declare the actions unconstitutional in light of Prop. 22. Though the court has not yet indicated whether it will hear the case – or whether it will grant a requested stay – Harris staked out her position in the form of an "Informal Opposition" <.pdf, 1.4 mb> . In a brief filed with the court last week, Harris affirms what her office considers to be the state's prerogative to support, or disband, redevelopment agencies according to the 1945 legislation that first gave rise to them.  Her brief supports Gov. Jerry Brown's longstanding contention that, by capturing property tax increment, redevelopment agencies are essentially hoarding funds that are needed in light of the state's fiscal crisis. To the central question of whether the dissolution of redevelopment would violate Prop. 22, Harris' brief claims that precedent in California is to defer to the Legislature unless an act is expressly prohibited by the constitution, so that " f there is any doubt as to the Legislature's power to act in any given case, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the Legislature's action." The brief also notes that, while Prop. 22 forbids the direct or indirect transfer of funds from redevelopment agencies to the state, it does not address the Legislature's power to create or dissolve the state's redevelopment system. The brief states, "had the voters intended such a sweeping limitation on the Legislature's power, they certainly could have so indicated in a clearer or more direct fashion." Harris also interprets the two redevelopment budget bills not as a matched pair but instead as independent pieces of legislation. As such, they do not constitute a "Hobson's choice," which is how the petitioners characterize cities' and counties' options to either disband their agencies or pay a remittance fee. Harris contends that the Legislature first eliminated all redevelopment and then "then offered cities and counties that wanted to continue to pursue redevelopment goals an alternative and voluntary mechanism" in the form of the "Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program" enacted by AB1X 27. Harris opposes the stay requested in the petition. Virtually only point on which she does agree with the petitioners is that the Supreme Court should exercise its original jurisdiction and rule as swiftly as possible.  --Josh Stephens

A thorough analysis of building codes and local ordinances applicable to seismic hazards provides the substantial evidence necessary to uphold a city's revised environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal ruled in Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland. In successful challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act, the petitioner generally has a second bite at the apple by challenging the return of the writ. If a petitioner is successful in its challenge to an EIR, the trial court issues a writ of mandate that requires the agency to bring the EIR into compliance with CEQA. Once the agency has complied with the writ of mandate by "fixing" the EIR, the agency files a return of the writ with the court. If the court finds that the city has satisfied the writ of mandate, the court discharges the writ.  In this case, developers Oakland Harbor Partners, LLC, Signature Properties, Inc., and Reynolds & Brown proposed to develop the "Oak to Ninth" project, a development of approximately 64 acres along the Oakland Estuary and the Embarcadero. The development would convert a maritime and industrial area into residential, retail/commercial, open space, and marina use.  Building heights would range from six to 24 stories. The EIR for the project noted a risk of seismic danger, especially because the bay-adjacent site is vulnerable to liquefaction.  The city certified the EIR and adopted mitigation measures with respect to seismic hazards. Community group Oakland Heritage Alliance filed the suit, claiming numerous CEQA violations including that the EIR did not properly mitigate for seismic hazards. The Alliance alleged the city had violated CEQA by certifying the EIR and adopting CEQA findings although the mitigation measures would not reduce the effects of ground shaking, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced settlement to a less than significant level. The trial court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the petition for writ of mandate. The court directed the city to void its certification of the EIR, CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations, and the approval of the project, and remanded the matter to the City.  The trial court then discharged the writ of mandate after the city submitted a revised EIR. The petitioner, Oakland Heritage, appealed the trial court's discharge of the writ on the grounds the city had still failed to adequately analyze and mitigate seismic impacts. The appellate court disagreed and upheld the trial court's discharge of the writ. Petitioner's challenge focused on three areas relating to seismic impacts: (1) the significance threshold was improper; (2) the mitigation did not adequately mitigate to a less than significant level; and (3) the mitigation constituted an improper deferral of mitigation. Although the petitioner had failed to mention the significance threshold argument during the trial court's proceedings on the return of the writ, and was therefore barred from bringing it up on appeal, the appellate court addressed the issue and found that the significance threshold used to evaluate seismic impacts was proper. The court based its conclusion on two grounds. First, contrary to petitioner's assertions, the city was not required to formally adopt a significance threshold that differed from the threshold listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to the court, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7 encouraged the adoption of the standard thresholds of significance, but did not require it. Second, the threshold of significance used by the city "was effectively coextensive with the CEQA Guidelines" Appendix G, and therefore, petitioner's argument had no merit. In relation to the second issue of adequate mitigation, the two mitigation measures adopted by the city required that the buildings comply with all applicable state and local regulations. They also required that the buildings comply with the final design parameters and building recommendations that would be included in the geotechnical investigations for each building site. The appellate court found that substantial evidence supported the city's determination that the mitigation reduced seismic impacts to a less than significant level.  The court cited Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, which found that the incorporation of state energy efficiency standards into the project constituted proper mitigation. In this case, the thorough discussion of the building codes and local ordinances, as well as the duties of the geotechnical engineer, constituted substantial evidence that the mitigation would reduce impacts. The added discussion provided the required "why" discussion, explaining how code compliance operates as effective mitigation. Like the second issue of proper mitigation, the court disagreed with petitioner's final argument that the two mitigation measures for seismic impacts constituted an improper deferral of mitigation. The court found that the mitigation measures properly included performance standards that had to be met in order to insure that the project impacts would be mitigated. Therefore, the city did not improperly defer mitigation. In the end, the petitioner's attempt to further delay the project and require additional analysis by the city failed. This case provides a good example of the information that agencies should include in the CEQA document when the mitigation involves adherence to state codes and local regulations. A thorough explanation of the state codes and local regulations referred to in the mitigation goes a long way to providing substantial evidence in the record. The Case:  Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011, Case No. A126558) 2011 Cal.App.LEXIS 60