The retirement of Peter Douglas, the 26-year executive director of the California Coastal Commission, has unleashed a tsunami of superlatives from admirers: "legend," "tremendous," "staunch advocate." For decades, Douglas has been a lighting rod of both praise and criticism for the Coastal Commission. Some say that, under his direction, the commission has protected coastal resources that otherwise would have been lost. Others say that during his tenure the commission has been too strict, too capricious, and too dismissive of property rights.   Many credit him with singlehandedly enforcing, and strengthening, the 1972 ballot initiative that gave rise to the Coastal Act of 1976, which he helped draft and has helped enforce as a commission staff member for the better part of a generation.  "There's nothing you can really say that isn't a cliché," said Mary Nichols, chair of the Air Resources Board and longtime environmental advocate.  "Peter is the single most defining force of the implementation of the Coastal Act," said Susan McCabe, a lobbyist and former commission member. "He has shaped the coast of California." While nearly everyone involved with environmental protection or coastal development agrees on Douglas' influence—he has never shied away from inflammatory rhetoric in defense of a pristine, accessible coastline—agreement on his virtuousness is far from unanimous. He is known for inviting debate and for agreeing to disagree amid the passionate debates that surround land use and environmental protection. But some contend that his pursuit of conservation ran roughshod over principles of justice.  "As the leader of one of the most abusive agencies in the state, I can't think of anything that I admire in his leadership," said Paul Beard, Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public service law firm that supports private property rights. "He has sought to extort land or money from property owners."  While Beard expressed sympathy for Douglas' medical plight—he is stepping down because he has been diagnosed with lung cancer—he represents a common view among many coastal landowners and would-be developers that the Coastal Commission's review process under Douglas has overstepped the bounds of not only the Coastal Act itself but in fact of the U.S. Constitution. The Pacific Legal Foundation and other critics have long fought the commission, claiming that some denials have constituted illegal takings.  Now that they won't have Peter Douglas to kick around anymore, speculation is rampant about whether anyone else will have the temerity to uphold his legacy. Otherwise, a more mellow Coastal Commission office could lead to fewer controversial permit denials and, as a consequence, some cozier quarters along the state's 1,100-miles coastline.  Predicting future of the Coastal Commission's decisions depends in part on how much influence Douglas wielded in the first place.  Though Douglas was known for speaking out in favor of a pristine coast, formal decision-making power lies in the board of commissioners, a group of 12 state appointees. (For are appointed by the governor, four by the Senate, and four by the Assembly.)  "It isn't as though Peter Douglas controls the process. That's a bit of an exaggerated misinformation that the Pacific Legal Foundation never gets tired of trumpeting," said Mark Massara, longtime coastal advocate and current general counsel and vice president of social responsibility for Santa Cruz-based O'Neill Wetsuits, which has supported coastal protection campaigns. "Peter's just the chief of the staff. That's all he's ever been." As chief, however, Douglas oversaw the process by which staff chose potential violations of the Coastal Act to investigate and deliberate on. The force of those recommendations often, say both critics and fans, led directly to votes by the commission.  "He leads a full-time staff who investigate and research and analyze different permitting issues," said Beard. "They come up with staff reports that the commissioners read….and based mostly on what the staff said whether to issue a permit." Beard claimed that Douglas was especially attuned to "cutting-edge," precedent-setting decisions.  "A lot of permits are routine," said Beard. "The law is what the law is and there's not that much room for discretion." McCabe confirmed that the commission almost always abides by staff recommendations, especially if the staff recommends a denial. Commissioners are impressionable in part because they serve for relatively short durations. "Peter is the institutional knowledge of the commission," said McCabe. "Commissioners come and commissioners go." The staff review process, critics say, gave Douglas and the staff enough leeway to pursue agendas that pushed the purview of the Coastal Act. That was in fact, his goal, according to Nichols.  "Peter Douglas was exceptionally skilled in recognizing and finding ways to continually push the envelope a little bit further in finding ways to preserve open space and access to the coast and to protect the environmental values of the coast," said Nichols.  Nichols said, however, that in pushing the envelope, the commission has not always been as aboveboard as it could have been. Its decisions essentially set policy through cases rather than by promulgating policies through more open channels.  "If I have any overarching criticism of the commission, it is that they didn't do enough by policy or rulemaking but always made policy on a case-by-case basis," said Nichols. In that sense, Douglas' friends and foes are in almost unanimous agreement about Douglas' impact. Douglas' zealousness has often garnered accusations of power-grabbing and egoism.  "One of the hallmarks of his integrity is that he never second-guesses the work of the staff," said Massara. "It's not as if he was some politically motivated ideologue. It's quite the opposite." Massara said that the competency, and of the staff all but ensures that staff recommendations will not change much. The most pressing challenge facing the commission staff is, in fact, budget cuts that have led to a reported backlog of 1,500 cases.  "I view this as an opportunity for their many talented staff to be able to show that they're capable of continuing on in a consistent manner and providing the world's most experienced coastal planning expertise," said Massara.  Beard, however, said that change cannot come too soon to the organization.  "We think that this retirement will bode well for property owners in the sense that we may finally see a more pragmatic leadership that respects property owners," said Beard. The commission, itself, is in charge of appointing the next executive director. The staff is currently being led by interim executive director Charles Lester, whom Massara said would be an ideal successor.  According to Bruce Reznik, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, said that the best way to honor Douglas' work is to forget about Douglas himself.  "If it gets caught too much up in one person, it really is a very limited legacy that he would leave," said Reznik. Then again, the vacancy could set off a frenzy, with political aspirants jumping at the chance to lead one of the state's most powerful agencies.  "The worst possible result would be a sort of beauty contest with every retiring politician in Sacramento trying tot get the job just because it's a corner office in San Francisco," said Massara. Such a frenzy could, according to Massara, fundamentally alter what he considers to be a relatively apolitical staff.  Some political leaders who don't agree with the commission, or very much like Douglas, include local officials whose land use decisions have been upended by Coastal Commission rulings. Many see those rulings as unwelcome intrusions from Sacramento into matters that some consider the nearly sacred provenance of local government.  "Over the last 15-20 years they've tried to micromanage the most local activities imaginable," said Beard. "Ideally these sorts of decisions would be left to local governments and planning agencies." Whoever leads the commission staff, henceforth, will not have just the choice of following the "Douglas way" or not. New challenges await the next incarnation of the Coastal Commission. In fact, questions of property rights may become moot for owners whose property will, because of climate change, cease to exist.  "We've spent the better part of three decades acquiring, carefully deliberating on land use, and restoring wetlands, resources, and beach access, providing for protection of public resources, that in all likelihood, in the next century are going to be drowned," said Massara. "Nobody is willing to move back one inch. All of the challenges that Peter and the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act have faced are only going to become more challenging in the future."   Others are more sanguine, regardless of climate change and even ideological battles. "This is California," said Nichols. "Its coastline is unique and iconic and I don't think that will change regardless of who the next executive director is." Contacts Paul Beard, Lead Council, Pacific Legal Foundation,  916.419.7111 Mark Massara, Senior Counsel and VP of Social Responsibility, O'Neill Wetsuits, 800.538.0764 Susan McCabe, Principal, McCabe & Company, 310.821.1004 Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board, 800.242.4450 Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Planning & Conservation League, 916.822.5631

P.J. O'Rourke once referred to the United States government as a "vast, rampant cuttlefish," writhing and squirting ink all over the place to no useful effect. I think D.C.'s tubluence has far exceeded even that metaphor, but taking its place lately are California's municipal general plans. In one of the most chipper of this week's sessions at the American Planning Association California Chapter's Annual Conference, we heard some compelling ideas about how cities can rein in their general plans and reconfigure them for the 21st century, even while the rest of the world is going to pieces.  Looking on the Bright Side Elaine Costello, chair of the California Planning Roundtable, pointed the audience to reinventingthegeneralplan.org , which chronicles the Planning Roundtable's efforts. She presented ten principles for reinvention that the working group has settled on:  1. Create a broad vision that involves the community 2. Manage change by allowing a community to have the information that allows them to make choices and adapt to unforeseen changes.  3.  General plans should "make life better." 4.  Build community identity; express people's pride in what their community is.  5.  Promoting social equity and economic prosperity, with a variety of businesses.  6.  Care for and enhance the environment.  7.  Engage the whole community, reducing the number of elements as needed in order to make it more accessible.  8.  Look beyond local boundaries.  9.  Prioritize action; drive public investment, operational decisions, and even day-to-day actions.  10. Be universally attainable.   Of course, planners could probably interpret these guidelines into ghastly documents. But as a vision for general plans, they appear far more reasonable than much of the minutiae that planners often drown in on the way to producing a politically palatable document. I have to take issue, though, with the forth point. Community identity is important, and cities should differ from each other. Too many places have too little identity. But the obverse of identity is exclusion: a place that asserts a strong identity necessarily repels people who do not fit that identity. Planners must, therefore, tread lightly when they envision what a city should be "like" so that they emphasize identities that can be chosen and not those that are dictated by ethnicity or class.  Signs of the Times Planning consultant Barry Miller was not quite so sanguine about the prospect of reinventing the general plan. His presentation focused, without mincing words, on ten forces that have influenced general plans -- for better and worse -- since 1984, with the seven basic elements were established.  1.  Big Data. Planners must be wary of the explosion of data available to them, raging from Google Street View to the piles of studies that a single EIR can generate.    2.  Subject Creep. The 1000-page is not a good thing, especially when it opines on everything under the sun. Miller even suggested that discussions of public health and obesity do not belong in general plans. "We need to put our general plans on a diet as well," as well. He even mentioned plans in other states that address criminal justice.   3. Ever-changing plan map. Miller noted that the GP map is supposed to be general, and yet GIS allows maps to get too detailed. GP maps should not be a zoning map. He and Costello both suggested that general plan maps show how parts of a cities will "change" (if at all).  4.  Telescoping geography. Breaking the city down from vision to citywide policies to areawide policies to community plans.  5. Adapting to fiscal distress. General updates are not cheap. Therefore, cities have been deferring updates, doing only basic housekeeping, employing city/consultant hybrids, and resorting to creative funding. All of these, he said, make for weaker general plans.  6.  CEQA. Miller insisted that fear of legal challenge should not drive generals.  7. Ascendency of the Housing Element. Miller invoked "the Dreaded letter" from Housing and Community Development that could upend a plan. He said that cities rely on "smoke and mirrors solutions" in order to comply rather than pursuing "creative, context-sensitive planning."  8.  Measurement. Miller lamented the tendency to try to make everything measurable. He noted that the pursuit of sustainability has prompted planners to try to boil down everything to numbers like GHG emissions and vehicle miles traveled.   9. New Transportation Paradigm. Miller celebrated the "death of level-of-service" ratings for roads and the shift away from mode-specific silos.  10. New Face of Public Input. With electronic and social media, Miller said that the good outweighs the bad. He encouraged cities to put up videos and maintain Facebook pages for their general plan updates.  Brave New World Pasadena planning director Vince Bertoni offered a new paradigm, borne out by the latest census data : general plans need to start accounting for population change, not population growth. With the aging of the baby boomers, Bertoni said that cities will have to rethink how they plan and for whom they are planning.  At the same time that the population is aging, Bertoni called on cities to embrace the new. Bertoni offered not the obvious advice for cities to employ new technologies. Rather, he cautioned planners to be mindful of the rate of technological change and the impacts that those changes can have on the built environment. He pointed to the trend in "open" offices that almost no one was planning for even ten years ago. His point was that general plans need to be flexible enough to adapt to technological changes that have not yet occurred, especially when general plans often take more than five years to produce -- "if you're lucky," said Bertoni.  In other words, once iPhones are old hat, we may want different sorts of places in which to chat on our cyborg phones. Even in "Old Town" Pasadena.

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