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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In perhaps a more sensible world, the 325,000-acre Lake Tahoe Basin would not be governed by two rival states, a handful of small cities, and embittered factions of environmentalists and resort-casino owners. Nor would it have miles of open highway or 55,000 year-round residents. Rather, it would be treated like the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, or any other of America's major natural wonders.  Instead, pioneers, skiers, and gamblers got to the Tahoe area before the federal government could�and, from many environmentalists' perspective, many of them got there at the worst possible time. By the time regional planning arrived, in the form of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the basin had already been widely developed. TRPA sought mainly to bring development to a crawl, even at the possible expense of good, environmentally friendly development.  "Tahoe was built out in the 1960s at the peak of sprawl development. It's a car-oriented infrastructure," said Patrick Wright, executive director of the California Tahoe Conservancy.  "I think it's fair to say that the existing rules are a strong disincentive to redevelopment and to smarter growth/SB 375-consistent principles."  Senate Bill 375 is the California law that seeks to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled through compact development; it applies only to the state's major urban areas. Notably, SB 375 does not apply to Nevada. Interests on the eastern side of the lake have traditionally favored more development�and the economic growth that accompanies it�and have often bristled at having to collaborate with California. Any successful plan will have to find a compromise amid this tension.  Short of turning back the clock 50 years or allowing casinos to run wild, the new plan is attempting to gingerly update the plan so that it promotes redevelopment in preferred locations.  The result has been an ongoing feud over the nature of development in the basin. The latest�and perhaps last�round in that feud centers on the long-awaited release of the draft Tahoe Regional Plan Update, by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The draft plan was made public in April; the TRPA board is expected to vote on it by December, following a public outreach process.  If the preferred alternative is adopted, the plan will attempt to bring smart growth to the great outdoors. Critics say, however, that what's good for the big city is not so good for the great outdoors.  "It's not about general land use policies or changes and directions that we have to go as a country," said David McClure of the North Tahoe Citizens Action Alliance. "This is in the Lake Tahoe Basin�it has very limited geography and infrastructure�and a set of environmental thresholds that are not established anywhere else in the country."  The plan update, if and when it is adopted, will be the first comprehensive plan update for the Tahoe Basin since 1987. For years, activists and public officials on both sides of the state line have been clamoring for the update. The update process commenced in 2005 but stalled several times until the Nevada legislature forced TRPA's hand with a threat to pull out of the bi-state compact. All the while, water clarity in the lake�which many use as a benchmark not only for the health of the North America's largest alpine lake but also as a stand-in for a range of other environmental measures�has slowly diminished.  Lake Tahoe's clarity now stands at around 70 feet of depth; the interim target is 75 feet, with a threshold standard of 97 feet.  While the plan aims to keep particles out of the water and keep streams and trees healthy, several of the plan's five alternatives�including the frontrunner Alternative C, which Cowen said has been vetted by the Regional Plan Update Committee of the TRPA board�rely on a strategy that has become a staple of major metropolitan areas: smart growth.  Though cities like South Lake Tahoe and Nevada's Incline Village are not exactly metropoli, TRPA planners say that by clustering growth in small town centers and around existing resort infrastructure�such as the basin's major ski areas�the plan will lead to reduced driving, pollution, storm water runoff, and other adverse impacts on the basin's ecological health. Permitted densities would depend on the location of a proposed development. Building heights would be permitted up to four stories (56 feet) in town centers, six stories (95 feet) in the "Regional Center," and 197 feet in the "High Density Tourist District." Some city officials say that the plan fits nicely with their own cities' respective visions.  "We've identified areas throughout the basin where we want to target for concentrating development that is �linked by alternative transportation�and that is consistent in the city's general plan," said Hilary Roverud, director of Development Services for the City of South Lake Tahoe. "I certainly believe that will bring environmental benefit." The plan includes incentives that, say TRPA officials, will encourage landowners to abandon and restore parcels that contribute to pollution and swap them for parcels within existing urban footprints. The hoped-for result is that residents and tourists alike will arrive at the basin, park once, and then explore by foot, boat, and bus.  "The Environmental Redevelopment Program (is) to encourage moving properties away from our sensitive areas�incentivizing them to move into the town centers where there are more services available, people have more opportunity to get out of their car," said TRPA spokesperson Kristi Boosma.  TRPA planners say that, of 1,100 acres of sensitive stream habitat that is slated for restoration, nearly half remains in private hands. A few strategic swaps could, therefore, make a major difference. The plan treats these potential areas as commodities whose value landowners can capture by restoring them privately.  "Those development commodities that we've used as growth controls we're now using as incentives to make it economically feasible to have private investors do a lot of the restoration for us," said TRPA spokesperson Jeff Cowen, in a joint interview with Boosma.  TRPA officials and other supporters call this strategy "environmental redevelopment."  Though the prospect of promoting development in order to achieve conservation goals may seem paradoxical, TRPA officials say that it can go a long way towards undoing some of the ecological damage being inflicted by existing developments. The vast majority of the basin was developed in an era when environmental concerns were minimal. That kind of development led to the creation of the TRPA in the first place.  "We have a code of ordinances that was written in 1987 when it was really important to stop runaway growth and to control overdevelopment," said Cowen. "About 80% of what's in the basin was built before TRPA, so what we need to do is create an environment where people want to remodel, redevelop, rebuild." Many developments were built without safeguards to filter storm water runoff, and some say that even renovating existing buildings has been hampered by a burdensome TRPA permitting process. And because of rampant development in the 1960s and 1970s, any strategies for restoring the basin and hitting TMDL targets must by necessity target those older developments.  Cowen said that a change in 1-2% of the basin's 43,000 residential parcels could be enough to yield significant benefits. Cowen said that the basin's 3,1000 remaining developable units amount to the square footage of a Walmart Superstore; "that's not urbanization as I would think of the term," he said. In exchange for this swap, landowners may be allowed to build at higher densities. Even though the original Tahoe Compact puts a hard cap on development and year-round population growth, opponents of the plan fear that the plan's eager embrace of "environmental redevelopment" is a Trojan horse.  "With their plan they're just going to fix a 2,500 population increase," said Ann Nichols, President of North Tahoe Preservation Alliance and member of the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee; her group is aligned with McClure's. "But they don't count all the second- and third homeowners and tourist accommodations."  Nichols questioned TRPA's ability to actually compel property owners to do the sort of restoration that the plan calls for. She and McClure agreed that the status quo often prevents owners of small properties from redeveloping them, but she speculated that with lax enforcement, property owners would reap the benefits of land swaps without actually investing in environmentally friendly restoration.  "It actually works in reverse and keeps people from doing what they're supposed to do," said Nichols.  Though Wright, of the Tahoe Conservancy, said that he supports TRPA's plan, he said that "whether or not land use regulatory changes alone are going to be enough to actually stimulate redevelopment versus make it easier and not be an impediment is� an open question." Even the smart growth approach strikes critics as suspicious, primarily because the area does not have consistent commuting patterns and established large population base.  "The application of this growth and so-called smart growth principles is being misapplied here because it's basically been co-opted by the mountain resort development industry," said McClure. "They're using those principles, or misusing them, to justify $200-$500 million resort development projects in Lake Tahoe." Though McClure and Nichols both said that they are not opposed to all development, they are wary of large developments and of the impact that tourists can have. They noted as well that the plan's transit infrastructure�detailed in an accompanying Regional Transportation Plan�may not be robust enough to coax visitors out of their cars. Cowen countered that, with concentrated development, tourists can walk out the back door of their hotels and reach ski slopes and hiking trails without driving at all.  "Clearly, concentrated development will help support transit systems," said Wright. "It will help provide walkable communities.  I think the question is, how great are the benefits? What kind of critical mass do you need to support a healthy transit system?" Many in the region say that large resorts may hold the key to the area's economic health. The plan has come about at a moment of profound economic change in the basin. Casino gambling has nosedived, in part because of competition from Indian casinos in California; casino employment in South Lake Tahoe is down to about 3,200 workers, from over 7,000 in the mid-1990s. The area's economy is increasingly relying on visitors who come for recreation and natural splendor rather than for smoke-shrouded tables deep inside a casino.  "It's no longer about coming in a bus with 40 other people and going into a casino," said Betty "B" Gorman, president & CEO of the Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce, which supports the plan. "There's no one here that doesn't understand the importance of protecting the environment and engaging people in a better understanding of what that means."  Moreover, with more visitors may come a greater demand for employees�who may or may not be able to live in the basin.  "If South Lake gets revitalized and we don't have enough affordable housing and we don't have adequate transit, we're just going to have more people commuting up the hill from outlying areas," said Wright.  Immediately "down the hill" from South Lake Tahoe lies the Nevada capital of Carson City, which, in an indirect way, has led to the drafting of the current plan.  Last year the Nevada Legislature based Senate Bill 271, which called for Nevada to pull out of the bi-state compact if TRPA did not meet certain conditions. Supporters of the bill said that they were frustrated with the delay in updating the plan and conditioned the threatened pull-out on a timely draft. TRPA's board includes members from both states. Critics of SB 271 contend that it is a way for Nevada to force TPRA to loosen restrictions on development. A letter from four environmental groups�including Nichols'�to TRPA claims that while "TRPA was established to protect the fragile eco-system of the region�SB271 demands, among other things, more attention to economic stimulation and profit." Whether or not that claim is true, there is a consensus that the law did motivate TRPA to quicken its process.  "I think it's significantly shaped the timing," said Wright. "Whether you're a supporter or a detractor of it, there's no question that the two states have gotten together�.I don't know that it significantly affected the details."  TRPA officials are more glib.  "All the update does is meet the timeline requirement of SB 271," said Cowen. Contacts:  Kristi Boosma, Jeff Cowen, spokespeople, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 775.588.4547 Betty "B" Gorman, President & CEO, Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce, 775-588-1728 Hilary Roverud, Dir. of Development Services, City of South Lake Tahoe, 530.542.6024 Patrick Wright, Executive Director, California Tahoe Conservancy 530.543.6002

For the past few months a supercomputer with UCLA researchers at its helm has been trying to figure out what the weather will be like in Los Angeles in the middle of the 21st century. You'd hope that somewhere in there it would find some good news. Maybe we'll get decades of consecutive weeks of 72-degree days, like Steve Martin reported in LA Story? Not so much.  \t The computer's human teammates from UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability announced yesterday that the Los Angeles of the not-so-distant future might, in many places, feel like the Phoenix of today. The glorious climate that has made the LA basin—and even its inland valleys for most of the year—one of the most liveable and energy-efficient areas in the world is going to become a thing of the past.  The study projects temperatures in geographic increments of 2.5 square miles and estimates the number of days above 95 degrees that each respective piece of the Los Angeles region will experience. So if you're planning on cooking an egg on a sidewalk in 2050, the study can tell you which sidewalk to choose.  Today, Palm Springs experiences 75 days of 95-plus degree heat; in 30 years, that number may increase to 119 – one-third of the year. Some parts fo the San Fernando Valley will go from eight days to a full month. In downtown Los Angeles, they'll be loosening ties, with thrice as many days of 95-plus degree temperatures than today.  (To arrive at these numbers, UCLA's computer analyzed 25 climate change scenarios with 1 quintillion calculations over six months.  That figure is so huge that I don't see much point in comparing it to anything else, like grains of sand on all the world's beaches. Let's just say that it's so big that it takes the world's fastest computers six months to do that many calculations.) Supporters of the study describe its results—and the minute scale on which the results were calculated—as a way for Angelenos to apprehend the real effects of climate change. It is no longer a debatable, abstract possibility but, indeed, a nearly unavoidable reality that will hit every neighborhood in the city. This tangibility, they hope, will lead to action.  \t I heard this news the very same day that I read the Economist special report on the demise of the Arctic. (The Economist , like this publication, does not question the legitimacy of human-induced climate change.) The Economist reports that warming in the Arctic is advancing more quickly—and, potentially, with more devastating results than in any other part of the planet. I've rarely felt so helpless, and hopeless, as I did reading about devastation thousands of miles away and beyond any shred of my control: the extinction of polar bears and, most alarmingly, the 200 gigatons of icecap that Greenland is losing each year. Petroleum companies can't wait to bid for the rights to drill on tundra that will be liberated by disappearing ice.  \tEven if the Arctic is doomed, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has announced a comprehensive adaptation plan, called C-Change.LA . The program describes different adaptation strategies for the L.A. basin and the San Fernando Valley. Though Los Angeles commissioned the study, it's safe to assume that the statewide effects of climate change will be no less dramatic than they are in LA. And cities that don't yet have similar programs should probably be thinking about them. \t As every planner in California knows, Senate Bill 375 is trying to address matters at the state level. I think we all know that the 5-15% per capita reductions—that's per capita, not gross—isn't going to save a single polar bear. It's a symbolic gesture, but it's still a powerful one, on several levels.  \t On the practical level, California will at least get better cities, even as the asphalt melts at every doorstep. Living in denser neighborhoods, we Californians can at least enjoy each other's company in what may otherwise be a generation of misery. (We may, in fact, be living in the last, best times, depending how the coming catastrophe plays out.)  \t Even more importantly, SB 375 is an adaptation strategy wrapped in the guise of a mitigation strategy. My guess is that SB 375 garnered support because it holds the promise of making things better. That's a lot more pleasant than is the notion of merely trying to get along. It's the difference between curing a disease and just learning to live with the suffering.  \t Beyond SB 375's 2035 horizon, a different paradigm is going to have to set in. SB 375 quite would have every city figure out its own ways to grow more dense and take advantage of public transit and other transportation options. The future cannot be so democratic. The UCLA study tells us that the L.A. region's complex geography will create wildly different scenarios throughout the city. Some places will become far less liveable than others. Predictably, the San Fernando Valley will broil, while the Westside will, as ever, remain tolerable. Except in Venice, which, depending how much the seas expand and storm patterns shift, might start to resemble its namesake. (The latest bit of news calls for 5-foot rises .) As such, it stands to reason that places that will experience more dramatic change need to think about more dramatic adaptation measures. We can imagine how similar studies would play out throughout California and across its violent topography.  \t None of this lamentation is to suggest that we Californians (and everyone else who drives cars and uses electricity) do not share some of the blame for creating this catastrophe. Then again, most of the damage took place long before anyone living was now born, and we have all inherited an economic and literal infrastructure that has all but forced us to perpetuate destructive habits. But now we know what we have wrought, and we know it in fine detail.  For as much as I've written about SB 375, I've rarely written on climate change itself. But as I write this and imagine what this nice July day will be like three decades hence, it's hard not to think about the other method that humans have cooked up for destroying the planet: nuclear weapons. In The Fate of the Earth , Jonathan Schell describes the morbid paradox that might actually keep the human race alive: the more we think about the horrors of nuclear war and the more we believe that nuclear war could happen, the less likely it is that anyone will actually push the button. Horror, he contends, will keep us safe. If only averting climate change was that easy. Across this country, a plague of ignorance, indignance, and opportunism has condemned Los Angeles to its fate, and it surely has done far worse for many more places. The Arctic ice cap may be history, but at least Pacoima can cope.

Judging by the likes of Oakland, Berkeley, and, of course, San Francisco, a plan to encourage density, transit use, and environmentalism in the Bay Area might seem redundant. But these vibrant urban centers are just small elements in the sprawling, nine-county region that is the subject of the fourth and final Sustainable Communities Strategy to be drafted for California's major urban areas. Branded as Plan Bay Area and devised by the area's paired regional planning organizations�the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission�the SCS attempts to extend the smart growth ethos from the bustling streets of SoMa and the Haight all the way out to Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties. "The plan is this notion of trying to knit together housing, land use, climate change challenges, and livable communities into a unit so that we can talk about it all at one time," said Randy Rentschler, director of legislation and public affairs for MTC. The plan's Preferred Land Use Scenario and Investment Strategy was approved unanimously by a joint session of the MTC and ABAG boards in May; the agencies are now working on alternatives and will release a full draft of the plan in December . MTC also voted to approve the "One Bay Area Grants" (OBAG) program, and ABAG approved a draft housing allocation methodology for Bay Area cities. The plan is intended to help the region accommodate 2.1 million new residents and 1.1 million new jobs by 2035. Whether every locale in the Bay Area will welcome these jobs and residents remains to be seen. Many of the Bay Area's outlying suburbs have long maintained their cultural distance from the center cities and have been concerned that regional planning efforts would impose unwanted density on them. Self-described Tea Party supporters have been concerned that Plan Bay Area would go so far as to force residents out of their homes and put strict moratoria on the development of single-family houses. Officials say that the plan has been deliberately constructed so as not to upend residents' suburban lifetimes. "They got this idea that we were going to try to impose this urban vision in places were it didn't make sense," said Rentschler. "That's the last thing we were trying to do." As with the SCS's devised by the other three of California's "Big Four" MPOs�mandated to create SCS's by Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that seeks to reduce driving via compact development and transit use�Plan Bay Area is designed around a core of transportation investment as described in the accompanying Regional Transportation Plan update. Though the Bay Area already famously has Bay Area Rapid Transit and other major elements of public transit infrastructure, the RTP includes elements such as a BART extension to San Jose, the San Francisco central subway, and 270 miles of new and converted express lanes on the region's freeways. Even with all of those investments, the plan actually emphasizes maintenance of the existing transportation system over the development of new infrastructure. Planners have hailed this "fix it first" strategy, which allocates 88% of transportation funding�up from current levels of 80%--to maintenance. "The very positive change is when we look at the shift in transportation money, where a much higher percentage is spent on maintenance and operation and a decline in the amount of expansion," said Egon Terplan, regional planning director at San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association.  As well, the plan includes performance-based funding, which directs transportation investment towards areas of greatest need. To meet SB 375's goals of reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 7% in 2020 and by 15% in 2035, planners estimate that�if current residents maintain their travel patterns, then each marginal resident will have to drive 75% less by comparison. On the land use side, Plan Bay Area centers on an innovative program that encourages cities to comply voluntarily with SB 375. Cities may submit applications to adopt "Priority Development Areas" (PDA's) and thereby become eligible for grants and technical assistance from MTC/ABAG. To be eligible to become a PDA, an area had to be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service, and planned for more housing. Though PDA the program has been in effect for six years, the advent of the SCS has given it greater purpose. Currently, there are 115,000 acres of PDA's in the Bay Area, in various stages of build-out. The "OBAG" grant program will allocate $14 billion of One Bay Area Grants to localities to plan and invest in PDA's. The plan intends for 75% of new housing and 64% of new jobs to be located in PDA's and for per capita vehicle-miles travelled to fall accordingly. Though this strategy has garnered widespread praise, some observers fear that achieving SB 375's greenhouse gas emissions reductions poses a greater challenge in the Bay Area than in the state's other big three MPOs. Many places in the Bay Area�most notably San Francisco�are already compact and already have high transit ridership. Therefore, achieving the marginal decreases in greenhouse gas emissions may be more difficult because the region is relatively efficient in the first place.            "For SCAG to reach its targets, it was more about encouraging a modest densification of land use patterns that are already in line with what the market is doing," said Terplan. "For the Bay Area, a place where per capita driving is already less than in a lot of other regions, getting a 15% reduction is harder." In fact, the plan acknowledges a six-percentage-point gap in emissions reductions for 2035. "The region really needs to look at pricing mechanisms, particularly road pricing, as a way to close the greenhouse gas emission gap," said Terplan. Others feel that those concerns are overblown, and they say that the region's density and, especially, its transit infrastructure simply provides greater opportunities for effective infill development.   "There's lots and lots of redevelopment opportunities around the Bay Area's existing network," said Hobson. "We don't have to spend a lot of money to put thousands of new homes and jobs around transit centers. In other regions, they need to build transit in order to have TOD." The big money, though, will be directed towards transportation projects. Through 2040, the region will invest $277 billion in roads, mass transit, and non-motorized transportation. As it turns out, getting people around is only half the battle for Plan Bay Area. Many planners and public officials in the region have also approached it as sort of economic development plan, with housing at its core. While MTC can direct the investment of transportation funds, Rentschler stressed that the plan's success relies on the participation of the region's localities�namely the 101 cities that make up the metro area. The plan calls for those localities to complement the region-wide investments with local plans and investments of their own. "If you want the Smart Train in Marin and Sonoma, that's great," said Rentschler. "But unless you want empty trains, communities in those counties have to �.you have to support those stations. In some cases that means TOD, in some cases that means retail, in some cases that's a big parking lot." The plan is designed to accommodate the Bay Area's Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, which is determined by the state. However, many planners are concerned that the plan still will not alleviate the region's notoriously high combination of transportation and housing costs.   "The most significant concern is that the agencies' own analysis shows that the share of income that low-income families spend on transportation and housing is going to get worse, not better," said Hobson. "So displacement risks are going to be much higher.  Though many communities consider the production of housing�especially affordable, subsidized housing for low- and moderate-income residents�to be a burden, regional planners are trying to convince localities of the opposite: that more housing will translate to greater regional economic growth. "If you provide the housing at a reasonable cost, you're going to get the strong economy that you're seeking," said Rentschler. Rentschler noted that, despite the tech boom in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Bay Area economy has been largely stagnant for the past decade. Those goals are frustrated by communities that are reluctant to grow, regardless of what incentives Plan Bay Area may offer. "I am concerned with a growing perception in the Bay Area that we are built out," said Terplan. "One of our great challenges is to overcome that perception and see the positive benefits of growth, particularly of adding housing�and the densification of existing employment centers." If that growth comes to pass, it would likely contradict the claims of Plan Bay Area's loudest opponents. Members of the Tea Party movement have accused the plan of being everything from a United Nations conspiracy to a plot to advance communism. More substantively, they fear that the plan's emphasis on dense development will impose on the suburban lifestyle in the suburbs. "A lot of these folks don't like government anyway so they're not going to give it a chance to be understood," said Rentschler. "What's ironic is that many of these folks who are from the Tea Party live in places that are going to be protected because we're going to be building dense housing in other cities. They should have come to our meetings and cheer-leaded us." More mainstream critics have raised concerns about whether the plan provides sufficient incentives and accommodations for private sector partners. A coalition of Bay Area business groups�including the Building Industry Association (BIA), the Bay Area Council, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group�issued a letter to the MTC and ABAG boards imploring them to ensure that the plan matches up with the realities of the housing market. As well, BIA officials have questioned whether the plan disadvantages suburban areas by investing in city centers. "We are concerned that the preferred scenario is not geographically balanced and may lead to �planned' economic marginalization of large parts of the Bay Area, especially suburban jurisdictions," said Paul Campos, senior vice president of governmental affairs for BIA of the Bay Area. Campos said he was concerned that inland job centers such as Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, and San Ramon might get overlooked and suffer from under-investment. Supporters of the plan contend that, despite the plan's nominal promotion of "urban" virtues, it is designed to benefit outlying cities as well. "If anything, the Priority Development Area framework sets such a low threshold, there are communities all around the Bay Area that have access to these funds," said Terplan. PDA's have been approved for cities on the region's outer edges, such as Gilroy, Livermore, and Petaluma. Terplan said that if outlying cities feel shut out of transportation funding, it's only because the plan's performance-based funding naturally hews towards center cities, where transit use is particularly intensive and, therefore, "more people are going to ride them for less money." Moreover, planners say that the BIA and other critics are responding more to a discomfort over the dense, multi-unit housing than to genuine flaws in the plan. "The challenge is always going to be, when you make public investment and improve a place, it changes the economics of that locale," said Rentschler. "I think one thing they're responding to is the fact that a traditional model in which their members worked and built is in transition." Rentschler added that planners need to pay attention to developers' concerns, to the extent that those concerns can bear on the plan's execution. "If they're advising us that we're creating a situation that can't happen in the real world then we want to be responsive to that," he said. In fact, suburban communities are already following Plan Bay Area's principles. Though the Contra Costa County city of Danville has not applied for a PDA, Chief of Planning Kevin Gailey said that the city's new downtown plan would be a strong candidate. He said he did not feel that the plan would be a burden on the city or its residents. "We're embracing the idea that�the lion's share of job growth and residential development is going to happen within 4-5% of our area" said Gailey. "Whether we're doing the SCS and doing a PDA, I don't think we'd be doing much different on our update." Whether or not their concerns are well founded, the Tea Party participation, in particular, has made public meetings unusually popular, according to Rentschler. Whether the volume of public participation�and strong gripes from the left and right�has created a better plan is not clear, however. "We used to have a hard time getting anyone interested in what we were doing. If we had 10 people show up and fed them cookies we thought we were doing good. Now we have packed rooms," said Rentschler. "I'm not sure that's a huge qualitative improvement, but it certainly means that a significantly larger spectrum of society is engaged." Rentschler also cautioned that the current plan is designed to evolve as it is updated at regular, four-year junctures. "What we're in here is a continuous planning effort," said Rentschler. Contacts: Paul Campos, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BIA of the Bay Area, 925.951.6840 Kevin Gailey, Chief of Planning, City of Danville, 925.314.3305 Jeff Hobson, Deputy Director, TransForm, 510.740.3150x312  Randy Rentschler, Director of Legislation and Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 510.817.5780 Egon Terplan, Regional Planning Director, San Francisco Planning & Urban Research, 415.644.4284

Update: Yesterday the leadership of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association decided to oppose the current draft of Assembly Bill 904, which seeks to lower parking minimums in transit-oriented areas. Here is the APA's letter (.doc) to bill sponsor Nancy Skinner.   Ever since the 2005 publication of UCLA professor Don Shoup's book, The High Cost of Free Parking, the relaxation of parking minimums has been seen by many planners as the next best thing to manufacturing new land. Yet, the introduction of a bill that would enact a modest page from the Shoup playbook has roused opposition from a surprising source: the American Planning Association.  Last week Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Oakland) introduced Assembly Bill 904, which would require cities to impose reduced parking requirements in transit-oriented areas. The goal of the bill, which has been promoted primarily by the Infill Builders Federation (formerly Infill Builders Assoc.), is to promote the development of housing by reducing parking requirements and therefore making development less expensive in areas well served by public transit.  Among other provisions, the bill would prohibit cities from imposing minimum parking requirements of more than one space per residential unit or 1,000 square feet of commercial space in "transit-intensive areas"�defined, with certain qualifiers, as areas within a half-mile of a major transit stop.   Described by supporters as a modest but important reform�especially as cities are trying to comply with Sustainable Communities Strategies�AB 904 is characterized by others as giving the state too much influence over local land use policies.  "The primary issue is that it's a one-size fits all statewide standard," said APA California Vice President for Policy and Legislation David Snow. "While APA supports the concept that this bill puts forward�.from APA's perspective, a uniform standard from the state that doesn't take into account local considerations isn't the appropriate way forward."  APA California also contends that, by imposing lower parking requirements, cities would be less inclined to support transit and to support higher, denser infill development. APA California acknowledges that many cities want to "grow up and not out" and calls such a strategy "responsible."  In that sense, the APA and Infill Builders Association would typically be considered natural allies.  "The APA's best-selling book is The High Cost of Free Parking," said Mott Smith, a founding board member of the Infill Builders Association. "It's a bit weird that they would have this reaction." Shoup himself has publicly expressed his support for the bill.  Though Snow contends that the bill may be unduly limiting, Shoup's thesis�shared by many of AB 904's supporters�is that many existing parking standards are arbitrary and inefficient, and therefore are limiting in their own right.  "It's a relaxation of restrictions, not an imposition of restrictions," said Smith.  A similar bill, AB 710 (also sponsored by Skinner), met its demise last year when the League of California Cities and some nonprofit housing developers raised two major objections: the bill would impose improper uniform standards statewide, and it could undermine the parking bonus provision of SB 1818, which promotes affordable housing.  Supporters say that this year's version (introduced as a gut-and-amend bill) is far more flexible than last year's. It enables cities to opt out of the law if circumstances on the ground meet any of four criteria. Supporters also say that, on balance, it will promote affordable housing by making the production of both market-rate and low/moderate-income housing easier. In other words, the benefits of not having to provide what supporters consider excessive parking will more than outweigh any provisions in SB 1818 that might be undermined.  Cal APA has yet to take an official position on the bill, but an email to members dated June 13 expresses serious concerns, calling the bill "restrictive" and calling the matter "urgent." Cal APA executive director Sande George followed that email up with a detailed memo criticizing the bill.  The ensuing struggle inspired a nearly instant, and unusually spirited, debate among land use professionals once Cal APA's email alert went out. Few bills in recent memory have created such debate among planners who consider themselves progressive.  "The recent decision by Cal APA to oppose progressive transformation may actually hint at a larger chasm that is emerging between two distinct schools of thought," said Will Wright, director of government & public affairs for the Los Angeles chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Wright characterized the debate as a "lively" one of "classic old school sensibility versus progressive thinkers."  In its mailing last week, APA leadership issued a warning about AB 904 and asked members for input, but the group has not yet taken a position. Any opposition, however, surprises AB 904's supporters Smith called APA's recent concerns "out of left field," in part, he said, because he and other supporters have been trying to address concerns of AB 701's opponents.  California APA did not oppose last year's more restrictive AB 710. Though many groups that did officially oppose the bill, the APA does not appear in the bill's list of official opponents, dated August 26, 2011. Snow claims that California APA was involved with last year's discussions.  "We had conversations with the bill's authors," said Snow.  The League of California Cities opposed AB 710, and has indicated that it will reprise its opposition this year. A recent League newsletter contends that AB 904, "fails to address the League's concerns from last year's AB 710."  Snow said that California APA had not been privy to the language of AB 904 had not been able "to work in a thoughtful and productive manner to resolve issues with the infill proposal given the shortened period with which to work on the proposal." Smith said the bill's supporters still welcome input from all parties.  "We've been working with for the better part of the year to try to accommodate (opponents') concerns," said Smith.  "Anybody who's got constructive suggestions...we want to talk to." Smith said that the result of discussions thus far has been this a more flexible version than last year's  bill and that it includes provisions that were specifically designed to respond to concerns voiced last year. To opt out, cities would have to demonstrate one (or more) of the following in a transit-intensive area: insufficient walkability, insufficient transit, conflicts with existing parking standards designed to promote transit oriented development, conflicts with existing station-area plans that seek to reduce off-street parking.  Snow said that he had not thoroughly read through the provisions of the bill that would exempt cities, but he maintained that the bill's uniform treatment of cities throughout the state amounted to an undue imposition. Notably, California APA's email of June 13 incorrectly claims that cities would have to meet all four criteria in order to opt-out � rather than any one of the four.  "These certainly provide flexibility," said Snow. "I don't think they get us over the hurdle of having a statewide standard and imposing the burden." In particular, Snow noted that cities would have to expend money and manpower in order to present findings and comply with the bill's Jan. 1, 2014 deadline.  "I think that this is shifting a burden to local governments at this point that this isn't necessarily the right time for that with all the other difficulties and issues that local governments are facing," said Snow. Smith said, however, that AB 904 required nothing like a full environmental review and that findings could be made with "a few hours" of work, because the bill intentionally sets a relatively low bar for opting out and supports local control. He countered that under current conditions, cities that do want to reduce their parking requirements often have to go to great lengths to do so.  "Countless cities throughout California would like to have more infill-friendly parking standards," said Smith. "This bill gives cities basically a gift certificate to accept relaxed parking standards if they want them."  The bill's supporters have since responded with a document that outlines "myths versus facts" about AB 904, on the premise that much of the opposition is based on misunderstandings about how the law would actually operate. That document stresses that the Infill Builders is in accord with APA on the issue of local control.  "We don't want people to opt out of this capriciously," said Smith. "But at the same time we made the findings broad and inclusive so any city that legitimately wants to opt out." Snow said that APA did not have an alternative proposal for issuing parking reforms. He said that he encourages parking reform but that, without the passage of AB 904, "it would mean that cities need to figure it out one-by-one." Smith, however, says that a piecemeal approach will not help individual cities, nor will it contribute to the statewide effort to reduce vehicle miles travelled in major metro areas.