CaliforniaCityNews.org

LA County Rebuffs City’s Push for Management of Neglected Beach

Officials with the city of Malibu and the county of Los Angeles have clashed over who can best manage an 11-acre stretch of beachfront property known as Dan Blocker County Beach. Council members like Jefferson Wagner contend the county has been too slow in advancing much-needed improvements; for instance, there is no path to gain easy (and safe) access down to the waterfront, a parking lot, or restrooms. The county has owned the land for 16 years and has managed it for even longer.

The lack of public accommodations has been the case for decades, despite the fact the state provided a $700,000 grant and the county has also spent a hefty chunk of change developing plans that have yet to materialize into much progress. Nevertheless, beach-goers still frequently visit the stretch of prime beach by working around its inaccessibility.

Councilman Wagner has asked for action from the county for years, which led him to argue for the property to change hands. The LA Times reports that Wagner stated, “The public deserves access to their property. Truly, opening that beach is the right thing to do. Whether it is the city, county or state, it should be opened. It should be staffed and manned."

So what does the county think of the city’s proposal to take over the beach’s management? A spokesman for Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky bluntly stated, “It's not going to be a city beach.”

The county has reported that it does have plans to develop the prime beach area and the issue will go before the Board of Supervisors by mid-2012. The Times notes that the plan is as follows: “$4.8-million proposal to build 15 parking spots, a walkway, benches, drinking fountains and restrooms on two acres of bluff-top.”

Cash Cow: Facebook Touts Economic Benefits of Relocation to Menlo Park

The economic boon presented by the expansion of Facebook in Menlo Park is likely causing local city and county officials to see dollar signs. The social media company is moving its employees from Palo Alto to a new building that was once occupied by Sun Microsystems in Menlo Park. It is projected that eventually 6,600 people will be employed at the campus and an expansion of the facility is expected to be completed by 2014. So what’s in store for the city and county’s economic future?

A new study shows that Facebook’s relocation could result in $366 million in new temporary construction spending in the county as well as 2,441 temporary construction jobs. The company is spending $250 million on construction and it is believed Facebook’s arrival could create $116 million in additional economic activity. The research firm also noted that “The shift may also result in $29 million in total annual retail spending at nearby lodging and retail businesses.”

Housing will have to be built to provide space for the influx of employees and the company has argued that other companies and businesses will follow Facebook to the region. In light of the jobs, housing, retail, and business developments, the region can expect to rake in plenty of new sales and property tax revenue. According to Facebook, here are the benefits the company is touting it will bring to San Mateo and Menlo Park:

• 5,400 jobs and $839 million in new economic spending to San Mateo County; this includes $302 million in wages and salaries
• 550 jobs and $83 million in new economic spending to Menlo Park; this includes about $34 million in wages and salaries
• Generating demand for 14,000 room nights of lodging in the county hotel industry with a total value of about $3 million per year
• Facebook employees spending about $27 million at county retail stores and restaurants per year
• $168.9 million in one-time construction labor income
• A total of $366 million spent on construction, of which $250 million will be for campus related construction

That being said, there are still concerns about the impact on traffic that will be created by Facebook’s presence. Additionally, Mercury News has reported that Menlo Park may see more money from the social media company if it doesn’t get its act together on the traffic front: “Menlo Park could collect millions of dollars from Facebook in five years if the social networking company can't improve intersections along the Bayfront Expressway to ease the traffic congestion its proposed expansion is expected to create.” See more here.

Wal-Mart Putting Cities in a Bind? Costly Special Elections Create a Disadvantage

Here at CityNews on numerous occasions we’ve highlighted resistance to Wal-Mart from residents and councils in many cities across the state, whether opposition is in the form or protests, regulations, petitions, ordinances, or spirited town hall debates. In the past Wal-Mart was often the target of ballot initiatives in California as a way to block stores, but now the retail giant is giving cities and residents a taste of their own medicine by bankrolling various ballot measures and/or petition drives and it hasn’t lost in the past few years. In these difficult economic times, cash-strapped cities often simply can’t afford the costs of a special election, so the company appears to get its way when it fights against an ordinance or regulation it doesn’t like. CA Watch has released an article on the store’s tactics and argues that when Wal-Mart pays petition-gatherers to repeal some city action, the city is ultimately left with two choices: pay for a costly special election or repeal the measure Wal-Mart doesn’t like (or approve a Wal-Mart-drafted measure depending on the particular fight at stake).

Case in point: this very scenario played out in the city of San Diego; the council approved new regulations on big box retailers like Wal-Mart, but the council’s efforts fizzled out when Wal-Mart spearheaded a campaign battle through the collection of signatures, which lead the council to repeal the ordinance due to concerns about covering a costly election. The San Diego Council was ultimately unwilling to incur over $3 million in costs for an election. Direct democracy through initiatives is expensive, but when you’re a company like Wal-Mart, you can afford to be far more aggressive in multiple communities, as well as circumvent CEQA through the process.

CA Watch reports the following:

“Wal-Mart’s use of the initiative process has angered elected officials who say the company’s political strategy effectively holds them hostage. ‘They circumvented the system and blackmailed the town,’ said Rick Roelle, a councilman in Apple Valley, where Wal-Mart pushed through a superstore proposal in April. ‘We’ve had controversial projects, but we were never bullied like Wal-Mart.’ Wal-Mart and its supporters argue that the strategy helps speed up development that can boost employment and tax revenue, as well as low-price shopping.”

While some officials clearly are no fans of the store and its tactics, Wal-Mart points out that using the initiative system is clearly legal and that the pressure it exerts on cities is proof that residents are supportive of new (and/or bigger) stores. The company also argues that cities greatly benefit from the jobs, tax revenues, and affordable products Wal-Mart stores provide. Even though there are already over 200 stores in California, the company shows no signs of curtailing expansion.

You can see just how much Wal-Mart has been spending on election lawyers, campaign consultants and public relations firms here.

Merced Approves Anti-Eviction Ordinance to Strengthen Protections for Renters

Beginning on December 21, 2011, Merced will be the first city in the Central Valley to impose an anti-eviction law known as the Just Cause for Eviction ordinance. Despite fierce opposition from realtors and those concerned about the impact on neighborhood revitalization, the council voted in favor of the law on a 5-2 vote. Mayor Bill Spriggs and Councilwoman Michele Gabriault-Acosta voted against the proposal. Merced reportedly ranks in the top 10 for foreclosure activity and the law will offer more protection to tenants when it comes to eviction. Groups like Tenants Together, Occupy Merced, Journey for Justice, and UC Merced were among those who voiced support for the ordinance. These supporters contend that that ordinance will stabilize the city’s housing market and will lay out more concrete guidelines on when an eviction is permissible. Dean Preston, the Executive Director of Tenants Together, wrote an op-ed about the law’s passage and below is an excerpt:

“The new law is a game changer for Merced tenants and the entire community. Under the new law, tenants will be able to stay in their homes, rather than being callously tossed into the street by banks that care nothing about creating unnecessary homelessness, vacancy and blight. Tenants Together congratulates our Merced members and allies on this important victory.”

Read the full op-ed here. Opponents of the law argue that it could increase litigation and that revitalization efforts will be put in jeopardy. ABC News filed the following report about the ordinance prior to its official passage:

Boundary Battles: City and County Relations Strained over Annexation and LAFCO Application

The county of Lake is at odds with the city of Lakeport over differences of view on what land should constitute the city’s “sphere of influence.” The city has set its sights on annexing a 197-acre region and submitted documents to the Lake County Local Area Formation Commission about what it intends to take on as part of its eventual boundaries. Just the mere idea of annexing that plot of land has not sit well with the county, as it reportedly provides quite a bit of its annual sales tax revenue. During a LAFCO meeting, former District 1 Supervisor Ed Robe, who sits on LAFCO, commented that “That’s the No. 1 sales tax generating area in the whole unincorporated area of the county.” City officials are now blaming County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox’s stance on the annexation as a primary reason for the severely degraded relationship between the city and county. For its part, the county has concerns of its own, which Cox outlined in a memo to LAFCO. Cox’s memo points out that the county believes the city violated the following code:

“Cities are required to meet with the county at least 30 days prior to submitting an application to LAFCO for either a new sphere, or for a sphere update ... Any agreements reached are to be given 'great weight’ by LAFCO.”

County officials say the city did not discuss the proposed update and that therefore LAFCO should not consider the application because the law’s requirement was not been met. From the city’s perspective, the Lake County News reports:

“Redevelopment and Community Development Director Richard Knoll said the county was arguing on the belief that the city had submitted an application to LAFCO to update its sphere of influence, which it hadn’t. Rather, LAFCO had initiated the process. Because the city didn’t submit an application, Knoll said it was his interpretation that the city isn’t required to meet with the county. The city has a right to prepare its own urban growth boundary and sphere of influence, said Knoll, who added that he was not aware of the county making any comments about those issues when the city general plan was approved in 2009.”

Read Cox’s memo to LAFCO here:

LAFCO Memo November 16, 2011

Petition Drive Looks to Repeal Sales Tax Measure for Rail Project in Marin and Sonoma

Back in 2008, voters throughout both Marin and Sonoma approved a sales tax measure that would fund a rail line project known as the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, which supporters point out will ease commutes for residents between the two counties by reviving the long-dormant (but publicly owned) railroad right of way, ultimately serving 14 stations from Cloverdale in Sonoma County to the San Francisco-bound ferry terminal in Larkspur, Marin County. Officials have pointed out that the rail project will also take more than 1.4 million car trips off Highway 101 annually and reduce greenhouse gases. But critics of the rail line are gearing up for a fight. A group known as RepealSMART has been created to try and repeal the quarter-cent sales tax funding that was passed in 2008. The group is claiming it has gathered thousands of signatures so that a measure can be put on the ballot in 2012, but there is no proof yet that signature-gathering has proven successful. Over the weekend RepealSMART held a townhall meeting to try and stir up more support for the effort. The Press Democrat reports:

“About 30 people attended the town hall meeting, bursting into laughter when Mitchell outlined the costs of the project and the six-figure salary of SMART General Manager Farhad Mansourian. ‘I’m sick of projects that cost far more than promised,’ said Ellie Jones, 59, of Windsor. ‘They should have looked at a worst-case scenario.’ Jones echoed a view shared by many in the group at Ellington Hall on Industrial Drive in Santa Rosa who said the train’s growing cost has led her to mistrust the project leadership.”

The costs and timeline of the project seem to be the major sticking points for frustrated opponents of the rail line. Supporters of the project are already planning a response to the repeal drive by launching a public relations campaign and a rally at Railroad Square’s future SMART station. More about the future project can be seen here.

League’s Latino Caucus Endorses Use of PLAs; City Leaders Take a Second Look after SB 922

A resolution endorsing the use of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) has now been endorsed by the League of California Cities Latino Caucus during its October 2011 executive board meeting. The Latino Caucus is the fastest growing caucus of the League and its support for PLAs shows that city leaders are giving them a second look after the governor signed SB 922 into law. Far too much misinformation was spread about the bill and now that the dust has finally settled, city officials and community partners see that a factual account of PLAs and their positive impact are worth revisiting.

As a refresher, SB 922 merely prohibits bans on Project Labor Agreements, and to counter the false statements of the bill’s opponents, even the governor wrote in his signing message that “this bill does not require any local government to adopt a PLA. In fact, this bill preserves the right of all sides to debate what is obviously a hotly contested issue. Seems fair to me – even democratic.” By allowing all options on the table in a free and open process, the legislation restores competition in bidding for local public works projects and prohibits state funding for charter cities with PLA bans.

Below you will find the Latino Caucus’ resolution supporting Project Labor Agreements:

“WHEREAS, a Project Labor Agreement (PLA), is a business model used to deliver many private and public infrastructure projects on time and on budget; and
 
WHEREAS, each PLA is designed specifically to meet the needs of the project owner, manager or community which facilitate construction for complex construction projects; and
 
WHEREAS, a PLA is a risk management tool containing pre-hire agreements that establish work rules, pay rates, and dispute resolution processes for labor and management on the project, maximizing project stability, efficiency and productivity and are open to bids from non-union and union contractors; and
 
WHEREAS, over fifteen building and construction trades crafts work on a typical construction project with each union having separate collective bargaining agreements covering the work performed by the various crafts and where PLAs are carefully negotiated to cover all crafts on a single project; and
 
WHEREAS, PLAs contain craft work schedules to maximize efficiency and deliver a project on time, apprentice-journey level ratios to help train the next generation of skilled workers, no-strike and no-lockout provisions, alternative dispute resolutions, workers’ compensation cost savings procedures, and provide contractors who agree to perform the work under the terms of a PLA immediate access to a pool of well-trained and highly-skilled workers; and

Watsonville Council Ponders Takeover of State Highway to Revitalize City’s Downtown

The Watsonville City Council has agreed to take a journey down a long road, as the city will study whether or not it should take over a state highway that runs through the city’s downtown. Known as Main Street, the four-lane Highway 152 has been an impediment to revitalizing the city’s core, and advocates of the takeover suggest it could lead to a revitalization of the business and residential district. However, since city offices are only open 4 days a week to save money, there are concerns that the local government cannot afford to take on the maintenance of a highway (though the state would surely be glad to drop the cost of handling it due to its own money woes). Control would also require money for changes to traffic flow and pedestrian access as well as beautification programs. There is also risk involved because if the city spends the money to control the road, it is not guaranteed that businesses will set up shop after changes are implemented. Patch reports:

“Less than a mile of Highway 152 is within the downtown corridor, but the city will ask the state for the entire stretch of highway that falls within Watsonville. That will mean the city is responsible for maintenance and liability but also gets the property rights. The city council needed to make a resolution and write a letter of intent, then introduce legislation to the California Transportation Commission. The commission takes up requests for relinquishing in September, so the issue won't actually be decided until next fall. Still, city leaders were excited about the possibilities.”

Mayor Daniel Dodge acknowledged there were concerns to be had but also pointed out that the idea is still in the initial stages; he commented that “We're only entering into the discussion stage. This is a vision entering Watsonville into 2012 and beyond." Grants could also help with the funding process. Time will tell if the takeover will be the road to ruin or the road to glory.

Chino Hills Finds Support from SBDO Supervisor in Fight against PUC and Edison

San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt (as well as other local officials) is lending his voice and influence to a battle between Chino Hills and Southern California Edison. In October of 2010, the power company began constructing 200-foot towers that are a part of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. From the beginning, the city objected to having the towers traverse through its territory since the towers are so large. While Chino Hills filed a lawsuit, it was ultimately rejected in 2010 by a Superior Court judge. The towers are being built as part of a state mandate for more sustainable energy, as they will provide wind-generated electricity from Kern County to Los Angeles. But local government officials in the city and region are worried about property values, health risks, and noise. In an update, Supervisor Ovitt is calling on the Public Utilities Commission to take back a permit that allows Edison to construct the towers. The Supervisor commented, “The state of California and Southern California Edison have not reached a point-of-no-return. This decision can and should be reversed immediately." The Daily Bulletin reports:

“Ovitt also plans to send a letter to each commissioner as well as to Gov. Jerry Brown urging them to reverse their prior decision. Chino Hills officials have argued Edison's easement is too narrow for expanding the size of the electrical towers currently being built in the city. […] On Wednesday, representatives from the offices of Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, and state Sen. Bob Huff, R-Walnut, also toured the area with Public Utilities' Commissioner Timothy Simon. ‘I think our residents through their emails, phone calls and letters are getting other legislators outside of our area to notice what is happen to us,’ Mayor Ed Graham said.”

Before filing a lawsuit, Chino Hills did propose an alternative route but the PUC called Edison’s route the better option. The city also lost its appeal in the case last month when a panel of judges ruled in favor of the PUC’s ultimate authority on the matter. Now the city is looking to have the state Supreme Court review the Court of Appeal's decision and a ruling could be available by mid-January. Ovitt’s district director says the supervisor was against Edison’s application to the commission from the outset due to concerns about the quality of life of local residents.

Cash-Strapped Cities Left with Costs, Clean-up, and Safety and Health Concerns from Occupy Protesters

The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread to the west coast with protests all across California, and caught in the middle of these demonstrations are the cities where these events take place, as local officials are the ones who have been left to deal with maintaining a tricky balance between free speech rights and safety and health concerns (not to mention the costs involved with clean-up once people decamp). As protestors besiege City Halls and public parks for hours each day, encampments have grown, which has led cities to be concerned about fire code violations, drug use, noise levels, and health issues, among other problems. For instance, take the problems that Oakland officials are having with the tent city created by protestors around Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. Due to the presence of the demonstrators, rats have become attracted to the area (as there was already an underlying rat problem) and complaints have surged from local businesses and workers about the use of alcohol and drugs. Mercury News reports:

“Meanwhile, concerns about the city's legal liability should anyone get seriously hurt on city property are being evaluated by the city attorney, city administrator spokeswoman Karen Boyd said. ‘Basically, it's not legal for them to camp; we're accommodating it. And we've been telling them, we reserve the right to change our minds at any time,’ Boyd said. ‘Certainly, that kind of behavior makes it more difficult to continue.’”

As for a sample of the costs that the protests are leaving with cities, San Francisco’s mayor has pointed out that his city has spent about $100,000 "accommodating" the protests. It is believed that money has gone toward police, porta potties, clean-up, and public health and public works costs. Mayor Ed Lee stated the following about the position the city finds itself in: “We are working with you to help raise your voice peacefully and we will protect and defend your right to speech. [But that’s not the same as] pitching tents and lighting fires in public spaces and parks that are meant for use by everyone in our city.”

And then there are the demands that protesters are making upon city councils. In Orange County, demonstrators have been pressuring the Irvine and Santa Ana Councils to allow occupations in public parks to continue through the night by letting protesters sleep at their camp sites in front of public buildings. So far both cities have been unwilling to allow protestors to sleep where they set up camp. And in Los Angeles, while some council members have expressed support for the movement, the protesters have demanded that the city sever ties with major lenders and financial institutions. According to Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, the city could lose at least $58 million if it were to meet the demonstrators’ demand, which isn’t exactly chump change.  The LA Times reports that some protesters said they would support millions of dollars in cuts to services if it meant the city sent a message to banks, but taxpayers overall may not be too pleased with such an idea. See more here.

Protesters in Santa Rosa made similar demands, calling on the council to withdraw funds from the nation’s major banks. The Press Democrat reports that “They also brought a list of more mundane requests including an amendment of an ordinance that prohibits camping at City Hall and a plea for permission to install a portable toilet.” The demonstrators have at least offered to pay for a porta pottie and have informed the council they want to cooperate on cleanup and camping rules.

It doesn’t look like the protests are showing any signs of dying down for the time being, so cities will have to continue doing their best to accommodate the free speech rights of protesters and the public safety and health concerns of the entire community they serve.