Gov. Jerry Brown just signed SB 743, “easing environmental regulations for developments in California cities, including a new basketball arena in downtown Sacramento,” the Los Angeles Times said.

In March I predicted Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento would jam legislation through exempting the Sacramento Kings new arena plan from the restrictions of the  California Environmental Quality Act, in order to meet a dubious deadline imposed by the NBA.

March 30, after Steinberg’s office told me he did not plan on authoring legislation to streamline or bypass the required environmental process for the proposed Sacramento NBA arena, I predicted they weren’t being straight with me.

Steinberg’s office denied any plan to do this. But the reason I wrote the story and asked about this was I knew this was the next step in scamming the public with the publicly subsidized arena.

The need to bypass California’s absurdly strict environmental guidelines and restrictions prevent most large scale projects from ever taking place without legislative intervention. And Sacramento officials shoved the latest iteration of an arena deal through at breakneck speed for a reason.

But even Steinberg couldn’t get his original bill, SB 731 through the committee process. His colleagues weren’t comfortable with Steinberg’s intended claims of reforming the entire CEQA process, when really his bill was just a conduit for the Sacramento arena deal.

SB 731 was shelved and the new conduit became a gut-and-amend bill. SB 743 rose from the ashes like a Phoenix. (Poor choice of words for the Sacramento Kings…)

Steinberg’s latest bill was introduced at the very end the legislative session, without notice, public debate or any real scrutiny by media. Nearly all of the Sacramento local media — radio, television, newspapers and magazines — are backing the arena project, and providing the cheerleading.

Yet Steinberg’s bill is even worse than previous stadium legislation. It also would allow the City of Sacramento greater eminent domain powers to seize the downtown property currently in the way of building the project.

More shameful, is what media claims the bill will do, rather than highlight what abuses of power it will allow, and gifts of public property to the arena developers.

According to the LA Times provisions of SB 743 will (in bold):

–Remove parking and aesthetics standards as grounds for legal challenges against developments in urban infill areas near transit stops.

Among the assets being “gifted” to the arena deal are the city’s parking garages and meters, which currently generate about $9 million a year for the general fund. The city has proposed diverting all of the city parking revenues to pay the arena bond payments. This will blow a $9 million annual hole in the general fund.

City staff assigned zero value to the 3,700 parking garage spaces the city is giving to the developers, nearly 50 percent of all city-owned garage spaces. The garage spots actually have a fair market value of $58 million, based on the city’s own 2012 parking valuation study.

–Modernize the statewide measurements against which traffic impacts are assessed and resolved, allowing developers to offset the impacts by building near mass transit stations.

Not true. Steinberg’s CEQA exemption bill would allow arena construction to go ahead even with existing traffic backups in this part of downtown, and anticipated significant traffic impacts due to the arena. Then taxpayers will be on the hook when Caltrans decides to send a bill of $100 million-plus for freeway improvements — after arena construction is already underway.

–Expand an exemption from CEQA litigation for mixed residential/commercial projects located within transit priority areas where a full environmental impact review has already been completed.

For the Sacramento arena project, the bill prevents certain lawsuits stopping the project unless a judge finds a danger to public health and safety, and allows the government to force the sale of properties through eminent domain concurrently with the environmental review process.

Even if there are violations to the CEQA laws, mitigation doesn’t have to be addressed until the end of the first basketball season with an official NBA team actually playing in the arena.

“This bill sets a terrible precedent by eliminating any realistic chance of halting construction if the arena is approved illegally,” Kevin Bundy, Senior Attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press statement, in a story I recently wrote. “This is a wink and a nod to public officials that they can ignore California’s most important environmental law with impunity.”

The truth is the City of Sacramento is giving assets to the arena developers, which city officials say have a value of $46 million. However, Eye on Sacramento, a public policy watchdog group, estimated the real value of these assets is at least $139 million, making the total taxpayer subsidy $350 million — not the $257 million as represented by the city.

Another area of substantial discrepancy is between the subsidy numbers provided by the city and EOS’s subsidy calculations.

City staff also assigned zero value to the six digital billboard sites the city is giving away as part of the arena deal. But EOS found the sites are worth $18 million based on values established in a deal the city cut with Clear Channel Outboard just last year.

The remaining discrepancies are due to the city staff’s gross under-valuation of the six land parcels the city is also giving away to the developers. EOS found two of the six parcels to be worth four to six times the values assigned by staff.

Opposition

Because of the lack of public debate about the arena deal, as well as the highly dubious numbers put out by the city over the growing public subsidy, groups are joining efforts to oppose the arena in Sacramento for the Kings pro basketball team unless it is first put before voters for a vote.

A recent poll by the opposition group Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork found 78 percent of the respondents favor a public vote on taxpayer subsidies for the arena. Yet Steinberg and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player, have forged ahead as if it’s already a done deal.

And despite the Steinberg fast-tracked legislation now signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, I suspect the effort to put an initiative on the ballot will heat up.

A recent poll by the opposition group Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork found 78 percent of the respondents favor a public vote on taxpayer subsidies for the arena. Yet Steinberg and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player, are forging ahead as if it’s already a done deal.

But the deal is not done even though Steinberg is fast-tracking legislation to give the arena an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. The exemption is needed to meet an NBA-imposed deadline for quick construction.

Steinberg’s bill, a gut-and-amend job on another bill, will be introduced Friday. It will be similar to recent bills granting CEQA exemptions for a proposed stadium in downtown Los Angeles for a pro football team; and for a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara.

No debate

Steinberg’s latest bill is also being introduced at the very end the legislative session, without notice, public debate or any real scrutiny by media. Nearly all of the Sacramento local media — radio, television, newspapers and magazines — are backing the arena project.

Yet Steinberg’s bill is even worse than previous stadium legislation. It also would allow the City of Sacramento greater eminent domain powers to seize the downtown property currently in the way of building the project.

“When it comes to infill projects, when it comes to high wage, big job-opportunity projects, we ought to do all that is reasonable to expedite the process,” Steinberg said in a press conference Aug. 30.

The “reasonable, high wage, big job-opportunities” he is referring to will fall under a Community Workforce and Training Agreement in Sacramento, which requires most of the constructions workers hired for the arena project to be unionized.

Flexing union muscle

“Labor unions and the firm signed to lead construction of a new Kings arena in Sacramento have come to an agreement over the use of unionized labor in the construction of the project, a move that assures peace with the unions but will likely trigger a new source of opposition to the proposed public subsidy for the arena,” the Sacramento Bee reported Wednesday.

But that only enraged and energized the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, a 15-year-old California-based organization dedicated to opposing Project Labor Agreements, which guarantee contracts to unionized firms. The CFEC called the arena PLA “a waste of taxpayer money and a payoff to unions to avoid baseless complaints and lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act.”

“Steinberg needs union lobbyists and Democrats to push through his special [California Environmental Quality Act] exemption bill,” said Eric Christen, CEFC Executive Director. “Requiring construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions locks up majority support in the legislature for this special interest bill.”

Opposition to the arena deal process

“This is not a hospital, emergency response center, or even a school,” Abigail Okrent told me in an interview discussing Steinberg's gut-and-amend legislation; she's the legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League. “If this is such an urgent issue, why not for other issues? It’s a basketball stadium, not a hospital.”

The rushed bill will allow only a limited public comment period during the CEQA process, according to Okrent. Even more egregiously, she said that, even if there are violations to the CEQA laws, “mitigation doesn’t have to be addressed until the end of the first basketball season with an official NBA team actually playing in the arena. This is a contentious issue which requires more discussion.”

The Planning and Conservation League has taken no position on the arena, but is objecting to the rushed,  gut-and-amend bill, and to the lack of proper public vetting.

“This bill sets a terrible precedent by eliminating any realistic chance of halting construction if the arena is approved illegally,” Kevin Bundy, Senior Attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press statement. “This is a wink and a nod to public officials that they can ignore California’s most important environmental law with impunity.”

Gifts of assets

The City of Sacramento is giving assets to the arena developers, which city officials say have a value of $46 million. However, Eye on Sacramento, a public policy watchdog group, estimated the real value of these assets is at least $139 million, making the total taxpayer subsidy $350 million — not the $257 million as represented by the city.

Among the assets being gifted to the arena deal are the city’s parking garages and meters, which currently generate about $9 million a year for the general fund. The city has proposed diverting all of the city parking revenues to pay the arena bond payments. But according to EOS, this will blow a $9 million annual hole in the general fund.

Sacramento is already running a $9 million deficit; another $9 million would double that to $18 million.

Another area of substantial discrepancy is between the subsidy numbers provided by the city and EOS's subsidy calculations.

According to EOS, a large portion of the discrepancy can be attributed to city staff assigning zero value to the 3,700 parking garage spaces the city is giving to the developers, nearly 50 percent of all city-owned garage spaces. EOS calculates the garage spots actually have a fair market value of $58 million, based on the city's own 2012 parking valuation study.

City staff also assigned zero value to the six digital billboard sites the city is giving away as part of the arena deal. But EOS found the sites are worth $18 million based on values established in a deal the city cut with Clear Channel Outboard just last year.

The remaining discrepancies are due to the city staff's gross under-valuation of the six land parcels the city is also giving away to the developers. EOS found two of the six parcels to be worth four to six times the values assigned by staff.

And EOS warns Steinberg's CEQA exemption bill would allow arena construction to go ahead even with anticipated traffic impacts. Then taxpayers will be on the hook when Caltrans decides to send a bill of $100 million-plus for freeway improvements — after arena construction is already underway.

By Katy Grimes

Since 2007, the city of Sacramento has been threatening to build another major bridge over the Sacramento River between West Sacramento and Sacramento.

Our then-City Council and Mayor agreed with West Sacramento that a bridge over the Sacramento River connecting the two sister cities would be a great idea. I agree. Until the housing boom and bust, West Sacramento was building new homes at breakneck speed. As the city dramatically increased in size, the main artery streets became bottle necked with commuter traffic.

Last week, the city of Sacramento announced that the bridge plan was a done-deal. Boom. Just like that, and it’s done.

“While there had been a plan to conduct feasibility studies to consider seven other potential locations, local transportation planners had to move quickly to take advantage of a federal funding window that was about to close,” the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board said.

Five years ago when the bridge idea was first introduced, city planners told the neighborhood associations who opposed the location of the bridge not to worry because federal funding was at least 10 years away.

Five years later, here we are.

The first go-around

In 2007, when Sacramento officials tried to quickly approve the plan to connect the very busy streets of West Sacramento with Land Park, a south-of-downtown residential neighborhood of 6,000 homes, the estimate of 35,000 additional cars on Broadway, the major artery street shocked residents and small business owners.

Broadway is already a very busy street and was made even more so with Sacramento’s “beautification” attempts as well as the paraplegic sidewalk corners that now stick out into a lane of traffic and make it dangerous for pedestrians, wheelchair pedestrians, and cars alike.

In 2007, the Sacramento Bee wrote, “Planners instead agreed to explore the entire riverfront for what they say is a much-needed crossing.

The move came after neighborhood groups complained a Broadway bridge would flood residential streets with cars, and after two legislators sent a letter urging the city to study a bridge designed more for mass transit than cars. 

City officials acknowledged they had jumped the gun by focusing only on Broadway.

”There has been no analysis done to say Broadway makes the most sense vs. other locations,” then-Assistant City Manager Marty Hanneman said. “We also need to look at what type of bridge this should be — for cars, or for bike and pedestrians only, or streetcars some day.”

City officials had launched a $400,000 study, jointly financed by the city of West Sacramento, of a four-lane bridge connecting Broadway in Sacramento with South River Road in West Sacramento.”

In 2006, Sacramento spent $400,000 on a study to determine that West Sacramento needs a bridge connecting to Sacramento. But they explored no other option than to dump 35,000 additional cars each day onto a residential street.

The 2007 Bee story explained: “…city staffers will meet with counterparts in West Sacramento to discuss a new bridge study where everything is on the table. 

When asked, Hanneman said options might include looking at a bridge connecting Southport in West Sacramento with Interstate 5 and Sutterville Road in Land Park.

A bridge there has long been opposed, however, by many Land Park residents. Jim Randlett of the Land Park Community Association said his group believes that a bridge focused on car traffic is wrong there and anywhere along the river.

”People will just jump off freeway and use surface streets as an escape valve,” Randlett said.”

The City of Sacramento only came up with one other option, knowing that it was not feasible. Anyone living in or near downtown could tell you that. Sutterville Road is also a bottle necked street, and the other artery-street in Land Park. 

But the more ridiculous aspect of this is that the only argument that opponents of this bridge have come up with so far is that the bridge should be for pedestrians and bicycles.

“Two local legislators, Sen. Darrell Steinberg and Assemblyman Dave Jones, sent a letter asking the city to consider mass transit (read Light Rail, buses or street cars) options rather than focusing on a bridge mainly for cars,” The Bee reported. This is the brilliance Sacramento has historically gotten from our elected officials. And both Steinberg and Jones guys are former Sacramento City Council members. The planners are not dealing in the reality of actually moving traffic. They are stuck in you-should-take-public-transitmode or ride-a-bike mode. That’s nice. But it’s not realistic.

The solution is abundantly clear, but one city officials have thus far refused to even discuss – the existing Pioneer Bridge over the Sacramento River could have lanes added east and west, and the freeway access to and from West Sacramento could be widened to have 2-3 lanes coming off the freeway and getting on. Or, build the bridge over I-5 further South at Elk Grove Blvd, widen I-5 and direct the commuters into Sacramento via I-5. No one is even considering expanding an existing bridge. 

Any talk about building a brand new pedestrian and bicycle-only bridge is absurd and unaffordable. It is glaringly obvious that public officials are used to wasting taxpayer money.

In 2007, it was apparent Sacramento officials had already made up their minds on this issue.

“Their quick action means that Sacramento is likely to win approval for a much-needed replacement bridge for the century-old I Street span,” the Bee editorial board said last week. “It also puts the region in position to apply for the next round of federal funding for design and environmental work for the southern crossing, which will probably be at Broadway but not definitely. The design and environmental work will determine if Broadway is the best location. In fact, it will be the very feasibility study Broadway bridge skeptics say they were promised.”

Another expensive feasibility study?

“After extensive discussions with property owners and residents on both sides of the river, both cities have agreed that any bridge built will be neighborhood friendly,” the Bee said. “By that they mean that it will have a low profile, one easily integrated into the surrounding communities, and that it will accommodate not just cars, but pedestrians, bicycles and possibly trolley cars.”

The city already has plans for an expensive “mixed-use” development at west end of Broadway, with new housing, subsidized housing, and retail development, despite a massive outcry from the two neighborhoods bordering the area. “A new bridge could enhance that effort and help transform the moribund stretch of a once-thriving business corridor,” the Bee said.

But the Bee editorial board failed to acknowledge that Union Pacific and a big developer family owns the property and have a vested interest in development, whether Sacramento can afford it or not. And then the Bee delivered the final sucker punch: “The bridge represents an opportunity that should be embraced, not feared.”

There is no accountability with our City officials unless we demand it. This process has not been transparent, and the “extensive discussions” with property owners and residents have not been in any agreement about how to handle the additional traffic. Because the city of Sacramento is not being honest with residents about options, or admitting that they decided five years ago what they wanted to do.