Increasing Housing in the Midst of a Crisis: Roles and Responsibilities High foreclosure rates due to skyrocketing debt and unemployment have pushed the availability of affordable housing beyond the reach of lower to middle income families.  As a result of this current crisis the government has stepped in and imposed many new regulations, requirements, and rules impervious to criticism.  Non-profit professionals, municipal planners, city employees, or public citizens interested in, or involved with housing preservation, production, or affordable housing projects are encouraged to attend.  Additionally consultants, attorneys, or developers who contribute to housing should consider this seminar.  Topics include the role of federal and state agencies, housing elements, tax credits, role of housing development corporations, steps to success, sustainable and smart growth, as well as transit-oriented development (TOD) to name a few.  The all-day class will be held Wednesday, September 30 at the Westin Pasadena Hotel.  For more information or to enroll, please contact UCLA Extension Public Policy at (310) 825-7885, or by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing course code V3774.

The recession's very personal impacts provide the real story at the APA California conference that concludes Wednesday in Squaw Valley. Sure, we're all going to panels about climate change and LEED and CEQA and form-based zoning codes. But in between and after the panels about saving the world, the talk is about layoffs, unexpected career changes, firm mergers, doing more with less, and a lack of private sector work. Last year's APA California conference took place while the economic collapse was just getting started. There were a lot of nervous jokes about what it all might mean for people in the land use profession. Now we know, and it's no joke. On Monday morning, a recent San Jose State University graduate stared in disbelief at a completely empty job board. By Tuesday morning, he was back at the board taking notes on the five jobs that had been listed. At a typical conference, there might be upwards of two dozen postings. When one panel presenter said that Yolo County intends to make its general plan update EIR so comprehensive that the county will not need to prepare subsequent EIRs for compatible projects, there was an audible groan from consultants in the audience. Cross off Yolo County as a potential client. Several people told me about having to take jobs only tangentially related to land use planning. Others told me they had to cover at least some of the cost of the conference themselves because their employer's travel budget was virtually nil. Public sector employers said they are as busy as ever – especially if they have their fingers in the climate change business – but they have fewer resources than ever. Fee revenue has dried up, and the staff has shrunk. The only thing growing is state mandates. And no one seems to think the situation is going to be a whole lot better by the time of APA California's 2010 conference. – Paul Shigley

A lot of the talk here at the California APA Conference in Squaw Valley is about climate change – and, more specifically, about how to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. But there's more and more talk – important but poorly attended – about the other side of the coin, which is dealing with sea level rise and other consequences of climate change. I attended two panels today where speakers dealt with adaptation and sea level rise. Both had a handful of people – in contrast to the throngs that went to the emissions reduction panels, which is what we're used to thinking about in regards to climate change. We've written about adaptation before , but the difference really struck me this time around. Maybe I'm oversensitive, because I live in a beach town, but this strikes me as illustrative of the gap between practice and reality these days. Any greenhouse gas emissions reductions we accomplish in California will be a drop in the bucket and won't prevent climate change. It is going to happen anyway, and it will profoundly affect both our natural and built environments, which means it will probably be the single most important thing planners in California will deal with during the decades ahead. So why all the empty seats? Probably because no state or federal regulators are telling you you've got to do something about adaptation. Yet, increasingly, the policy wonks in the climate change arena are recognizing that mitigating global warming impacts and adapting for the future are more or less the same thing. And they also recognize that, at the first sign of sea level rise, the initial impulse of most people is to destroy the environment further by building huge structures to protect the coast and the bays. The most compelling presentation of the day came from Steve Goldbeck, the deputy director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, who presented the results of BCDC's recent analysis of sea level rise in the Bay Area. Everybody knows that the San Francisco Bay has been reduced by a third this century because of the practice of filling it. But Goldbeck said that a 16-inch rise in the sea level – the high end of estimates for 2050 – simply puts the bay back where it was before the Gold Rush. No big deal, except that close to 300 square miles, hundreds of thousands of residents, and 22 sewer plants will be inundated. (If you think 16 inches is a lot, bear in mind that the Bay has risen 7 inches in the last hundred years.) And separate presentations from Abe Doherty of the Ocean Protection Council and Joan Sollenberger of Caltrans highlighted the need to start figuring out how to work adaptation into the infrastructure equation. There has been no lack of studies on the importance of adaptation techniques, and the state does have a draft adaptation strategy out, yet the state's approach to adaptation is clearly still in its infancy. Doherty, for instance, went on at length about the policy guidance the state is beginning to create regarding when and whether to build hard-infrastructure protections against inundation. And the list of issues is long. Should you permit hard infrastructure when a soft, green solution is available? Should you protect existing wastewater plants or move them? Which is more expensive in the long run? Should you protect developments or facilities along the coast if protecting them costs more than their value? Implicit in a lot of this guidance is the sea-level-rise equivalent of fires. A lot of the development along the coast, especially private development, is very valuable and controlled by wealthy people. I could almost imagine author Mike Davis stepping to the podium with a presentation called "The Case For Letting Malibu Drown." Apparently there will be plenty of time for urgent action, difficult decisions, and class warfare later. There certainly doesn't seem to be much interest now. We'll just have to wait until the next generation – like my daughter, who turns 19 next week – takes over, because we middle-aged California planners are punting the problem past our lifetime. – Bill Fulton

It's always been a mystery to me why traffic modeling – and traffic mitigation – is such a big part of analysis done under the California Environmental Quality Act. After all, traffic in and of itself is not an environmental impact, any more than building a building is an environmental impact. Traffic may cause certain environmental impacts – air pollution, for example, depending on the fuels used – but there's nothing inherently damaging environmentally about traffic. Nevertheless, CEQA traffic analysis has always focused on identifying and alleviating traffic congestion. After careful environmental review, cities and counties have concluded – many thousands of times – that the solution to the environmental problem created by traffic is to build wider roads in order to accommodate more traffic. Those days may be waning, however.  As panelists at the APA California conference in Squaw Valley pointed out today, new policies in many jurisdictions are bringing the "Level of Service" approach to both CEQA analysis and general plans to an end. Even within the confines of CEQA, these jurisdictions are finding ways to place other priorities ahead of – or at least alongside of – alleviation of traffic congestion. "In the future, we're going to have fewer public resources for transportation," said Ron Milam of Fehr & Peers, "And we're going to have more objectives for our transportation system." In particular, the panelists said, alleviating traffic congestion doesn't always jibe with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions – which is suddenly a major goal of state policy and an important consideration in CEQA. And as Paul Shigley reported in these pages not long ago , proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines may discourage the use of the LOS approach.  The APA panel presented cutting-edge techniques from both San Jose and San Francisco. Though the approaches are different, they show how local governments can end-run the LOS approach. In San Francisco, the city came to the conclusion that using LOS was in conflict with its "Transit First" strategy and simply didn't measure the most important environmental impacts of driving – which, in San Francisco's case, is particulates. "We have to reallocate our limited right of way to other things," said Rachel Hiatt of the San Francisco County Transportation Agency. "We will degrade auto LOS in the short term as we implement our 'Transit First' policy." In San Jose, the city took a different approach. Planners identified three job centers where transit is likely to be the primary transportation investment in the future, including downtown, North San Jose, and Edenvale. Downtown was exempted from the LOS standard. In North San Jose and Edenvale, a master environmental impact report was completed that contained an override option for not hitting the LOS standard at 23 "protected intersections". The rest of the city still uses an LOS standard, partly in deference to suburban-style neighborhoods and surrounding communities. "The City Council amended the general plan to be more flexible in places where we wanted to do smart growth," said planner Hans Larsen. Milam from Fehr & Peers also showed how an alternative approach can be used on a specific project, though probably not in all locations. As an example, he pointed to an intersection analysis his firm did which concluded, initially, that the intersection in question had to be greatly widened. Upon further examination, however, the firm and the city concluded that the problem was not cars. Rather, the slow-downs were created by the need to accommodate the large amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection. So a ped/bike overpass preserved the intersection in its current configuration. Not everybody can be Davis or San Francisco or maybe even San Jose. But everybody can think about what they're really trying to achieve with their traffic standards – and ditch the LOS if it's appropriate. – Bill Fulton

The executive director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency told the lunch crowd at the APA California conference today that her agency provides a model for regional planning. She was right – but not in the way she intended. Speaking at the annual planning conference in Squaw Valley, Joanne Marchetta explained how TRPA has been planning for the two-state region surrounding Lake Tahoe for 40 years, and how the agency's policies are paying off in a cleaner environment and clearer lake. Those environmental benefis translate to economic benefits in a region that relies almost exclusively on tourism for jobs. At the same time, she described how it took the agency 22 years to adopt a policy for waterfront development along a small slice of the lake, and how that policy is now tangled in litigation filed by property owners. Sorry, but 22 years to develop a policy for implementing a regional plan adopted in 1987 is hardly a model for other jurisdictions, especially if the immediate upshot is a lawsuit. Marchetta also stated matter-of-factly, "There will be no new large subdivisions, and we are on the verge of buildout." Sorry again, but I can think of no other region in California, including the most densely populated ones, where the term "buildout" would be applicable. In California's land-constrained urban regions, there is no such thing as "buildout," only building up. The TRPA may get to spend most of its effort and money on environmental restoration, but other regions need to figure out how to accommodate millions of more people and jobs while shrinking their carbon footprint. Still, Marchetta had one observation that seemed to resonate with planners: Environmental organizations are fighting the wrong battle. She said that redevelopment and revitalization of existing town centers in the Tahoe region is crucial for environmental restoration purposes, especially enhancing the lake's water clarity. The urban footprint needs to shrink and can do so with strategic redevelopment. However, the knee-jerk reaction from environmental groups is opposition to any development within the Tahoe basin. That same phenomenon is commonplace elsewhere: Environmental advocates oppose "good" infill development, which leads to "bad" greenfield development in places where environmental advocacy is minimal. This is why the Central Valley got most of the housing units that should have been built in the Bay Area for the last 20 years. If TRPA figures out a way to combat the environmental organizations' conventional wisdom that all development must be halted, the agency will truly have a lesson for the rest of the state to emulate. - Paul Shigley

A bill that would exempt a planned football stadium and an adjacent 3 million-square-foot entertainment and retail complex in the City of Industry from the California Environmental Quality Act, and state planning and zoning law is speeding through the Legislature at a rapid pace. The exemptions are contained in AB 81 X3 by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton). Although the Legislature previously has exempted certain projects from CEQA, there appears to be no precedent for letting a project bypass the planning and zoning law that requires a project to be consistent with a city's general plan. What's more, the legislation – which is both retroactive and prospective – would bar any legal challenge to the project, including a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the City of Walnut (see CP&DR In Brief , April 2009 ). Industry and the project developer, Majestic Realty, have been lobbying for the exemption since lawmakers returned from their summer recess in August. However, actual bill language did not begin to circulate widely until about September 1, and the legislation did not have a bill number until about 2 p.m. on Wednesday, September 9. Once it had a bill number, the measure was immediately assigned to the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media – and not the Assembly Local Government Committee, which is where the bill belonged. The Arts Committee approved the bill on a 7-0 vote Wednesday evening. The bill then moved across the hall to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which voted 13-0 to send the bill to the Assembly floor. It all happened so quickly that Walnut – whose lawsuit over the project would get quashed – could not even get a representative to the committee hearings in time. The bill is likely to pass the Assembly either today (September 10) or first thing Friday morning. The question then becomes whether the legislation will get a real hearing in a legitimate forum. Either the Senate Local Government Committee or the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, or both, would normally have many, many questions about such a bill. However, the normal procedural rules clearly do not apply to AB 81 X3, as the typical procedures would prevent the bill from passing before the Legislature goes into recess Friday night. -----UPDATE----- Although AB 81 X3 passed the Assembly 55-15 on September 10, it did not come up for a vote in the Senate before the Legislature concluded its regular session for the year. ------------------- There are two primary reasons the bill is moving so quickly: First, developer Ed Roski Jr. and his Majestic Realty are heavy campaign contributors that typically get what they want out of Sacramento. Second, Roski and the City of Industry have cleverly lined up support from organized labor, which is lobbying heavily in favor of what it calls a jobs bill. Labor has a great deal of influence over the Legislature's Democratic majority. There is opposition. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the American Planning Association California Chapter are trying to defeat the legislation. In an editorial apparently written before Wednesday evening's committee hearings, the L.A. Times called the bill "poisonous." If the bill does pass the Legislature, the focus will then turn to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who appears open to signing anything that might aid – or even appear to aid – the economy. – Paul Shigley

Something seems to be missing from the site plan for Quarry Village, a 42-acre proposed housing development in Hayward. Here are orderly rows of streets, a scattering of small parks and a "village center" for neighborhood-scale retail. The 950 housing units are made up entirely of three-story townhouses, arranged in rows of four and six units. Although the layout of Quarry Village does not appear to be based on any historical model, something about the plan reminded me of something I had seen in a history book: The squarish arrangement of dense residential blocks found in the plan of Reading, Pennsylvania, circa 1747. (See Moholy-Nagy, S., Matrix of Man: An Illustrated History of Urban Environment , 1968. p. 17). What do 21st Century Quarry Village and 18th Century Pennsylvania have in common? Neither has any garages. Quarry Village is a radical proposal, introduced by a quixotic, retired professor from California State University, East Bay, to build a car-free residential neighborhood in suburban Alameda County. Parking is limited to 1,000 spaces on the periphery of the property. Otherwise, the streets – oops, "walkways" – are free of vehicles except for an occasional electric cart. Children can play freely in the streets, or indeed, throughout the entire compound. Mass transit, of course, is the lifeline of Quarry Village: The local bus line delivers commuters to the BART station less than two miles away at the college campus; the bus ride takes six minutes. The smallish retail component, only about 5,000 square feet, may include a tiny market and a child-care center. The project is the brainchild a group of investors led by Sherman Lewis, a retired political science professor who is also past president of Sierra Club's California chapter. Although not a developer by training, Lewis has mastered many of the financial and planning skills needed for large-scale homebuilding. This is a serious proposal with real numbers: According to his latest spreadsheet, construction costs, including photovoltaic cells on every unit, comes to a moderate $225 per square foot. The internal rate of return (IRR) is a robust 28% , which could make the project attractive to investors. The environmental review process may not entail much delay: Lewis expects Quarry Village to qualify for a "negative declaration" under the California Environmental Quality Act, meaning developers and the city would not have to wade through a long and costly environmental impact report. Lewis, however, does not get to decide on the level of environmental review, the city does. Caltrans, which had planned a freeway for the site – "I've spent 30 years of my life fighting that freeway," said Lewis – is expected to sell the acreage for development in the next several years. The professor-turned-homebuilder is trying to raise some additional money from investors to buy an option on the land. The project, inspired by a similar project in Vauban, Germany, will probably not be for everyone. A New York Times story from May relates that some residents left the German project because they could not tolerate the inconvenience of living apart from their cars. Also, individual units are reasonable in price, by California standards, with prices averaging $316,000. Units will range from studios to three bedrooms. Each unit will be fitted with photovoltaic or other solar-power converters that will supply virtually all electricity for household use. In short, Quarry Village seems best suited for young families on moderate incomes, such as junior faculty at Cal State. Lewis, in fact, says he has received at least 10 reservations for future units from university staff. Car-free cities have long been imagined by ecologists and eco-minded planners. In fact, a number of European cities besides Vauban have set aside entire districts for pedestrians, typically for shopping. While Quarry Village is grounded in similar idealism, there is an encouraging realism to the project; rather than being a utopian island set off by itself, the project is very much part of the present-day Hayward. The biggest difference from surrounding housing, of course, is density; while typical suburban densities are about 8 to 10 homes per acre, the density of Quarry Village would be about 45 units per acre, or equivalent to a medium-density apartment house or condominium complex. In fact, Lewis plans to build the housing on condominium maps, and home owners would be obliged to belong to a condo organization and pay monthly dues for maintenance of common areas and the like. In addition to maintenance, the condo organization will also be charged with policing the residents. Renting out units to subtenants is forbidden. In a car-free environment, streets turn into active open space, especially for children who would otherwise be limited to their back yards or public parks. The parks, including a wetlands preserve on the southern end of the site, provide additional open space. Not shown on the site plan, but enormously important in terms of open space, is a planned extension of the Highridge Trail, which would run north-south from Castro Valley to southern Hayward, and would take the form of a new, linear regional park. Getting rid of cars and garages is a practical move toward the ideal of sustainability. Residents would have the use of electric carts to carry heavy loads, and Lewis is also considering a car-share club for village residents. Beyond the quiet atmosphere, clean air and open space made possible by removing cars and garages, the car-free strategy also offers a new model of high-density housing in traditionally low-density suburbs. The car-free strategy may be attractive to conventional developers, because this new model of density, made possible by excluding garages, translates into potentially higher returns to developers and investors. Developers can charge market rents, without the cost of building either garages or costly subterranean parking. Housing officials, on the other hand, now have an alternative beyond mediocre apartment buildings and "stacked flats" to meet their housing numbers. Before I allow enthusiasm about pedestrian-oriented planning to gallop away with me, it is important to point out that the project is still only a proposal. City officials appear interested in, but not committed to, Lewis's car-free plan. In late 2008, the City Council conducted a public workshop about the project and suggested that Lewis needed more working capital so he could buy an option on the land. (In a recent interview, Lewis said he needs at least $1.6 million for that purpose.) In June, the Hayward City Council amended the city's general plan to allow housing on the former quarry site, which the city is also considering for a school. For the time being, Quarry Village looks far away. Even with those caveats about this particular project, I say that idealism is good, practical idealism is better and practical idealism with a realistic business model is best of all. The most intriguing aspect of this suburban, achingly green housing development is the possibility of making density not only tolerable but desirable. And while you're bicycling to Cal State East Bay, would you please drop off the children's Gameboys at the recycling center? It's time for kids to play outside.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A Place to Start As part of the Environmental track of UCLA Extension's Global Sustainability Certificate we would like to introduce a brand new quarter long course on CEQA.  The twelve-week, 4-unit class will examine the fundamentals of the environmental legislation with emphasis on the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to make it successful.  This course will touch on various subtopics including, but not limited to, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, mitigation measures and climate change as it relates.  Margaret Sohagi, JD, President of the Sohagi Law Group, PLC will instruct the course.  Class will be held every Thursday night from 6:30p-9:30pm on the UCLA campus.  For more information or to enroll, please contact UCLA Extension Public Policy at (310) 825-7885, or by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing course code V3638.

For a publication based in California, we sure write a lot about Portland . I guess this isn't surprising, given Portland's iconic status as the planners' nirvana – the place where planners' crazy ideas get implemented and actually work and make everybody happy. But there's another reason why we write about Portland: It is a place where a lot of things California planners talk about are ground-tested and, most of the time, actually work. Portland's achievements are especially impressive given the fact that Portland is not an enormous city – at about a half-million people, it's roughly the size of Oakland, Fresno or Long Beach. This doesn't mean that every city in California should slavishly follow Portland's example. It's never a good idea to simply point to another city and say, We should just copy them. But it is worth thinking about why Portland does things – and does them successfully – that a lot of other cities can't seem to do. After a visit to Portland last week, I'd say there are six important lessons to learn from Portland. The important thing is to apply the lessons to your own town, and not try to recreate Portland. 1. Portland has great raw material Although it's only a half-million people, Portland has a huge downtown core, a large industrial area now being revitalized (the Pearl District) and all kinds of civic endowments from the wealth-building years as a timber capital – such as, for example, a park seemingly every three blocks in the downtown. The lesson here is not to try to create buildings or neighborhoods like Portland's, but to understand what your raw material is and use it to your best advantage. 2. They're not afraid to just build stuff This is perhaps easier to do in a world where you don't have to worry about the California Environmental Quality Act, but it's amazing how much stuff gets built – even stuff that sometimes seems loony in concept. Since my last visit seven years ago, Portland has built the aerial tramway from the South Waterfront (the flats just to the south of downtown) to the Oregon Health Sciences University campus on Marquam Hill. No other city in the United States except New York has ever even tried to build such a tram, and the Portland project was plagued by secretiveness, political controversy, 1,000% cost overruns, and neighborhood opposition. In the end, they built it anyway – and it is now the key to keeping the city's largest employer in Portland and an anchor for a series of condo and office towers in the South Waterfront area (also proof that they're not afraid to build stuff). Sometimes you just have to build stuff and see what happens. 3. They never stop thinking about the actual walking experience If you look carefully at both Downtown Portland and the celebrated Pearl District, you'll realize that, although both are built on small grids, we are not talking about the typical New Urbanist wet dream of four-story neoclassical boulevards. For every two or three handsome '20s downtown midrise, there's at least one mid-century modernist monstrosity. Radically mixed densities and uses in the Pearl District. But, partly because of the 200-foot blocks, even these behemoths have created totally walkable places. The Pearl District might have a one-story electrical company adjacent to a three-story converted warehouse adjacent to a 15-story condo tower – yet all have a great feel at the street level. Even if you have longer blocks in your town, you have to think about how to break them up – and never, ever overlook what it's like simply to walk down the street. 4. They keep reinforcing the connection between development and transportation A seamless transit system connecting disparate yet distinct areas should be a cornerstone of a good city, but it's one that we in California keep getting wrong, even in the transit-rich Bay Area . In Portland, the new transit stuff reinforces the development pattern, even when (as with the tram) it seems like a pipe dream. This week, Tri-Met will open a new light-rail line to Union Station, which is located in a semi-industrial area rich with redevelopment possibilities. An even more dramatic example is the Portland Streetcar, which connects a variety of dense activity centers in downtown Portland, including Portland State University, the Pearl District, downtown, and the South Waterfront (where it connects with the aerial tram). The streetcar would make traffic engineers cringe – it's so slow that sometimes you can beat it just by walking. But underneath the hokiness it may be the best urban collector system ever created. If the streetcar didn't exist, a bunch of useful but inefficient little buses would have to run around Portland connecting things – similar to L.A.'s DASH buses. But the streetcar pulls together all the collector systems into a distinctive "brand" that's integrated into the entire TriMet system. Other cities don't have to build a streetcar – but they do have to find ways to use small buses or other transit vehicles to link together major employment centers, and do it in a distinctive way that brands the collector experience as unique, fun, and just a part of the experience of being in the town. 5. They keep strengthening the informal aspects of city life Here's just one example: You have never seen anything like Portland's food carts . They line up by the dozen in parking lots, facing the sidewalk, creating an instant streetside food court of amazing and inexpensive culinary choices. This is not urban planning, exactly – or, at least, they're not about building higher density and more public transit. Rather, the food carts – like lots of other things you see in Portland – strengthen what you might call the Jane Jacobs side of the planning equation – all the quirky, interesting, and sometimes even necessary little human-scale things that make up urban life. And, by the way, that's one of the things that seems to underlie Portland's success: there are so many people in town who love urban life and want to make it work in a mid-sized city. So add "urban" to the list of things they're not afraid of. Again, it's not necessarily a matter of putting food carts in your downtown parking lots, but finding something small and quirky and fun that's distinct to your town and making it work. 6. They're not holding out for perfection Don't ever forget that most of the Portland metro area is just like anywhere else. There are freeways and subdivisions and confusing arterials and big malls and stupid little strip centers. But part of the message is that you don't have to transform your whole city – only those parts of your city that are ripe for the transforming. There is no better advertisement for creating more walkable cities than … well, than creating just one walkable neighborhood in your town. – Bill Fulton

Two bills that would require greater consideration of fire safety in land use planning appear likely to reach the governor's desk before the Legislature recesses its regular session on September 11. Moreover, a late move to link the fire planning bills to disaster relief legislation could increase the chances that Gov. Schwarzenegger will actually sign the bills. The fire planning bills are exceptions, as very little substantive legislation – concerning land use or anything else – appears likely to pass the Legislature this year. A number of sources inside and outside the Capitol said they could not remember the situation being so sedate during the final weeks before the mid-term recess. "It is eerily quiet. It is scarily quiet," said Sande George, the lobbyist for the American Planning Association's California chapter. George's list of bills she is tracking is unusually short. Other bill lists compiled by advocates and legislative aides indicate that many pieces of legislation are "two-year" bills, meaning they will not advance until after lawmakers return from their recess in January. A package of Bay Delta water bills appears unlikely to advance, especially given rising resistance from agricultural interests. The Democratic authors of AB 39 (Huffman), AB 49 (Feuer), SB 12 (Simitian), SB 229 (Pavley) and SB 485 (Wolk) say the package provides a framework for moving forward with the Delta ecosystem restoration and improved water supply reliability (see CP&DR Capitol Update , August 15, 2009 ). Detractors say the bills would do little for water supply, and Schwarzenegger has promised he will not sign the bills unless the package includes a bond to fund increased water storage facilities. Still, the bills remain alive this year and a priority for Democratic lawmakers. Continuing to loom is a proposal from the City of Industry that would permit redevelopment agencies to extend project deadlines by 40 years without new findings of blight in exchange for giving the state 10% of tax increment. The proposal failed when lawmakers approved the state budget in July, but Industry's lobbyists continue to shop around the proposal. The fire planning bills are AB 666 by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) and SB 505 by Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego). In late August, both bills passed out of appropriations committees, which have been death zones for so much legislation during the state budget crisis. The Jones bill would require counties to determine that proposed development in a state fire responsibility area or "very high fire hazard severity zone" would, at a minimum, meet the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) standards for access, design and service availability. The bill would not apply to cities. It is similar to AB 2447 from last year, a bill that Schwarzenegger vetoed because he said it would give a state agency an inappropriate role in local land use decisions. Citing support from firefighters, Jones brought the legislation back this year with minor amendments. "We cannot continue to approve new building sites in the most hazardous areas if there is not adequate fire protection," he said. Although CalFire says it will cost $1 million to provide consultation and project reviews under AB 666, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill. What's more, the committee – chaired by Kehoe – ensured that two disaster relief bills (AB 15 – Fuentes, and AB 50 – Nava) could not take effect unless both AB 666 and SB 505 become law. The disaster relief bills for Southern California wildfires in 2007, 2008 and earlier this year, are almost certain to pass. The California State Association of Counties, which has opposed stricter fire planning standards, has dropped its position against AB 666. However, the counties remain opposed to SB 505 because of its cost. That bill would require cities and counties with territory in state responsibility areas or very high fire hazard severity zones to amend general plan safety elements with an extensive explaination of local fire hazards. The elements would also have to contain goals, policies, objectives and implementation measures that conform to an update of a state fire hazard planning guidance document. Local governments would have to amend their safety elements by 2015. The bill also requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to update fire hazard planning guidance by 2011 – although OPR may not remain in business (see Insight ). A few land use bills have already passed the Legislature and await the governor's consideration. Lawmakers approved AB 720 (Caballero), which would permit a city or county to meet up to 25% of its fair-share housing allocation through acquisition, preservation or rehabilitation of affordable housing units. The California Redevelopment Association and League of California Cities sponsored AB 720, but affordable housing advocates are skeptical because no additional units would be created. Those advocates, however, were pleased the Legislature approved AB 570 (Arambula), which modifies the state housing trust fund matching program to make it easier for small jurisdictions to receive money. Also passing recently was SB 215 (Wiggins), a measure that requires a Local Agency Formation Commission, when acting on proposed boundary changes, to consider a regional transportation plan, and the sustainable communities strategies or alternative planning strategies required under SB 375. In addition, the governor has already signed several bills, including AB 210 (Hayashi), clarifying how cities and counties may adopt green building standards more stringent than state standards; AB 333 (Fuentes), urgency legislation that extended the expiration date of subdivision maps by two years; and SB 430 (Dutton), extending from 10 years to 15 years the time limit on San Bernardino County's Cedar Glen disaster recovery project area redevelopment plan; Other bills that appear to have some chance of passing before the recess: • ACA 9 (Huffman). Would decreased the vote threshold for some local bond measures from two-thirds to 55%. • AB 494 (Caballero). Would exempt from the Subdivision Map Act nonprofit farm worker housing projects of no more than five acres on agricultural land. The scope of the bill has been substantially reduced because of earlier opposition from planners and counties. • AB 566 (Nava). Would permit cities and counties to consider mobile home park tenant support for a mobile home park owner's proposal to convert a park to condominiums or common-interest ownership (see Legal Digest ). • AB 1158 (Hayashi). Would modify the definition of a transit village to also include educational facilities. The bill is linked to AB 338 (Ma), which would authorize local governments – without voter approval – to use tax increment financing to pay for transit village infrastructure. • SB 43 (Alquist). Would authorize creation of a joint powers authority in Santa Clara to construct and operate a professional football stadium. • SB 93 (Kehoe). Would limit a redevelopment agency's spending on public works outside of a redevelopment project area. • SB 99 (Senate Local Government Committee). Would impose additional accountability requirements on public agencies that provide conduit financing. • SB 279 (Hancock). Would authorize use of community facility district (Mello-Roos) financing for water conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. • SB 406 (DeSaulnier). Would permit metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation commissions and certain air districts to place a $1 or $2 surcharge on vehicle registrations to fund regional and subregional planning efforts. • SB 545 (Cedillo). Would require that any extension of the 710 freeway through South Pasadena be constructed in a tunnel. • SB 575 (Steinberg). Cleanup legislation that specifies housing element deadlines under last year's SB 375.

The state Supreme Court will review an appellate court ruling that California's prevailing wage law does not apply to a charter city's public works projects that are funded exclusively with city revenues. In April, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that the law did not "outweigh the power of charter cities over their municipal affairs." The appellate panel vote was 2-1 with Justice Joan Irion dissenting (see CP&DR Legal Digest , June 2009 ). She wrote that the court was deciding on the advisability of the prevailing wage law rather than its reach under the state constitution. The litigation was brought by a collection of labor unions against the San Diego suburb of Vista, one of 83 charter cities in the state. In the past three years, Vista has launched $100 million worth of public works projects financed by a voter-approved half-cent sales tax. The projects, which are either complete or well underway, include two fire stations, a civic center, a sport park and an amphitheater stage house. Shortly after approving the sales tax, voters backed a proposed city charter based in part on the argument that a charter would allow the city to save money by exempting it from prevailing wage and other public contracting statutes that apply to general law cities. The prevailing wage law requires contractors on public works projects to pay workers at rates set by the state director of industrial relations. Typically, the rates are equivalent to union wages in major urban areas. Cities and counties, especially in rural areas, often complain that the prevailing wage law unnecessarily drives up expenses. Supporters say that the law ensures that contractors who use union labor can compete for public works projects, and that it generates funding for apprentice training programs. All seven justices on the state Supreme Court voted to review the Fourth District's decision. The case is State Building and Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista , No. S173586.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has successfully defended against a City of Long Beach lawsuit that challenged numerous aspects of a new high school's environmental impact report. Long Beach contended that the report's analysis and proposed mitigation measures for the high school's project-level and cumulative environmental effects were inadequate, and that its study of alternatives was insufficient. But the court found that the school district complied with the California Environmental Quality Act in every instance. While Long Beach has its own school district, the boundaries of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) extend into a portion of the city. The proposed high school would accommodate approximately 1,800 students on 13.7 acres in the northwest corner of Long Beach adjacent to Carson. The district, which certified a final EIR in 2007, broke ground for the campus in October 2008. The school is intended to relieve overcrowding at Carson and Banning high schools. Long Beach filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court and lost. It appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, affirmed the lower court's decision. Long Beach's challenges fell into six areas: health and safety issues; air quality; traffic impacts; land use compatibility; cumulative impacts; and project alternatives. The city contended that the final environmental impact report was flawed because it did not adequately evaluate the school site's possible effects on students' health or provide any support for its conclusion that there would be no significant impact. In making its case, the county pointed to truck traffic and diesel emissions from the nearby Long Beach Freeway and a rail line bordering the future campus. But the court expressed satisfaction with the report, which included a health-risk assessment that considered potential long-term exposure to hazardous emissions generated within one-quarter mile of the school site by the freeway, locomotives, trucking terminals and a gas station. The report concluded that with a setback on one boundary and use of an enhanced heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, there would be less-than-significant effects on the health of students and employees. Long Beach also argued that LAUSD did not adequately address cumulative effects on air quality and traffic, nor the cumulative effects on staff and student health. On the second point, the court made clear that the purpose of an EIR is to address a project's effects on the environment, "not the impact of the environment on the project, such as the school's students and staff." On the first point, the court dismissed Long Beach's argument that the school district conveniently chose to ignore projects such as expansion of the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and related railroad facilities – all located several miles from the school site. The court said the school district explained its geographic boundaries for the cumulative impact study. " he FEIR analyzes every project within the delineated geographic areas for each subject, and so it does not ‘cherry-pick' the projects, despite Long Beach's contention otherwise," Justice Richard Aldrich wrote for the court. The city further argued that the FEIR should have analyzed the types of chemicals carried by Union Pacific trains on the line adjacent to the school site to determine the potential harm to students and staff caused by possible spills. The report addressed – and included mitigation measures for – the "very low" likelihood of a train accident or derailment, but it did not provide specific information about materials carried in rail cars. Still, the court said the FEIR went far enough. "Describing and analyzing each specific chemical the trains might theoretically carry in the future would be speculative and infeasible, and hence not required in this circumstance," Aldrich wrote. One of the biggest issues for the community is parking because LAUSD approved the school without providing for a student parking lot. The district projected a need for 400 student parking spaces but determined that more than 1,000 on-street spaces nearby would suffice. Here is the court's summary: "Long Beach describes parking in the area as ‘scarce' and the spots as ‘coveted.' It cites its comment that ‘school-generated parking demands in the residential area west of the project site could lead to parking restrictions that would force most student and visitor parking into the adjacent industrial area.' But substantial evidence includes ‘facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts.' Long Beach provided no facts to support its hypothesis that parking is scarce. But LAUSD did. As noted in its response, the consultants found more than three times the needed space available within one-fourth mile of the school site , Long Beach's supposition is unfounded." The city contended that the school district should have studied the new high school's consistency with the Long Beach general plan, which designates the site for light industry. But the court noted schools are permitted in the applicable zoning district and, anyway, the school district had exempted itself from the city's zoning authority. The court also upheld the list of project alternatives, even though LAUSD declined to consider potential sites in Carson, from which nearly all of the school's students will come. The Case: City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School District , No. B207721, 2009 DJDAR 12197. Filed July 16, 2009. Ordered published August 17, 2009. The Lawyers; For the city: Steven Kaufmann, Richards, Watson & Gershon, (213) 626-8484. For LAUSD: Fernando Villa, Pircher, Nichols & Meeks, (310) 201-8900.