Add Tucson to the list of cities in the Intermountain West that fear California-style growth � and is thinking about California-style solutions to forestall California-style problems. Last fall, Tucsonites overwhelmingly rejected the first foray into this arena � a California-style growth control measure that would have restricted future water hookups. On Friday, more than 500 Tucson residents gathered at the University of Arizona to bat around alternatives.� (I was one of three outside speakers brought in by the Arizona Daily Star and Thomas Brown Foundation to talk about growth and growth management.) Pima County has doubled in size to 1 million people since 1980 and is expected to add another 250,000 in population by 2020. A unscientific online survey by the Daily Star � completed by 3,000 residents � found that more than half of the respondents oppose continued population growth, compared with only a third who favor it. However, more than half of the respondents also said they would recommend the Tucson area to their friends as a place to live. The biggest issue people talk about in Tucson is water. That's understandable, since Tucson is obviously in a desert. But it's hard to know, at a glance, just how big an issue it really is. While no-growthers have made a lack of water the centerpiece of their argument, Sharon Megdal , director of the Water Resources Research Center at University of Arizona, said, "Arizona has ample water supplies for a lot more people." But there are two big questions, she said: "Is the water owned by who needs to use it?" and "Is it in the right location"? The answers to these questions are probably no � making Tucson even more like California. Meanwhile, members of Gov. Janet Napolitano's growth cabinet said they are moving forward with a couple of growth management initiatives � in particular, a new transportation plan and a Maryland-style "smart growth" system of dispensing discretionary state dollars only to projects and plans that adhere to smart growth principles. Clearly, Tucson's movers and shakers are going to do something. Daily Star opinion editor Ann Brown concluded in a Sunday piece that the region "craves consensus." But not everybody has bought in yet. A typical Daily Star online comment : "The growth forum was just another talk session, no action forthcoming. Waste of time." -- Bill Fulton

A controversial 225-square-mile annexation of territory in San Mateo County by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has been upheld by the First District Court of Appeal. The court rejected annexation opponents' arguments that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission's approval of the annexation was flawed. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District covers portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Since its creation in 1972, the district has acquired more than 50,000 acres that are now protected in about two dozen preserves. The district's territory was centered in the hills between the coast and San Francisco Bay's urban areas. In 1998, however, San Mateo County coastal voters approved an advisory measure concerning district expansion. The advisory vote commenced a five-year process that involved more than 40 public meetings and, in 2003, certification of an environmental impact report for the 144,000-acre annexation stretching along the coast from Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line. In April 2004, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved the annexation. Under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, voters may protest an annexation. If 50% of registered voters file valid written protests, the annexation is terminated. If 25% to 50% protest, there must be an election. If less than 25% protest, the annexation stands. The annexed territory had 16,284 registered voters, so opponents had to convince a little more than 4,000 registered voters to protest to force an election. Although the San Mateo County Farm Bureau had led the fight against annexation, the organization dropped its opposition when state lawmakers approved a bill — sponsored by the open space district — to preclude the district from exercising eminent domain in the annexed territory. But property rights advocates persisted. They contended the district would create new parks that bring traffic and trespassers to rural areas. They contended the district's activities were incompatible with agriculture, and they worried that the district would both raise taxes and remove land from property tax roles. The opponents rounded up 5,340 written protests. But the San Mateo County Elections Division determined that only 3,443 protests were valid, less than the 25% required to force an election. The LAFCO then ordered the annexation to become effective. Multiple lawsuits were filed. In one, opponents challenged the protest verification process. That litigation resulted in a San Mateo County Superior Court judge ordering an addition 64 protests certified, which left opponents still well short of the 25% threshold. A separate lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsible Open Space over the LAFCO process. A Superior Court judge ruled LAFCO had improperly excluded another 288 valid protests — which still left opponents about 300 signatures shy of 25% — but otherwise conducted the annexation properly. The court upheld the annexation. Both sides appealed and a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District, Division Three, ruled entirely for LAFCO. Citizens argued that the court should invalidate the annexation because LAFCO did not include a statement of reasons for the annexation in a public notice of the protest hearing, relied on ambiguous maps, and improperly delegated statutory responsibilities to the Elections Division. The court determined the public notice's lack of a statement of reasons was inconsequential. Following the advisory vote, there were many public meetings, newspaper coverage was extensive, and supporters and opponents debated frequently in public. " s the trial court concluded, the overwhelming weight of evidence establishes that the public was aware of the arguments in favor and against the annexation and given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the protest process," Justice Stuart Pollak wrote for the court. As for maps, opponents said LAFCO used at least three different versions. The court determined a 160-acre parcel that was within the pre-existing boundaries was misidentified, but the error was of no consequence. The court also found that LAFCO staff's reliance on Skyline Boulevard as the eastern boundary in reports and a public notice map, when in fact the annexation boundary was a jagged line near the road, was acceptable. "As LAFCO explains, the map ‘was not intended to be a precisely surveyed guide to the exact limit of that annexation area, but a description of its external boundaries in a manner that would effectively inform the reader,'" Pollak wrote, noting LAFCO's formal resolution contained the precise boundary. On the issue of verifying protests, the court said LAFCO "appropriately delegated to the governmental division competent to perform the task." The LAFCO appealed the trial court's decision to re-instate protests that lacked a protester's residence address. This involved about 288 protests. Noting that many voters in the area rely on post office boxes, the trial court allowed the protests. But the First District said no and overturned the lower court on this point. " hat ultimately determines the right of a registered voter to protest the acquisition is the individual's residence within the affected area," Pollak wrote. "Receipt of mail at a particular post office box does not necessarily establish one's residence." Moreover, the court noted, "inclusion of the invalidated protests did not increase the number of protests to 25% of the registered voters and would not have affected the outcome of the protest." The Case: Citizens for Responsible Open Space v. San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission , No. A116825, 08 C.D.O.S. 1401, 2008 DJDAR 1708. Filed January 31, 2008. The Lawyers: For Citizens: Ronald Zumbrun, (916) 486-5900. For LAFCO: Carol Woodward, San Mateo County counsel's office, (650) 363-4250. For the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District: Ellison Folk, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272.

A hot potato — or should I say a hot sugar beet — is headed back to the Delta Protection Commission, which is scheduled on March 27 to reconsider a proposal for the first housing development within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta's "primary zone" in 15 years. The hearing comes at a time when concern about Central Valley flood safety and the overall health of the Delta is at an all-time high, a setting that must have project proponents feeling like a smelt swimming too close to a State Water Project pump. A little more than a year ago, the 15-member commission of local elected officials, state appointees and special district representatives overturned Yolo County's approval of the Old Sugar Mill specific plan in the small riverfront town of Clarksburg, roughly 10 miles south of Sacramento. The matter was widely viewed as a test of how serious the state is about the Delta and flood safety. Although some commissioners spoke highly of the project, the final vote was 12-1 to send it back to Yolo County. Project developer Carvalho-Stanich Properties returned to the county and reworked the plan. The primary changes in the specific plan are a reduction in housing units from 162 to 123, a 15-foot expansion of a buffer between houses and agricultural land, and an agreement to raise the living areas of residential units 8 to 11 feet above grade. As before, the plan designates more than half of the 105-acre site (a former sugar beet mill) to commercial, industrial, office and hospitality uses. "Staff believes that the revised project fully addresses the concerns raised by the Delta Protection Commission in its remand to the county," says a Yolo County Planning and Public Works Department report to the Board of Supervisors. (Scroll down to Item 7.01 here .) Not so, says Greg Loarie, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has led opposition to the sugar mill project. "We're disappointed. We don't view the revisions as responding to the Delta Protection Commission concerns," Loarie said. Another 15 to 25 feet of buffer still leaves the buffer about 200 feet short of the 500-foot minimum the commission recommends. And raising houses a few feet higher does not address the basic concern about building residences in a location with questionable flood protection, he said. The Delta Protection Commission staff agrees with Loarie. The staff report for the March 27 meetings says that the project changes fail to satisfy the Commission's earlier concerns. Still, the revisions were enough for the Board of Supervisors, which approved the project on March 11. The project automatically returns to the Delta Protection Commission for a decision that may receive even more scrutiny than last year's. - Paul Shigley

Planning OfficialCity of San José, CA Northern California's largest city and the capital of the world's center for innovation, the City of San José (pop. 945,000) is seeking a Planning Official to oversee the City's long-range and current planning activities. This is a unique career opportunity to lead one of the nation's most dynamic, diverse and substantial planning programs. The Planning Official will be responsible for a staff of 75 within the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. The ideal candidate will exhibit a strong team and customer orientation, reveal outstanding interpersonal skills and possess a track record of building and maintaining effective relationships with a diverse group of stakeholders. In addition to demonstrating technical strength, he/she will be actively engaged in the profession and be motivated by a continuous improvement philosophy. Prior management experience in a similar setting and a Bachelor's degree are required. Salary range $104,334 to $162,522 and is supplemented by a generous benefits package. Visit our website for detailed brochure and to apply online using the APPLY NOW feature at www.tbcrecruiting.com . The closing date for this recruitment is Monday, April 14, 2008 . Teri Black-Brann • 310.377.2612 tel Carolyn Seeley • 714.974.2284 Teri Black & Company www.tbcrecruiting.com

Will transportation and land-use planning get its share of dough from federal climate change programs? Not if the coal industry has its way. That was the message from a Capitol Hill staffer at a plenary session of the American Public Transit Association's annual legislative conference in Washington, D.C., on Monday. To combat the coal industry, smart growth and public transit lobbyists will have to prove they have an important national asset that can help meet the climate change challenge. Along with other panelists, Beth Osborne, an aide to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., agreed that "smart growth" planning principles can help cut the growth in vehicle miles traveled and make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But she warned that transportation and land use are unlikely to get much federal money for climate change because the electric utilities and coal companies are doing a better job of lobbying Congress. The money will likely come from the provisions of the so-called Leiberman-Warner bill now pending in the Senate, which would generate funds by capping carbon emissions and auctioning off a portion of the "right to pollute". "We are talking about as much as $4.5 trillion over 50 years, "Osborne said. "Right now the overwhelming majority is going to stationary sources, with about 1% going to transit." She added: "Impacted industries such as utilities, coal, and manufacturing have been extremely aggressive about making their case to us about the help they need to meet these standards.We've provided funding support to meet those standards. Noticeably absent from the debate is driving and transit alternatives – transportation interests have not been engaged in this climate change bill." She predicted that planning and transportation interests could get more money if they link their lobbying on the federal transportation reauthorization next year to lobbying on the climate change bill – which she said would not pass this year anyway. Steve Winkleman, a smart growth/climate change policy wonk with the Center for Clean Air Policy, said lobbyists in the transportation business are gradually coming around, but the public transit business has not been aggressive enough. He said, for example, that the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has recommended an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction target associated with public transit – but the transit lobbyists have not been at the table. Winkleman – a co-author of "Growing Cooler," published by the Urban Land Institute – said that if market demand for smart growth were satisfied, the effect would be the same as a 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard. – Bill Fulton

Just about everyone has assumed that a "cap and trade" mechanism would be part of the implementation of California's AB 32, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law. But cap and trade may not come about without a big, and potentially very political, fight from environmental justice advocates. Under a cap and trade system, the state would establish a maximum combined emission level of a greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide. Polluters that come in under their allowance would then sell their credits to an entity that produces more than permitted. There's also the possibility that greenhouse gas emitters could buy offsets. Over time, the cap would get lower and lower. The concept is similar to the federal cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide, which affects more than 100 electricity generating plants around the country. Recently, a group of 18 environmental justice organizations calling themselves the California Environmental Justice Movement announced that it was firmly opposed to cap and trade. Their concern is that heavy polluters in urban areas would simply buy their way out of new emissions restrictions. The issue isn't so much the greenhouse gases that, say, a refinery generates. Gases such as carbon dioxide are a global problem, not local. The EJ group's biggest concern is the "co-pollutants," such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, that nearly always accompany the carbon dioxide emissions. These co-pollutants contaminate the air in the neighborhood. In other words, planting a forest in Canada or shutting down a factory in Idaho might offset the carbon dioxide produced by a refinery in Los Angeles. But those measures don't do anything about the soot, NOX, SOX (sulfur oxides) and other pollutants that residents of Wilmington have to inhale. The EJ organization argues that cap and trade turns the air everyone breathes into a commodity that wealthy corporations then pay to pollute, at the expense of poor people. The group calls the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme a failure, arguing that it is establishing "carbon dumps" in poor and developing nations so that powerful companies and rich nations can continue polluting. Instead of mimicking the EU's venture, the EJ proponents argue, the state should tax greenhouse gas emissions. Under AB 32, the Air Resources Board is required to consider "market mechanisms" for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and Gov. Schwarzenegger is an outspoken proponent of cap and trade. In a report to the Air Resources Board last year, the board's Market Advisory Committee endorsed the concept of cap and trade, but only if "localized effects or disproportionate impacts on low-income communities or communities already adversely affected by air pollution." A number of mainstream environmental groups, including the National Resources Defense Council, have endorsed at least the concept of cap and trade. For many businesses and political conservatives, market-based systems are the only acceptable way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's a lot of momentum for cap and trade. But the EJ groups have friends in high places. Two of the group's leaders, Jane Williams of California Communities Against Toxics and the California Environmental Rights Alliance's Angela Johnson Meszaros, are on the Air Resources Board's Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. That committee's recommendations will not be easy for the board or the governor to ignore. More important is new leadership in the state Legislature. With a history of social justice activism, Assembly Speaker-to-be Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) will be the first African-American woman to serve as speaker. Senate President Pro-Tem-to-be Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has cultivated an anti-business reputation as a defender of the working class. (He was a labor lawyer before becoming a state lawmaker.) Although they have not endorsed the California Environmental Justice Movement's cap and trade position, Bass and Steinberg are natural allies of the EJ group. Thus, the road to a greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade system in California will not be smooth. It might even be a dead end. - Paul Shigley

This is going to sound like sour grapes, I know. But it's not. Honest. It's a real policy beef – and one that I've had for a long time. I own a Prius. But I don't own an access sticker that gets me into the carpool lanes. That's because I bought my Prius in December of 2006 – the exact time when the State of California doled out the last of 85,000 "Clean Air Vehicle Stickers." Under AB 2628, the 2004 bill sponsored by then-Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), the stickers allow owners of high-mileage vehicles – mostly hybrids – to drive in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Even before I found myself crawling along in the regular lanes in my unstickered Prius, I thought this was a pretty dumb idea. Over time, it's proven dumber and dumber. Now, unfortunately, it's turned into a congestion pricing system, except the resulting revenue flows not to new transportation investments that benefit all of us, but to Prius owners clever enough to buy their cars before I did. The goal, apparently, was to encourage more people to buy hybrids, which use less gas and therefore emit fewer greenhouse gases. That's a worthy goal, but it's not the reason HOV lanes exist. The reason we have HOV lanes is to increase transportation capacity – and maybe reduce congestion and air pollution – by encouraging people to carpool or take buses instead of driving alone. Every time two or three people drive in a car instead of one, you've increased the capacity of the transportation system at no cost. Allowing single-occupancy hybrids into the carpool lane undermines this whole policy goal. Presumably there's a modest improvement in overall energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions – if the 85,000 drivers wouldn't have bought hybrids otherwise, which I doubt. But I can't figure out what other benefit there might be. Drive-alones add cars to the carpool lane no matter what kind of car they drive; but, unlike carpoolers, they don't add capacity to the system. (Something like 40% of the state's carpool lanes are already at capacity.) And the Internet is flooded with stories about how the granny-like habits of Prius drivers in search of high gas mileage slow down the carpool lane even more and therefore reduce everybody else's motivation to carpool. But here's the most perverse part: We've inadvertently created congestion pricing with this policy – and we're not getting any transportation investment out of it. Congestion pricing is a policy idea that's been kicking around for a while now . The idea is that people will pay money to drive faster on the freeway during periods of congestion. And the money they pay can be used to build more lanes or otherwise enhance transportation capacity. It's an idea worth thinking about, but except for the toll lanes on the 91 Freeway and the high-occupancy toll lanes on I-15 in San Diego County, it's not a policy that anybody in California has actually adopted. The "Clean Air Sticker" policy has proven that a congestion pricing policy would work. Why? Because a used hybrid with the stickers is worth $4,000 more than a used hybrid without one . In other words, the State of California gave away to owners of 85,000 hybrid cars a carpool access sticker worth $4,000. That value – somewhere around $300 million – is now in the hands of hybrid car owners. It is not in the hands of state and regional transportation agencies that could use it for other transportation improvements. With gas at close to $4 a gallon, I don't think anybody needs a $2,000 to $4,000 incentive to by a hybrid. In fact, I think the success of the Prius – a very sensible car in spite of its cache – suggests that Californians never needed such an incentive. When our state or our regional transportation agencies build an HOV lane, they are creating valuable real estate in the transportation system. The wisest use of this investment is to use it to increase our overall transportation capacity. We should do that either (1) by giving space in the carpool lane away for free to carpoolers who increase transportation capacity at no cost to the public, or else (2) by selling that space to drive-alones willing to pay the price, and using that money for other transportation investments. The one thing we should not be doing is giving it away for free to drive-alones based on the kind of car they drive. Sometimes we need to use our heads, not our hearts, in crafting environmental policy. – Bill Fulton

State lawmakers introduced hundreds of bills just before the February 22 deadline, and many of them concern land use. At the time of the Legislature's deadline, we were putting together our big overview of land use legislation , so we were not able to look at every last bill. The late introductions don't change the fact that SB 375 (Steinberg) is the most important piece of land use legislation currently circulating. But we want to make sure you know about all the important and just plain weird land use bills. Here are the late entries: Housing • AB 2069 (Jones). Prohibits commercial development on sites designated for residential development in a housing element unless new sites for housing are created. Similar to last year's AB 414, which the governor vetoed. • AB 2280 (Saldaña). Eliminates density bonus eligibility for projects that already receive a bonus for including affordable units. This is an important bill for cities, which complain that developers are doubling up on various density bonuses. Having strengthened the state density bonus law during recent years, housing advocates have already said they will fight the rollback. • AB 2322 (Portantino). Allows cities and counties to count foster youth placements for purposes of meeting fair-share affordable housing requirements. • AB 2331 (DeSaulnier). For projects funded by the California Housing Finance Agency (Cal HFA), boosts the definition of "moderate income" from 120% of median to 150% of median. • SB 1433 (Wyland). Prohibits a city or county from including rent-controlled mobile home parks in its affordable housing inventory for regional housing needs assessment purposes, unless the park owner and the local government have an agreement. Local and regional planning • AB 2367 (Fuentes). Extends to five years (from the current two years) the prohibition on cities changing the zoning designation on annexed land, unless the city makes certain findings. • AB 2447 (Jones). Prohibits a local government from approving a parcel map or subdivision in high fire danger areas unless the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection approves the project. • AB 2520 (Walters). One of several bills extending the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by two years. • AB 2585 (Jeffries). Increases from four to six the number of times per year a city or county may amend its general plan. • AB 2870 (DeSaulnier). Creates the Blueprint Implementation Commission to facilitate implementation of regional growth plans. Fees and revenues • AB 2173 (Caballero). Makes it easier for school districts to levy higher impact fees on new development. • AB 2256 (Duvall). Increases the homeowners' property tax exemption from $7,000 to $75,000. • AB 2604 (Torrico). Prohibits a local agency that imposes a fee on residential development for construction of public facilities from collecting that fee until a certificate of occupancy is issued or escrow has closed. While this measure could help with development financing, local governments may oppose it because they lose leverage for collecting fees once a certificate of occupancy has been issued. • AB 2705 (Jones). Adds public transit services to the list of items that may be financed by a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. • SB 1473 (Calderon). Requires cities and counties to levy a building permit fee of $4 per $100,000 in valuation  to fund creation of green building standards.  Infrastructure • AB 2600 (Niello). A "spot bill" authorizing state and local governments to enter into "performance-based infrastructure partnerships for eligible facilities." • AB 2674 (Emmerson). Authorizes a private water company to enter into a joint powers agreement with a public agency. • AB 3021 (Nava). Creates the Transportation Financing Authority to finance highways and toll roads. Redevelopment • AB 2594 (Mullin). Permits redevelopment agencies to use non-housing funds to help homeowners in mortgage distress. • SB 1689 (Lowenthal). Creates procedures by which the Department of Housing and Community Development and the attorney general's office may pursue in court major redevelopment agency audit violations. Group Homes • AB 2903 (Huffman). Prohibits "by right" operation of group homes of 6 people or fewer if the homes are part of a larger facility in one location.    - Paul Shigley

Bill Fulton and a panel of economic and development experts to be featured at Tucson Growth; Decision at the Crossroads – An open community forum for Southern Arizonans; Friday, March 14, 2008 – University of Arizona

If you live in the Bay Area, where everybody thinks they are the coolest people on earth, or in Los Angeles, the world's biggest experiment in infill development, it's hard to swallow the idea that Sacramento may be ahead of us on planning. But it's true. Unlikely as it may the seem, Sacramento Area Council of Governments – the six-county regional planning agency commonly known as SACOG – has actually made the idea of higher-density projects conforming to the regional plan seem cool, even to suburban politicians. SACOG approved the "Sacramento Region Blueprint" a little more than three years ago. Like a lot of other "regional visions" in the last few years – most notably Envision Utah the Blueprint lays out a more compact version of the region's future growth than would otherwise be the case. Such regional visions aren't hard to create, but they're almost impossible to implement. That's because the local elected officials have to go back home and actually make decisions to increase densities and move development around in a way that the locals – constituents and developers – might not like. Under the leadership of Executive Director Mike McKeever, a veteran of the growth wars in Portland, SACOG has managed to maintain the pressure. One trick has been to get local electeds excited about the cachet of a "Blueprint project" that earns SACOG's seal of approval. But another trick – maybe the most powerful one – is simply to be realistic. McKeever has been smart enough to recognize – and repeatedly articulate – that you can't accommodate all future growth with mid-rise mixed-use buildings in Midtown Sacramento. Sometimes to the consternation of local environmentalists, McKeever has strongly supported certain greenfield developments – especially those in what McKeever calls "infill greenfield" locations. Exhibit A here is the Placer Vineyards project near Roseville. Environmentalists don't like the idea of more greenfield projects chewing up raw land in Placer County, north of Sacramento. In fact, it's the subject of a lot of lawsuits . But in McKeever's view – and according to the Blueprint – good development there is far preferable to lower-density development both there and farther out in Sutter, Yuba, and northern Placer counties. Placer Vineyards may or may not turn out to be a good project. There are two possibilities floating around, one more smart growth than the other, and it's not clear which one will be passed. If the lousy one passes in the end, it's pretty much just more of Roseville. But I guess it's better to have more of Roseville in Roseville, than in Wheatland or Nicolaus. A good regional plan, good public relations – and a little bit of realism. Maybe that's how land use patterns in California get changed for the better. - Bill Fulton

Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" would really be a bridge to sprawl - and that's why it'll be a crucial issue in the upcoming Senate re-election campaign of 84-year-old Ted Stevens. Last week, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich , a 45-year-old Democrat, created an exploratory committee to run against the powerful six-term incumbent. Stevens is damaged by a passel of ethics problems , but he's also dogged by the fact that his "earmark" for the Knik Arm Bridge in Anchorage has become the poster child for Republican pork. But there's more to the "bridge to nowhere" than pork. Whether or not the bridge is built is likely to fundamentally shape future growth patterns in Anchorage - as Begich well knows. Anchorage is located on a peninsula in the midst a dramatically beautiful natural setting not unlike San Francisco or Seattle. Downtown Anchorage has skyscrapers from the '70s oil boom, as well as a connection to the Alaska Railroad often used by tourists. The rest of the city isn't much to look at. It's landlocked by a military installation and a national forest, and the city is running out of land. (Many residents commute an hour across the national forest from low-density suburbs that are technically still part of the combined city-county government.) The Anchorage 2020 Plan , championed by Begich, says all the right things about smart growth. The Knik Arm Bridge would stretch from downtown Anchorage across the "Knik Arm" - a body of water that's part of the Cook Inlet - to the undeveloped Matanuska/Susitna Valley. Almost four years ago, I sat in Begich's office high above downtown Anchorage and listened to him explain why the Knik Arm Bridge wasn't necessary. I was there as part of a visiting team of experts sent by the Smart Growth Leadership Institute , under a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, providing advice to the city about how to implement Anchorage 2020. The city needed to turn its lack of land into an advantage, Begich said. He wanted to build housing on top of city-owned parking garages downtown. He was proud of the fact that Artspace was building artists' housing overlooking the water. He wanted to strengthen the Alaska Railroad connection between downtown and airport. Begich, the first mayor of Anchorage born in the city, clearly understood what the bridge would do. If it was built, Anchorage would only become more suburban. If it wasn't built, Anchorage might become a mini-Seattle. Given the fact that Anchorage's Municipal Assembly was mostly Republican and much more conservative than Begich, I wasn't about to suggest in our report that the bridge not be built. So instead, what we said was that Anchorage 2020 needed to be implemented no matter what. Even if Stevens came through with the pork, the bridge wouldn't be built until 2015, maybe even 2020. The next year, the pork patrol came after Stevens and the Democrats regained control of the Senate. It'll be interesting to see what kind of hay Begich makes out of Stevens' pork - and whether Begich as a senator might nudge Anchorage even more quickly toward a smart growth future. - Bill Fulton

Although the state's mounting budget deficit is expected to predominate in Sacramento for many months, 2008 could be a blockbuster year for land use legislation. Scores of bills related to planning, the California Environmental Quality Act, redevelopment, housing, the Subdivision Map Act, and other land use matters have been introduced during the first two months of the year or remain leftover from 2007. All eyes are focused on SB 375, Sen. Darrell Steinberg's bill from last year that seeks to tie together regional planning, transportation funding, and greenhouse gas reduction. Negotiations over the bill have been ongoing for months, and the legislation remains at the top of the list for environmental groups and builders, but for very different reasons. Redevelopment has the potential to be the second most lively land use topic. The oldest redevelopment projects (those from 1969 and before) must halt redevelopment activities by the end of this year, unless agencies can make updated blight findings. However, there is a movement to eliminate the updated blight requirement, essentially giving another 10 years of life to all redevelopment project areas. On the CEQA front, lawmakers have introduced a few bills that seek to streamline the environmental review process, especially for infill projects. At the same time, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) is carrying a bill that would tighten some CEQA provisions. The housing market slowdown has halted construction everywhere. Thus, there are at least two bills that would extend the life of all tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. The automatic extensions are a major priority for builders. But SB 375 remains the hot bill. It's a complicated piece of legislation that would require each metropolitan planning organization to adopt a preferred growth scenario with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that infill, mixed-use and transit-oriented development would be favored over subdivisions on the metropolitan edge. Cities and counties that conform their land use decisions to the preferred growth scenario would be eligible for transportation funding and a modest amount of CEQA streamlining. Cities and counties that buck the preferred scenario would be on their own for transportation funding (see CP&DR Insight , September 2007 ). The bill is likely to evolve in coming months, but the basic emphasis on regional planning, infill development and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely to change. It is worth noting that Steinberg, a Democrat from Sacramento, has been chosen to succeed Sen. Don Perata (D-Oakland) as the Senate president pro-tem, a move that can only boost Steinberg's influence over legislation. "It's the big banana right now," Sande George, chief lobbyist for the California Chapter, American Planning Association, said of SB 375. "We've agreed to work with the authors and the sponsors on how this might work." In fact, the CCAPA is so focused on SB 375 that it is not sponsoring any legislation of its own during 2008, she said. George declined to detail the CCAPA's concerns with the bill because of ongoing negotiations, but local government organizations have not hesitated to complain about the legislation's potential to reduce local land use discretion in favor of a regional approach. Still, the discussion remains mostly cordial. In a late February legislative bulletin, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) said the concept of AB 375 is consistent with CSAC policy emphasizing regional approaches to climate change, blueprint planning and preservation of resource and agricultural lands. Still, the organization listed concerns, including the need to coordinate SB 375's preferred growth areas with regional fair-share housing mandates, the ability to use habitat conservation plans to meet SB 375's obligation for determining protected resource lands, and incentives for rural areas that provide resource and agricultural land. Richard Lyon, a lobbyist for the California Building Industry Association, said that builders could endorse Steinberg's linking of the regional transportation planning process with land use planning, and SB 375's attempt to put some teeth in regional blueprints that have become popular in recent years. However, Lyon said, the bill has a number of drawbacks. For one, the bill lays out a broad definition of protected resources lands without any deference to local decision-makers, Lyon complained, echoing one of CSAC's concerns. In addition, the bill calls for development to advance outward in concentric circles, which Lyon called "a recipe for litigation." In addition, SB 375 or other legislation needs to contain broader CEQA reform, he said. "That's the key," Lyon said of CEQA reform. "You can do these blueprints all you want, but if you can't build the projects, you don't get the carbon benefits." Tina Andolina, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League, conceded that SB 375 is a work in progress, but one that environmental groups strongly endorse. "It's a tough nut to crack — to reform land use planning to reduce the miles people drive their cars," she said. "This is a first good step." The Steinberg bill is not the only measure that seeks to use land use policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One other measure (AB 2093, Jones) would require that all mandatory elements of the general plan except the noise element contain policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The subject of redevelopment is a touchy one these days, in part because of two statewide initiatives on the ballot in June. One would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development, while the other would only prohibit government from taking owner-occupied houses for economic development purposes (see CP&DR In Brief , February 2008 ). Because of those campaigns, it is possible that redevelopment advocates may not make potentially controversial legislative moves until after June 3. Still, several sources report there is interest in amending SB 211, a measure passed in 2001. That law permits redevelopment agencies to extend their life spans by 10 years, but only if an agency adopts updated blight findings, is in a city or county with a certified housing element, is up to date on its housing set-aside spending, and has had no major audit violations for three years. There is reportedly interest in eliminating at least some of SB 211's restrictions, chiefly the blight requirement. A number of redevelopment "spot bills" were introduced during late February, and any one of those bills could provide the amendment to existing law. The change is likely to draw stiff opposition from some counties and redevelopment opponents, as well as budget hawks who complain redevelopment costs the state money in the form of backfills to school districts that lose property tax revenue to redevelopment agencies. Also in spot bill form are several CEQA measures that are likely to attempt CEQA streamlining or otherwise diminish environmental review of certain types of projects. Such bills are introduced nearly every year but seldom gain much traction. This year could be different because of the desire to boost infill and transit-oriented development as a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Kuehl's bill (SB 1165) is headed the other direction. The bill would require that when a project relies on an EIR that is more than five years old, the EIR would have to be recirculated for comments, which could re-open the entire environmental review process. The bill also would ensure the public has as much access to an "administrative" or "preliminary" environmental impact report as a project proponent, and calls on superior courts with designated CEQA judges to ensure those judges actually get CEQA cases. The Planning and Conservation League is sponsoring the bill. Kuehl will be termed out of the Legislature this year and is expected to make a major push for this bill and several others. The CBIA is sponsoring SB 1185 (Lowenthal), which would extend the expiration date of subdivision maps by 24 months. Another bill, (AB 1777, Houston) proposes the same thing. The association contends that providing more time for builders to complete subdivisions will help the industry recover from the slowdown. Lawmakers approved a similar 24-month subdivision map extension during the housing slump of the early 1990s. Another CBIA bill (SB 303, Ducheny) that would require cities and counties to identify 10-year land supplies for housing and update each element of the general plan every 10 years remains alive. Planners, local governments and environmentalists are aligned against the bill, which struck a wall of Democratic opposition in the Assembly last year. Proposed Land Use Legislation For 2008 CEQA • AB 2230 (LaMalfa). Revises exemptions for the payment of CEQA filing fees to fund Department of Fish and Game reviews. • SB 1165 (Kuehl). Requires recirculation of any EIR that is more than five years old when a project relies on the EIR, and increases public access to preliminary draft EIRs. • SB 1210 (Dutton). Republican spot bill on infill exemptions from CEQA. Fees and revenues • AB 239 (DeSaulnier). Permits Contra Costa and San Mateo counties to increase real estate document recording fees to fund affordable housing development. • AB 938 (Calderon). Creates a stormwater management process whose programs could be funded by user fees. Builders support this approach to paying for stormwater management. • AB 1221 (Ma). Permits local officials to dedicate property tax increment to retire bonds for infrastructure within transit village development districts. • AB 1574 (Houston). Limits the imposition of real estate transfer fees. • AB 1836 (Feuer). Authorizes city councils and boards of supervisors to create infrastructure finance districts (IFD) that can issue bonds and divert tax increment to retire the debt. Currently, IFD creation requires voter approval. • AB 2218 (Gaines). Modifies procedures for Proposition 218 fee elections. • SCA 12 (Torlakson). Exempts stormwater and urban runoff management fees from Proposition 218 vote requirements. • SB 974 (Lowenthal). Imposes a fee on cargo containers going through ports in Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland to fund infrastructure and mitigate air pollution. Extremely controversial bill. Housing • AB 1129 (Arambula). Creates the San Joaquin Valley Regional Affordable Housing Trust. • AB 2000 (Mendoza). Allows a city or county that exceeds production of its fair-share housing allocation to count the excess against subsequent fair-share requirements. • AB 2069 (Jones). A spot bill that seeks to tighten existing restrictions on reducing permitted densities of residentially zoned land. • SB 668 (Torlakson). Exempts housing built on school property from seismic safety standards that apply to schools, and declares that the Department of General Services is not required to review the housing plans. • SB 900 (Corbett). Repeals a Subdivision Map Act provision exempting from local government approval the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership. • SB 1065 (Correa). Allows cities and counties to acquire loans for the purpose of refinancing mortgages on owner-occupied homes, and to acquire reverse mortgages made to seniors. • SB 1299 (Migden). Permits local governments to require that demolished rent-controlled units be replaced on the same parcel or elsewhere. Infrastructure • AB 842 (Jones). Awards Proposition 1C funds for transit-oriented development to entities with local or regional plans that reduce vehicle miles traveled by 10%. • AB 1756 (Caballero). Establishes the Office of Local Public-Private Partnerships within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. • AB 1815 (Feuer). Creates the temporary Transportation Infrastructure Funding Task Force to explore options for taxing road users other than the gasoline tax. • AB 1850 (Devore). Creates the Office of Public-Private Partnerships within the governor's office. • AB 1968 (Jeffries). Authorizes the governor to declare a transportation infrastructure emergency on certain highway segments for the purpose of letting Caltrans expedite construction of new highways and additional lanes. • AB 2005 (Jeffries). Authorizes the transfer of state parks to local government. • SB 61 (Runner). Expands authority for regional transportation agencies and Caltrans to build and operate high-occupancy toll lanes and tolls roads. Local and regional planning • AB 724 (Benoit). Increases local government's authority to regulate the siting and operation of "sober living homes." • AB 1777 (Houston) and SB 1185 (Lowenthal). Extend the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. • AB 2093 (Jones). Requires general plans to contain policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • AB 2182 (Caballero). Establishes a sustainability communities program within the Office of Planning and Research for the purpose of allocating $90 million in planning grants and incentives contained in Proposition 84. • AB 2219 (Parra). Modifies the proof of water requirement for large subdivisions by permitting a city or county to count water demand management measures against a subdivision's water need. • SB 303 (Ducheny). Requires cities and counties to designate land for 10 years worth of housing development, and to update every general plan element at least once every 10 years. • SB 375 (Steinberg). Regional planning and greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill. • SB 732 (Steinberg). Creates the Sustainable Communities Council consisting of three cabinet members and two public appointees, and allocates $90 million from Proposition 84 for general plans that encourage water conservation, discourage automobile use, promote infill, protect natural resources and farmland, and are compatible with regional growth blueprints. • SB 821 (Kuehl). Requires the California Research Bureau to report on implementation of a 2001 law that requires cities and counties to condition approval of subdivisions of more than 500 lots on water availability. Redevelopment • AB 1088 (Carter). Ensures that an exemption from statutory timelines remains in place for redevelopment projects at the former Norton and George Air Force bases in San Bernardino County. • AB 1941 (Carter). Authorizes a city, county, housing authority or redevelopment agency to convey surplus land to a developer for any use consistent with a redevelopment plan and a general plan. Currently, surplus land conveyances may be made only for affordable housing projects. • AB 2097 (Coto). Allows use of housing set-aside funds for homeless shelters and supportive housing. • AB 2509 (Galgiani). Establishes a $50 million homeownership preservation mortgage guarantee fund in the state treasury, and authorizes redevelopment agencies to guarantee home loans. • SB 1103 (Cedillo). Requires a city, county or redevelopment agency to disclose specific information before approving an economic development incentive, and to report on the incentives at certain intervals.