The California Air Resources Board has released very cursory greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets for the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations. Although draft greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions targets under SB 375 are due June 30, detailed targets will not be proposed until August. The targets, scheduled for final adoption in September, are intended to guide sustainable communities strategies that the MPOs must adopt during coming years.  The air board staff lumped the 18 MPOs into three groups: the four big urban MPOs (Southern California Association of Government, San Diego Association of Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Sacramento Area Council of Governments), the eight MPOs that each cover one county in the San Joaquin Valley, and the remaining six. Under the plan outlined at the June 24 Air Resources Board meeting, the big four MPOs must reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks by 5% to 10% per capita by 2020.  Every other target at this point amounts to a "placeholder" until further study and public outreach is completed. The placeholders are based largely on what MPOs say they will be able to achieve. So, for example, the placeholder reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for the San Joaquin Valley MPOs are 1% to 7%.  The targets are intended to account for GHG reductions solely from land use planning and transportation system improvements, and do not account for GHG reductions from low-carbon fuels, according to Lezlie Kimura, of the air board staff. Seven public workshops on SB 375 target-setting is scheduled for July at seven different locations.

Judged by the result, the Supreme Court's June 17 decision in  Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection  looks like a model of judicial restraint. The court unanimously rejected a claim by landowners on Florida's northern Gulf Coast that they had suffered an unconstitutional taking of property after beach restoration by local governments turned their oceanfront homes into ocean-view lots separated from the water by 75 feet of new sand. Looked at more closely, however, the court's decision discloses an activist impulse by the Roberts Court's committed conservatives. In a plurality opinion, four justices fell one vote short of a majority to give federal courts new power to superintend state court rulings on land use law. The ruling they sought could have led to a vast increase in property rights litigation, giving property owners new leverage to block government-backed development and improvements aimed at benefiting the broad public. The decision came as liberal groups are stepping up their accusations that under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court has been guilty of pro-business judicial activism. "The Roberts Court consistently pursues a political agenda that favors powerful corporate interests," according to a report by the Alliance for Justice, "and recent Supreme Court decisions show certain Justices' striking willingness to engage in judicial activism to fulfill their ideological goals." Exhibit No. 1 in the group's indictment is the 5-4 Citizens United decision in January, which freed corporations (and unions) to spend unlimited sums from their own treasuries on political campaigns. But the report pointed to a dozen other cases in which the court purportedly "overreached" by deciding questions unnecessarily, crafting new legal standards "out of thin air," or overriding factual determinations by lower courts. As another example, the group cited the 2009 decision, Gross v. FBL Services , that went beyond the narrow question presented to shift the burden of proof from employers to plaintiffs in one type of federal age- discrimination case. As the report notes, the logic of the decision could also apply to the broad range of job- discrimination suits (race, sex, and so forth) brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The conservative Heritage Foundation rushed out with a report depicting the liberals' accusation as "mythology." The attack, senior fellows Robert Alt and Hans von Spakovsky argue in a legal memorandum , is an effort to distract court watchers from the true record of judicial activism by liberal judges. The court's handling of the Florida property rights case gives the warring ideological groups one more decision to debate. The case stemmed from the plan by the Gulf Coast town of Destin and its county government in 2003 to restore about seven miles of hurricane-eroded beach. Some beachfront property owners objected. Why? Because under well-established law, the restored beach would be public land, not private property. Having paid a pretty penny for an oceanfront lot with no beachgoing public between them and the water, the owners concluded that the government was taking their property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. They also claimed the benefit of Florida's 1961 Beach and Shore Preservation Act, which generally provides that beachfront owners, post-restoration, are still entitled to almost all of their pre-existing property rights. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the owners' claim, saying the owners had lost no protected property right. The owners took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they argued the novel theory that the state court's decision on this somewhat close legal question amounted to a taking because it purportedly changed existing state law. The Supreme Court agreed to review the decision. During arguments in December, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared satisfied that the Florida Supreme Court had a sound basis for its decision. And that is what they said in the eventual  ruling . All eight justices (Justice John Paul Stevens, a Florida land owner, recused himself) agreed that the state court was not guilty of taking the owners' property. Before reaching that conclusion, however, Justice Antonin Scalia led a four-justice bloc that also included Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. in saying that, yes, a court ruling changing an "established" property right could amount to a taking just as much as action by a legislative or executive body. The four other justices — Anthony M. Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor in one opinion, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in another — said it was unnecessary to decide the issue. In his opinion, Kennedy warned that the plurality opinion could transform virtually any state court property rights dispute into a "takings" claim. Any losing party, he suggested, could argue that the state court had "changed" established law to its detriment. In fact, within hours Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute Shapiro was hailing the four-vote opinion. "State courts are now on notice that they violate long-hailed property rights at their peril," Shapiro wrote. Four votes, of course, do not make a majority on the Supreme Court. A full court almost certainly would have rejected Scalia's position since Stevens has not embraced property rights claims in past cases. So Scalia's opinion adopting the idea of "judicial takings" represents an extended dictum of no real legal effect, unnecessary to the decision but an activist gift to property rights advocates in future cases. Kennth Jost is a  CP&DR  contributing editor and associate editor of  CQ Researcher . This piece also appears on his blog  Jost on Justice .

Pitting affordable housing advocates against local government officials, planners, and builders, a housing element bill has seemingly risen from the dead to become one of the hottest land use bills in Sacramento. Assembly Bill 602 would provide an unlimited time period during which someone could sue over a jurisdiction's housing element, which is intended to demonstrate how a city or county will provide its fair share of housing at various cost levels. According to the affordable housing advocates supporting the legislation, a 2008 Court of Appeal decision placed a 90-day statute of limitations on legal challenges to housing elements. The bill would permit lawsuits at any point during the housing element planning period. Two years ago, the First District Court of Appeal permitted advocates' lawsuit over the City of Pleasanton's housing element to proceed, but the court also ruled that suits must normally be filed within 90 days of housing element adoption (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2008 ). Richard Marcantonio, who represented the advocacy group Urban Habitat Program in the Pleasanton litigation, said AB 602 would restore "what everybody thought the law was before the Court of Appeal in the Pleasanton case rewrote the law." In the final weeks of last year's legislative activity, Assembly Democrats gutted and amended AB 602 – which had concerned insurance matters, – to address the housing element statute of limitation. The measure stalled in part because local government representatives and housing advocates could not negotiate an agreement. With assistance from Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) resurrected AB 602 on June 21, and the bill is set for a hearing in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on June 29. Most local government land use decisions come with short statutes of limitations. You have 30 days to sue over an environmental impact report, for example. The short time frame for filing lawsuits helps provide certainty on land use policy. Housing advocates say the housing elements should be an exception for several reasons: Because of the way planning cycles work, scores of housing element updates may get adopted within a matter of days. Advocacy groups say they can't keep track of all of the housing elements as they go through the process. The advocates also say that housing elements can have unique regional impacts, and, they note, the system is built on citizen enforcement. Finally, they say, the threat of litigation sometimes is necessary to get a local government to take affordable housing issues seriously. "Local jurisdictions are already skating by because there is not enough enforcement of affordable housing laws," Marcantonio charged. Naturally, cities and counties object to a bill that could extend their legal exposure, especially on the politically sensitive topic of affordable housing development. But even cities that are good actors on affordable housing and that have adopted thoughtful housing elements oppose AB 602. There is a feeling that housing advocates are over-reaching. Remember, the advocates won the 2008 procedural ruling in the Pleasanton case, and, with legal assistance from the attorney general's office, they won a Superior Court ruling on the merits earlier this year. As of right now, the City of Pleasanton cannot issue a building permit until it adopts a housing element acceptable to the court. What more do the housing crusaders want?  Bill Higgins, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, noted that the requirements for housing elements have expanded during recent years. Housing elements now must address farmworker housing and emergency shelters, for example. Inventories of land available for housing development must be far more detailed than they used to be. "The universe of what you can argue is wrong with a housing element has grown a great deal," Higgins said. Environmental groups live with the California Environmental Quality Act's short statutes of limitations, and there are thousands of CEQA decision taken every year. Plenty of those actions – in regards to public works projects, commercial power centers and large subdivisions – have regional impacts. So what makes housing elements special? "The housing element occupies a unique place in California law," Marcantonio responded. "It occupies a unique place in local government law because a local government's ability to control its land use is subject to its ability to provide affordable housing." The housing element statute says that provision of housing is a matter of statewide importance and urgency. That's unusual language, he said. Under SB 375, the importance of housing elements only increases. Housing elements are essential for implementing sustainable communities strategies that are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. But if housing elements are open to litigation at any time, local governments and builders argue they will lack the certainty they need to make progress on development that is less automobile dependent.  The two sides have already resumed negotiations that broke off last year. But it's very important to remember that those talks are occurring in the shadow of a November ballot initiative that would suspend AB 32, and during a gubernatorial campaign in which greenhouse gas emissions regulation may be a central issue. Passing a bill so closely linked to lawyers, centralized planning and climate change may not be in the Democrats' best campaign interests for 2010. –  Paul Shigley

In upholding the City of Lemoore's development impact fees for a wide range of municipal facilities, an appellate court has rejected a homebuilders association argument that such fees must be based on a specific list of public facilities. The Homebuilders Association of Tulare/Kings Counties challenged a series of housing development impact fees adopted in 2006 and 2007 by the San Joaquin Valley city of Lemoore for community/recreation, park land, police, municipal facilities, fire protection, and refuse vehicles and containers. The case addressed several key practice questions regarding impact fees, including 1) whether the fees must be earmarked for specific facilities, and 2) to what extent the Quimby Act – which governs impact fees for parkland acquisition – is pre-emptive.The lawsuit also challenged the city's fee accounting practices. The Kings County Superior Court ruled for the city on nearly all claims. After the builders association appealed, a three-judge panel of the Fifth District Court of Appeal echoed the Superior Court's ruling and generally upheld the city's fees, with the exception of a fire impact fee on the east side of town. The appellate court first addressed the burden of proof. The court noted that while the public agency bears the initial burden of justifying its fees, the burden of proof ultimately falls on the fee challenger. The first issue of substance was that of the community/recreation fee. The city used an approach by which it valued the existing facilities and divided that total amount by the city's population to create a cost per resident. The city decided that new growth had to maintain the existing value of recreational facilities per resident. This is a fee calculating methodology referred to as "standard-based," rather than the more typical "facility-based" approach that uses a list of future facility needs. Lemoore's plan generally described the types of facilities that could be constructed, but the city did not commit to specific facilities. The builders association argued the city had to identify specific facilities that the fees would fund. However, the appellate court concurred in the city's approach, noting that the Mitigation Fee Act gives local agencies discretion when identifying the facilities to be developed. The builders association also argued that fees for recreation facilities were pre-empted by the Quimby Act. However, the court viewed the purposes of the Quimby Act as preserving recreational opportunities for new subdivisions. In this instance, Lemoore's impact fees were designed to fund unique facilities of broader benefit, and, therefore, were not pre-empted by the Quimby Act, the court ruled. Like the community/recreation fee, the parkland impact fee also applied, in part, to non-subdivision development. Again, the appellate court rejected the Quimby Act pre-emption argument, as well as the argument that a standard-based fee calculation was improper. The builders further argued that the city's 5-acres-of-parks-per-1000 residents standard (which is allowed by the Quimby Act), was inconsistent with the 3-acres-per-1000 residents standard set forth in the city's general plan. In an analysis that is not entirely clear, the appellate court agreed with the city that the 5-acre standard was not inconsistent with the general plan. The builders' objection to the public safety fee and municipal facilities fee posed another challenge to the use of a standards-based calculation that the city employed to ensure no dilution of existing service levels. Again, the appellate court held that the city's fee report provided ample supportive documentation to justify the charges. Where the appellate court agreed with the building association was with respect to the city's east side fire fee. The east side of the city is largely developed and is fully served by existing facilities. The revenue from the fee was to be used to pay back the city for facilities already constructed by the city to serve the east side. On this issue, the appellate court held the impact fees to be invalid because they were enacted for general revenue purposes. At the same time, the court upheld the west side fire fee because it would fund facilities that would directly serve the new development. That fee assumed the city would eventually annex substantial acreage (an assumption which effectively lowered the per unit fee). The court concluded that a sufficient basis existed to support the west side fee, even without annexation. The final category of fees challenged were fees for solid waste vehicles and equipment, which opponents argued were not capital assets and therefore not eligible to be funded by impact fees. Although the depreciation rate for these assets is much more rapid then other types of facilities, this equipment still qualified as capital facilities that could be funded by impact fees, the court ruled. The petitioner's final challenge was to the city's accounting practices. The court viewed this argument as a recast of the debate over standards-based versus facility-based fees. As the city was entitled to use broad facility descriptions when enacting the fees, a similar approach was sufficient when accounting for the fees, the court ruled. Presiding Justice James Ardaiz concurred in the ruling but expressed concern over the city's purported connection between facilities that serve the broader community, such as a military museum, to specific instances of new growth. "In my view, absent some showing of a more direct and specific relationship between the municipal improvement and the proposed development, such fees are seriously subject to question," Ardaiz wrote. The Case: Homebuilders Association of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore, No. F057671, 2010 DJ DAR 8671. Filed June 9, 2010. The Lawyers: For the homebuilders: Walter McNeill, (530) 222-8992. For the city: Daniel Jamison, Dowling, Aaron & Keeler, (559) 432-4500. (William W. Abbott is a partner in the law firm of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP: California Land Use & Real Estate Lawyers.)

Some people are, lamentably, forced to live in substandard housing. They languish in stark Modernist buildings that are often segregated from the proverbial hustle and bustle of the city. They enjoy no amenities and they have a hard time making a living, even with public assistance, so they ask for more public assistance to give them the environment they need to prosper.  That's a tired old narrative that has undergirded the construction of a new venue for almost every major league team in the country, from the Baltimore Orioles, who moved into Camden Yards in 1992, to the Pittsburgh Penguins, who will abandon the magisterial Igloo in favor of a truly hideous block come September. Just this past year, the Mets and Yankees got new homes built right next to their old homes, and the Jets and Giants will trade Giants Stadium -- a hulking galleon in a sea of parking lots (which are, in turn, surrounded by an ocean of swampland) -- for a fancier, more expensive craft that will ply the very same asphalt.  Here in California, now it now looks like Santa Clara will welcome the San Francisco 49ers to a venue that will, no doubt, be an improvement over the breezy Candlestick Park.  With the 49ers fate settled for the moment, let's turn to the longest-running saga in California sports -- a saga that so far has all but ignored principles of sound planning. The fantasy of getting a team in Los Angeles -- an expansion team? the Chargers? the Jaguars? the Trojans? (oops...that's a pro team that already calls L.A. home) -- has kept developers on their toes and architectural draftspeople in business over the past 15 years.  By my count, a good half-dozen schemes have cropped up to conjure up a suitable stadium in L.A. The one that's gotten its picture in the local blogs more often than any other is Majestic Realty's proposal for a retail-entertainment complex in the City of Industry, a rough noncity 20 miles east of downtown. Whether football fans will want to go someplace that is, essentially, a mall remains to be seen. But the EIR for the Los Angeles Football Stadium was certified two years ago, and last year Gov. Schwarzenegger unceremoniously threw out CEQA so that construction could proceed "as soon as an NFL team commits to move to Los Angeles."  Perhaps no one takes the Industry stadium very seriously, but I've been surprised that a project that contradicts every tenet of current urbanist thought has received relatively little criticism.  We've heard enough other ideas that, if built, would support an entire league in Los Angeles. One developer wanted to stick a stadium in a quarry in Irwindale, and others have wanted to bulldoze half the South Park neighborhood south of downtown L.A. Before he got preoccupied with his divorce, Dodger owner Frank McCourt toyed with the idea of building a friend for Dodger Stadium up in Chavez Ravine. Officials in Pasadena have talked about offering up the Rose Bowl, but that will happen over the dead, pearl-bedecked bodies of Pasadena's matrons.  Lost in this tour of L.A.'s less glamorous side is the Venue that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.  As far as it goes, the Coliseum is a planner's dream: It's centrally located, near the intersection of two immense freeways and nearly in walking distance of downtown. It's co-located with major civic institutions, including the Museum of Science and Industry and USC. It already has a built-in tenant, which means that it would get used twice as much as the average NFL stadium and the area is already equipped to handle traffic and crowds. If Los Angeles has a center, Exposition Park is probably as close as it gets. And it's historic how many other extant stadiums have hosted two Olympic Games? Zero.  Moreover, in the decade-and-a-half that Los Angeles has been pining for a new football team, the Coliseum has, in spite of itself, become transit-oriented. Within two years, the Expo light rail line will stop a short punt away.  It makes too much sense.  The Coliseum has just one little problem. Well, three. They're called the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California. The L os Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission , a joint powers authority, consists of every level of government short of the United Nations (not that the state probably wouldn't like to sell its 1/3 -- that's 30,000 seats at fire-sale prices!). It ensures that the stadium doesn't cost the public sector anything, and it quite notoriously ensures that not a lot happens there in Exposition Park.  What Santa Clara did right -- or, at least, better than some other cities -- is drive a hard bargain. Opponents of Measure J claimed that the 49ers stadium could cost the city several hundred billion dollars, but its supporters, and over 60 percent of voters, seem to agree that its use of redevelopment funds and new hotel taxes means that it won't be a ripoff for the city. That would be a change from the countless white elephants that cities have built so that pro teams could make millions off stadiums disingenuously billed as civic amenities.  In Los Angeles, public sentiment has pushed would-be team owners a step further, by essentially making it clear that they won't stand for any public subsidy of a new stadium. On the one hand, this frugality fits with the Coliseum Commission's mission. On the other hand, it means that in order to make use of the county's single best venue, a team would have to invest a ton of money into a stadium over which it would have little control.  I don't blame any potential owner for being scared stiff about negotiating with the Coliseum's owners; it would be the mother of all public-private partnerships. It makes digging a hole in Industry (or filling one in Irwindale) look simple by comparison. Yet again, bureaucratic complexity leads developers to favor greenfield development on the fringes over infill in the heart of the city.  Unfortunately, urban planners don't get much of a vote in this issue because the bureaucracy is just too thick. And they probably don't have $500 million or so to renovate the Coliseum. But backers of an NFL team in both the public and private sector would be well advised to give the Coliseum another look, because it embodies almost every principle of progressive planning that you could imagine. And if it was done right -- with the private sector picking up the tab for lavishness -- maybe the public sector could afford new homes for people who really need them.

Redevelopment agencies in California are often asked to carry a heavy load: fighting blight, promoting economic development, transforming brownfields, and creating communities. Now add to that list the modest task of combating global climate change � at the very moment when they have fewer funds than they have had in decades. Senate Bill 375 seeks to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions through the coordination of land use and transportation planning. But the state's most recent $2 billion raid on redevelopment funds is merely the latest shift of funds away from redevelopment agencies, many of which were already coping with lean budgets. "Planning and redoing land uses is certainly an important piece of reaching 375," said Greg Devereaux, county administrative officer of San Bernardino. "But in many markets the type of development�smart growth development, denser development�needs assistance to make it work in the market." Devereaux was formerly Ontario's city manager and a member of the SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee.            Much of that assistance would, under normal economic circumstances, likely come in the form of redevelopment monies � agencies that are almost always focused on exactly the kind of high-density, mixed-use, infill development required to meet SB 375's goals. "I think that redevelopment is probably going to be the most important tool to implementing SB 375," said Andy Agle, Santa Monica Director of Housing and Economic Development. "Their core mission is about compact infill development in already developed areas.  The agencies have already done so much to push that type of smart development." "Southern California�has some of the most severe pollution problems and the highest traffic congestion problems in the county," said Don Spivack, Deputy Chief of Operations and Policy at the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, which has project areas surrounding existing and planned rail stations throughout the city. "Hand-in-hand with the expansion of the metro system is making communities walkable�that helps to reduce greenhouse gases." However, this year, in the wake of a $2.05 billion transfer of funds from the state's redevelopment agencies to the Supplemental Educational Augmentation Fund (SERAF), monies to support that kind of development have all but evaporated. "Redevelopment agencies will never have any ability to do long-term planning, make any investments where they can assure that the money is going to be there," said John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association. The current funding take covers only this year and next year, and Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles) recently announced that he does not intend to seek further transfers. "I have no interest in going after redevelopment money as a way to balance our budget this year," Perez announced June 2. That news, however, is not as good as it might seem for redevelopment agencies' long-term prospects. Allowing redevelopment agencies to keep their tax increment in 2012 still does not solve a grave long-term problem for those agencies. Indeed, the very fact that the speaker refers to the choice of whether or not to take redevelopment funds points to an uncertainty that can devastate agencies' planning strategies and their ability to float bonds. "Who's going to bond against an uncertain source?" said Devereaux. Adds Lisa Fall, administrative officer of the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency: "When we were going through the rating process, SERAF was clearly on the minds of the rating agencies." Redevelopment Needed to Implement SB 375 This crisis comes at the very moment when SB 375 is scheduled to go into effect, thus setting up another conflict between the state's efforts to balance its budget � including similar transfers of transit funding � and the implementation of SB 375. Eighteen of the state's metropolitan planning organizations have been working on their Sustainable Communities Strategies, and draft targets of regional GHG emissions are due from the Air Resources Board at the end of this month. Final targets are to be released in September. Though many planners and redevelopment officials express enthusiasm for SB 375's goals and the types of development that the law promotes, they have widely lamented that it comes with virtually no funding assistance. SB 375 will offer a modest array of incentives but, officials say, they pale in comparison with the costs of assembling land, providing affordable housing, and providing infrastructure for infill developments. "(Compared to) the value of the incentives in 375�the cost of steel and parking decks in multifamily development far exceeds any regulatory relief that's provided," said Devereaux. So,without a steady stream of redevelopment funding, those targets may become ever more difficult to reach. "These sorts of TOD, especially ones that are in redevelopment areas, are extremely difficult (to develop) in the first place," added Pahule. "Some projects that we consider mission-critical are not able to move forward." Redevelopment assistance is crucial to SB 375 in large part because redevelopment agencies are already doing the sort of work that SB 375 calls for. They operate in established urban neighborhoods that, though economically depressed, can accommodate higher density development. Redevelopment funds and planning have been at least partially responsible for the residential boom in many of California's downtowns. Gary Gallegos, executive director of the San Diego Association of Governments and RTAC member, said that the creation of San Diego's downtown development area was a "key to the success" of the addition of over 10,000 housing units there. "Most redevelopment areas are in the center cities," said Gallegos. "In most of these cases there are very few instruments that one can use to sponsor the proper kind of change, whether from a planning point of view or a design/construction point of view." Moreover, many of the state's redevelopment project areas encompass mass-transit systems, which continue to expand in part because they have funding for capital projects that was set aside before the economic crisis or that was approved in part as an economic stimulus. In the absence of redevelopment funds, many existing and planned rail lines will deliver passengers to parking lots and busy streets rather than gleaming new transit oriented districts. TOD Projects Now On Hold This dismal possibility is most palpable in the northern part of Los Angeles County's San Gabriel Valley, which is scheduled to welcome the first phase of the Foothill Extension of the Gold Line light rail line by 2015 and the second phase by 2017. Cities including Azusa, Montclair, Monrovia, and the eight others along the 24-mile extension have each laid out plans to take advantage of the line. Now many of those plans are in jeopardy. At the very least, officials say that almost every project in the pipeline will be delayed�and so will the environmental benefits. Azusa's 1,250-unit Rosedale development has been put on indefinite hold. The Monrovia Redevelopment Agency salvaged its 55-acre Station Square mixed-use project, but only by refusing to pay its SERAF payment. In doing so, it faces the "death penalty" of not being allowed to initiate any new projects until the payment is made. "All of our redevelopment funds are tied up in buying properties and assembling land for�Station Square," said Monrovia City Manager Scott Ochoa. If fully built out, Station Square could have as many as 3,500 units within walking distance of the Gold Line. Meanwhile, in Sacramento, Chris Pahule, assistant director for community development at the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, estimates that fully 70 percent of the stations along the region's two light rail lines are encompassed by redevelopment project areas and may not be developed without redevelopment funding assistance. In Santa Monica, redevelopment plans call for infrastructure improvements to enhance stations along the planned Expo Line, which will connect the coastal city with downtown Los Angeles. Agle said that many projects to add bike and pedestrian connections to Expo Line stations are already moving forward but that bigger projects may be stalled. The city's redevelopment agency owns the land where the line will terminate and intends to build a major multimodal facility there�if it has the money. Ballot Measure Would Prohibit Future Transfers The California Redevelopment Association is currently sponsoring a ballot measure that, if passed in November, would prevent further transfers. Supporters of the measure say that it is crucial for regaining long-term stability and for ensuring that SB 375 can hit its long-term targets. Some tense rhetoric underscores the conflict between the state and local agencies. "If we lose the war, really all bets are off," said Agle. "Goodbye to all of these really important projects and, I think, goodbye to having an important tool to implement SB 375." Many transit oriented developments would have to wait indefinitely and thus risking the possibility that SB 375's benchmark years � 2020 and 2035 � will come and go while sustainable plans get supplanted by developments that are less than environmentally friendly. Unlike transit agencies, which can add or reduce service relatively easily, redevelopment deals in more permanent projects.  "If that land gets built on with the wrong kind of development, it's not a matter of just waiting for the resources to be available," said Devereaux. "That land is out of play for 40-50 years." Even though redevelopment agencies are not explicitly charged with mitigating GHGs, redevelopment officials say that they are acutely aware of the role that they can play in implementing SB 375, if and when they secure their coffers. "As we update our policy documents, we've been paying close attention to make sure that we've been consistent with the goals of the legislation," said Sacramento's Pahule. From its inception, SB 375 was not designed to provide funding for implementation or to help cities comply with the plans set forth by the MPOs. The final report of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee notes that SB 375's success depends on a complex web of market- and government-driven forces. It also acknowledges the challenges of promoting smart growth without dedicated state funding. "The current state budget issues have diminished the ability of cities to address these deficiencies by reducing redevelopment funding," states the report, which was published even before the funding take was finalized. "The most recent example of conflicting state policies is the disconnect between an emissions reduction strategy that encourages infill in built out areas and the current state budget that redirects the best source of funding for such development: redevelopment dollars." As redevelopment agencies across the state ponder their fate and scramble to keep projects afloat, the SERAF's harm to not only redevelopment but also the state's much-touted environmental efforts has become an ironic symbol of the tension between the state and local governments. "Certainly the RTAC made that connection," said Devereaux. "The report was available prior to the latest raid and the latest budget. If they weren't aware, shame on them." Contacts: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-2251 Greg Devereaux, County Administrative Officer, County of San Bernardino, (909) 387-5418 Gary Gallegos, Executive Director, San Diego Association of Governments, (619) 699-1900 Lisa Fall, Administrative Officer, Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, (562) 570-6615 Scott Ochoa, City Manager, City of Monrovia, (626) 932-5550 Chris Pahule, Assistant Director of Community Development, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, (916) 444-9210 John Shirey, Executive Director, California Redevelopment Association, (916) 448-8760

A couple of weeks ago, Shelley Poticha, the Obama Administration's point person on smart growth, gave a high-profile talk to a big Urban Land Institute crowd in Los Angeles. Her message, plain and simple, was that it's time for what she called "alignment."  As everybody knows, the federal government spends tons of money on all kinds of things associated with planning and development – highways, public transit, housing of all kinds, air and water quality regulation, economic development projects and on and on and on.  But nobody at the federal level thinks about how the funneling of all that money actually affects communities – which neighborhoods are strengthened, which are not, what the spatial pattern of spending is, whether all these funds are working at cross-purposes. The same is almost always true in states – especially here in California, where the state is now basically requiring locals to pursue smart growth while at the same time taking away funding for both redevelopment and public transit. "We are actually talking about how we align and leverage and focus our monies into communities so that they are used more powerfully," Poticha told the ULI crowd. "So they are more effective and not just dribbled out into a bunch of stuff that doesn't add up to anything in particular." Surely, this is planner Nirvana. For decades, planners have been talking alignment in one form or another, especially here in California.  We all know, for example, that it would be tremendously powerful to line up all state spending in pursuit of particular growth goals – spending transportation money only on projects that support an efficient regional growth strategy, for example – but it's been almost impossible to actually implement this. In Maryland, former Gov. Parris Glendening, the father of smart growth, proved that such alignment can be powerful – though fleeting if not accompanied by permanent institutional change. In California, SB 375 takes a baby step toward aligning regional land use strategies by mandating Regional Transportation Plans. The same is true on the federal level – and the Obama Administration's alignment strategy is the very conscious realization of an alignment policy approach long advocated by Bruce Katz at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program and other smart growth advocates in Washington. But maybe it's worth asking one dangerous question: When you get right down to it, does anybody really want alignment? It's an amusing old axiom to say that the only thing people fear more than a federal government in disarray is a federal government that knows what it's doing.  Logical as alignment may be, it's also scary – threatening everybody's status quo, even the pro-smart growth local officials who ought to benefit from it. And so it might not last long. There are several reasons why alignment has never been politically popular in Sacramento or Washington.  One is the natural inclination of lawmakers to focus on narrow issues one at a time. Even on the overarching issue of climate change and the pathbreaking SB 375, the Legislature has fallen into this trap. AB 32 calls for greenhouse gas emissions reduction across the board. Meanwhile, SB 375 charges the Air Resources Board with overseeing regional land use plans that reduce emissions from cars and light trucks.  And if you're a community that wants to combine your emissions reduction efforts – energy, building, land use – too bad. SB 375 only deals with emissions from cars and light trucks. So if you go 100 percent solar, for instance, but still don't knock a single inch off your VMT, you're saving the world according to AB 32 but you're still in violation of SB 375.  A second is a tendency by even the most innovative bureaucracies to silo themselves and their work. The longer you work in any bureaucracy, the more narrowly you tend to define your job.  The third – perhaps the most powerful – impediment to alignment is that the constituencies and stakeholders that surround an issue tend to take a narrow view as well. Highway folks lobby for highways. Transit folks lobby for transit. Housing folks lobby for money for housing. Air quality folks lobby for stronger air quality regulations. Stormwater folks lobby for stronger stormwater regulations. Sometimes, the environmental advocates understand that money needs to back up regulation. So they might stretch themselves to lobby for housing or transportation money to be spent a certain way in order to help meet environmental goals. But in the end, their desire to care about this is limited. Environmentalists are environmentalists and regulators are regulators.  The bottom line is that they want regulations complied with, and they don't much care who foots the bill. And lobbyists who focus narrowly on state and federal pots of money have even less motivation to think broadly. If you're a lobbyist for highway contractors – or for public transit contractors, for that matter – you're obviously not very interested in cross-cutting efforts that reduce the need for travel. You want more concrete poured, not less. If you're a lobbyist for housing – even affordable housing – you tend to think about money for housing. It takes a very broad-minded person to think about a poor or middle-income person's entire household budget and how public policy can reduce the need for travel as a way to increase money to pay the rent. Or, for that matter, whether people are willing to live in smaller places, which cost less money, if they are closer to work. Then there's local government – which is usually where the alignment takes place. State and federal bureaucrats and their pots of money may be very compartmentalized, but typically local officials get creative. They sort through all those pots of money searching for money they can use to do what they want to do anyway. Want a new park but only have money for stormwater management? Build a big, grassy, water-permeable surface (i.e. a park). The local agenda is not always "aligned," but alignment is more likely to occur at the local level, since local officials deal with real communities and real neighborhoods where they – and their constituents – can see how the pieces fit together. However, as you can imagine, local officials (and remember that I am one myself) kind of like the idea that they are the ones doing the aligning. It's one thing to say that you are cherry-picking state and federal funds to put something together. It's quite another to say that you can't put a project together unless you comply with the state and federal government's idea of how things get aligned, rather than your own. The lesson here is probably to provide some flexibility within the alignment – and then institutionalize the alignment as much as possible before you leave office. Gov. Glendening's reforms in Maryland didn't stick because they weren't completely institutionalized and his successor didn't buy into them. So alignment may or may not work as a long-term planning and development strategy. But we in California would be well advised to figure out what Obama and Shelley Poticha mean by alignment and pitch our projects toward that notion over the next couple of years.

2010 Summer and Fall UCLA Extension Public Policy Courses The UCLA Extension Public Policy Program has now released its listing of courses for Fall Quarter. We encourage you to visit www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy for more information about the courses listed. Online enrollment is available by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing the Reg#. Join Us! Summer 10 • Recent Innovations in Parking Management (V7784) Thursday, June 22 Figueroa Courtyard, Los Angeles, CA Peter Valk, President, Transportation Management Services Don Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA • Sustainability Ethics (V6971) Friday, June 25 Extension Lindbrook Center, Los Angeles (Westwood), CA Helene Smookler, Of Counsel, The Sohagi Law Group, PLC • Property Rights, Takings and Exactions (V7079) Thursday, July 8 Extension Westwood Center, Los Angeles (Westwood), CA Tom Jacobson, AICP, JD, Professor of Environmental Studies and Planning, Sonoma State University. Bill Higgins, JD, is Land Use Project Director for the Institute for Local Self Government. Save the Date: Fall 10 (Enrollment available Wednesday, July 28) • Water Rights and Sustainability (Online) September 20 – December 6 • Renewable Energy Economics and Policy (Online) Septmeber 22 – December 8 • Sustainability Ethics Saturday, September 25 • Local Economic Development, Planning & Policy (Online) September 28 – December 14 • Cultural Resource Protection Under CEQA and Other Legislative Mandates Friday, October 1 • Developing and Integrating Bicycle Plans Thursday, November 4 • Successful CEQA Compliance (2-day) Thursday & Friday, December 9 & 10 Individual, group, and student discounts are available. All courses approved for CM (AICP) or MCLE credit.  Each course includes course materials.  All courses apply to UCLA Extension's Certificate in Global Sustainability.    For complete course information please contact program representative Jason Van Patten at jvanpatt@uclaextension.edu , or call (310) 825-7885.  More information is also available by visiting www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy

The environmental impact report for a proposed human waste composting facility in San Bernardino County has been rejected by the Fourth District Court of Appeal for failure to examine an alternative facility that would be enclosed rather than open-air, as proposed. In addition, the court ruled the county should have completed a water supply assessment for the project. This appellate court's decision explores the meaning of "infeasibility" of alternatives under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as what constitutes a "project" under SB 610 (Water Code, § 10910 et seq.). In this case, the court found that the EIR for the proposed open-air composting facility did not satisfy the informational purposes of an EIR in relation to air quality alternatives and water supply.  Nursery Products LLC, the real party in interest, proposed to develop a composting facility on a 160-acre parcel in the Mojave Desert, outside of Barstow. The facility would have the capacity to handle approximately 400,000 tons of green plant material and "biosolids" from wastewater treatment plants annually. There are two residences within three miles of the Nursery Products site; otherwise, the closest residences are eight miles away in the town of Hinkley. The project was nonetheless challenged on multiple environmental and procedural fronts from by the Center for Biological Diversity and a group called Helphinkley.org at virtually every stage of San Bernardino County's administrative review process. The state Department of Health Services and the Mojave Water Agency also raised questions. Still, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved the project and certified the EIR in February 2007.  The Center for Biological Diversity and Helphinkley.org sued, and the trial court agreed with them on two issues: (1) the EIR failed to adequately analyze an alternative for an enclosed facility that would limit the dissipation of odors and pollutants from the site and further mitigate air quality impacts; and (2) the project required a water supply assessment pursuant to Water Code §§ 10910 through 10915 and CEQA. Nursery Products that decision. The crux of the project opponents' argument relating to air quality was that the County of San Bernardino failed to analyze an alternative that could mitigate the air quality impacts of the proposed open-air composting facility, namely by making it an enclosed facility. The backdrop of petitioners' argument was the EIR's conclusion that "even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, an open-air composting facility would have a significant adverse impact on air quality." Additionally, although the EIR failed to extensively analyze the alternative of an enclosed facility, the EIR acknowledged that an enclosed facility "is estimated to reduce VOC and ammonia emissions by 80%."  In spite of the potential reduction in emissions, the EIR found that the enclosed facility alternative was both economically and technologically infeasible. According to the appellate court, the EIR relied exclusively on a memorandum by Geoffrey Swett, an environmental consultant with Arcadis G&M, for its finding of economic infeasibility. The court ruled the EIR's reliance on the memorandum ill-founded for several reasons: (1) the memorandum discussed only one example – of an enclosed facility in Rancho Cucamonga – but provided no explanation as to why the proposed project would be similar to that example; (2) the Department of Health Services pointed to other examples of enclosed composting facilities that appeared to be working; and (3) the memorandum failed overall to provide facts to support its conclusory assertion that Nursery Products could not get private financing for the more expensive enclosed operation. Quoting Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside, (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 599 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2007 ), Presiding Justice Judith McConnell wrote, "What is required is evidence that additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project." For these reasons, the appellate court ruled that the record did not support the conclusion of economic infeasibility. As to technological infeasibility, the EIR merely contained a statement that there is no electricity at the proposed site and no electric lines within one mile, and, therefore, an enclosed facility would be technologically infeasible. According to the court, this statement did not amount to substantial evidence supporting a finding of technological infeasibility. The court ruled that the EIR should have discussed the cost of bringing electricity to the site, not simply the fact that there was currently no electricity.  On the issue of water supply, the appellate court rejected Nursery Products' argument that, by failing to raise the specific issue of a water supply assessment under SB 610, the petitioners had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The court held that although the petitioners did not cite specific statutes, they adequately raised the issue, and they had asked about water supply and the project's water needs during the county's review process. The court held that they therefore had exhausted their administrative remedies. Addressing the substantive issue of whether a water supply assessment (WSA) was necessary, the appellate court held that the composting facility qualified as a "project" under SB 610, and, therefore, a water supply assessment was required. Under § 10912 of the Water Code, a "project" requiring a WSA includes a "proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park … occupying more than 40 acres of land." The appellate court found that the plain meaning of "processing plant" includes an open-air composting facility because the dictionary definition of "plant" includes "the land, as well as building, machinery and fixtures used in carrying out a trade or industrial business." Thus, the proposed composting facility, despite its rudimentary infrastructure (essentially a pile of waste), constituted a project under SB 610 and a WSA was required. Nursery Products additionally argued that no WSA was necessary because the composting facility would not connect to a public water system. Nursery Products relied upon Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2009 ), in which the court stated that a WSA is required only if a public water system is impacted. The Fourth District in this case disagreed with Gray's interpretation of the statute on the grounds that SB 610 specifically contemplates what occurs if a public water system is not impacted (see Water Code, § 10910(b)). According to the Fourth District, the only inquiry is whether the proposed development constitutes a "project" under §10912. Because the composting facility was a project, SB 610's requirements applied. The Case: Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, No. D056648, 2010 DJDAR 7694. Filed May 25, 2010. The Lawyers: For Center for Biological Diversity: Helen Kang, Golden Gate University Environmental Law & Justice Clinic, (415) 442-6693.  For Nursery Products, LLC: Lisabeth Rothman, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck, (310) 500-4600. Cori Badgley is an attorney with the firm of Abbott & Kinderman, LLP .

The Legislature doesn't get credit for doing many things right these days, but lawmakers appear to be making at least one bipartisan strike for fiscal sanity. In April, I called the Schwarzenegger administration's plan to sell 11 state office buildings in order to raise immediate cash "real estate insanity." I was only piling on to what the Legislative Analyst's Office and state Legislature staff members had concluded: Selling needed state-owned facilities and then leasing them back from private owners was a major money loser in the long term. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimated the governor's plan could cost the state an extra $1.5 billion over 35 years. The move would also reverse a 40-year-old state policy of owning real estate whenever possible. Last week, the Assembly approved AB 2605 by Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate), which would prevent the administration from selling the office buildings without a 50-year cost-benefit analysis and the Legislature's consent. The Assembly vote was 68-0. The bill is now in the state Senate, where it awaits assignment to a committee. It is possible the legislation will get stalled in budget negotiations, as the governor's most recent budget plan for the 2010-11 fiscal year anticipates $600 million from the real estate sales. And we need to keep in mind that some legislative leaders are amenable to short-term fixes to the latest $20 billion state budget deficit. Witness Speaker John Pérez's budget proposal that relies on $9 billion in borrowing.  Still, the overwhelming, bipartisan vote in the Assembly suggests that even lawmakers who want to avoid hard budget decisions are unwilling to accept the governor's plan to trade long-term real estate assets for short-term cash. – Paul Shigley

Few definitive trends emerged in the handful of local land use ballot measures that were decided across the state yesterday. Voters in Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, Pleasanton, Sutter Creek, and Brentwood maintained status quo with votes that either limited development or rejected new land use provisions. Meanwhile, Redlands voted to allow new big-box stores, Eastvale voted to exist as a city, and Santa Clara voted to allow and partially fund a football stadium that, when full, will add the population of a small city to the heart of Silicon Valley.  Read on for complete results, with links to CP&DR's preview coverage: Update: Sutter Creek Voters Approve Mega-Resort Measure N: 657 Yes, 641 No A massive golf resort outside the Amador County town of Sutter Creek was defeated by eight votes in the initial count last week, but a recount and a tally of absentee ballots but Measure N over the top by 16 votes out of 1,298 cast. Measure N's passage allows for the development of Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Restort, a 935-acre  development that will nearly double the population and land area of Sutter Creek.   The planned development will include 1,300 homes, a golf course, timeshare condos, and a host of public services and amenities, including a park, fire station, a school, and 300 acres of open space.  It is expected to be built over a span of 20 years.  Gold Rush Ranch Opponents Submit Referendum Signatures Football Coming to Silicon Valley Measure J: 14,338  (58.17 percent) Yes, 10,310 (41.83 percent) No The San Francisco 49ers can only hope that all of this wins are this decisive. Passing with over 59 percent of the vote, Santa Clara's Measure J all but clears the way for the 49ers to relocate from Candlestick Park to a new $937 million stadium in the Silicon Valley City. Measure J includes a complex financing deal in which the city will contribute $114 million -- from redevelopment funds, utilities funds, and a new hotel tax -- and over $300 million in bonds will be raised by a public stadium authority. The 49ers will cover the rest of construction costs. The stadium will be built on a parking lot for Great America Theme Park, which is in the middle of the city's industrial and office district; city officials insist that the area's infrastructure can handle the 20,000 vehicles expected on game days. Supporters contend that the stadium will generate considerable direct revenues to the city's general fund and boost the local economy. Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan said that the stadium "really is the culmination of 30 years of planning. It (realizes) a vision of what this area would become when it was just marshlands." If development proceeds according to schedule, construction will begin in 2012 and the stadium will be ready for the 2010 NFL season. Officials in San Francisco say they are ready to build a stadium at Hunters Point if the Santa Clara deal falls apart. Santa Clara (Santa Clara County) Measure J, Lease of City Land Big Box Stores Welcome in Redlands Measure O: 1,806 (38.96 percent) Yes,  2,829 (61.04 percent) No  Bucking a trend of opposition towards big box stores, Redlands voters rejected rejected Measure O, which would have banned retail developments with over 100,000 square feet of retail space. The measure was aimed directly at "big box" stores and specifically at a proposed Walmart Supercenter which, Measure O supporters said, would harm local businesses and quality of life in the Riverside County city.  The campaign to reject Measure O, buoyed by a large financial contribution from Walmart, contended that the new development would bring jobs and tax revenue to the city. 55 percent of the roughly 11,000 votes cast were against the measure.  Mission Viejo Rejects "Right to Vote" Amendment Measure D: 7,795 (37.6 percent) Yes, 12,954 (62.4 percent) No  Bucking a modest trend in Orange County, 61 percent of Mission Viejo voters voted against Measure D, which would have put almost all major projects in the city to a popular vote. Proponents of Measure D hoped to ensure that any projects that would deviate from the city's master plan would be put to public scrutiny. Business groups contended that the measure would chill development in the city, harm businesses, and subject developers to undue expenses. The measure would have required proposed projects to go through the city's traditional planning and approvals process and then finance a ballot measure.  Mission Viejo (Orange County) Measure D, Right-to-Vote Amendment  Brentwood Rejects Expansion Measure F: 4,115  (42.66 percent) Yes, 5,532 (57.34 percent) No Brentwood, the booming exurb that marks the eastern edge of the Bay Area, will be booming a little bit less in the coming years. With all precincts reporting, 57 percent of Brentwood voters rejected Measure F, which would have expanded the city's urban limit line. The expansion would have set the stage for annexation of and development in an area of open space that buffers Brentwood (pop. 51,000) from the neighboring city of Antioch. The area to which Measure F referred has a developer agreement for the construction of 1,300 units of housing and would have included infrastructure improvements, open space, and other amenities. This is the third vote since 2005 in which Brentwood residents have voted against growth.  Brentwood (Contra Costa County) Measure F, Expand Urban Limit Line; Permit Mixed-Use Development Costa Mesa: Fairgrounds to Stay As-Is Measure C: 12,806 (87.7 percent) Yes, 1,790 (12.3 percent) No An overwhelming majority of voters in Costa Mesa have voted to maintain the existing general plan designation for the Orange County Fair and Event Center. The fairgrounds are currently owned by the state, but an imminent sale means that the land will soon revert to local control and will be governed by the city's general plan. Measure C, which was approved with 87 percent of the vote, requires that any major changes to the property must be approved by popular vote. Update: as it turns out, the state may be backing away from its plan to sell the Orange County fairgrounds and ten other properties.  Costa Mesa (Orange County) Measure C, General Plan Designation of Orange County Fair and Event Center  Eastvale Votes to Incorporate Measure A: 2,679 (65.94 percent) Yes, 1,384 (34.06 percent) No  Despite opponents' fears that incorporating in the midst of the recession would create a perennial financial burden for Riverside County's 27th city, a majority of voters in the enclave of Eastvale have voted in favor of incorporation. The new city lies between Norco and Ontario along Interstate 15 and has experienced a boom in population the past decade. The area was previously home to dairy farms .  Eastvale (Riverside County) Measure A, Incorporation -- Proposed City of Eastvale Pleasanton Rejects Development, Open Space Measure D: 7,710 (46.30 percent) Yes, 8,941 (53.70 percent) No With a mere handful homes at stake in the latest version of a drama that has unfolded in the East Bay city of Pleasanton over the past decade, 54 percent of voters rejected Measure D. The measure would have approved the development of 51 luxury homes in the city's southeastern hills while preserving over 500 acres as open space. Opponents contended that the homes would impinge on the city's ridgelines, which gained formal protection through the approval of 2008's Measure PP.  Pleasanton (Alameda County) Measure D, Approval of the Development Plan for the Oak Grove Property

To supporters, the wisdom of Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that promotes emissions reductions through coordination of transportation and land use, lies in its holistic approach to planning and its kitting together of disparate elements of the urban fabric. But, in light of budget crises at all level of government, one piece that is essential to SB 375's success is rapidly coming off the rails: money to run buses and trains  If California's commuters are to reduce their dependence on personal autos and thereby reduce the state's aggregate vehicle-miles traveled under SB 375 (sponsored by Darrell Steinberg � D, Sacramento), they are expected to rely in part on public transit. Transit oriented development � most crudely defined as high-density development with access to high-frequency bus or rail service � is expected to be a key component of the sustainable communities strategies that 18 of the state's largest metropolitan planning organizations will be required to develop in the coming years.  "Transit agencies across the board are aware that for the goals of (SB 375), public transit has to be an important component. It's kind of a truism," said Jeff Wagner, spokesperson for the California Transit Association.  The question, however, that planners are facing may be more worthy of Zen masters than of public-sector bureaucrats: How do you do transit-oriented developments if there's no transit?  While transit demand nationwide has hit record highs in recent years, transit agencies been decimated by a combination of higher costs and lower fare revenues that have accompanied the recession of the past three years. Nearly every agency in the state has either cut service or raised fares in what Wagner called "an epidemic statewide of service reductions, fare increases, layoffs." The Orange County Transportation Authority, Los Angeles Metro, and San Francisco MTA all face operating deficits in excess of $100 million. Agencies have eliminated hundreds of thousands of hours of service, and many bus lines have been consolidated or erased from the service map entirely. Commuter rail services such as the Los Angele area's Metrolink and the Bay Area's Caltrain are no better off.  While many agencies are still proceeding with capital projects � including those backed partially by federal stimulus money � capital funding typically has no bearing on operational funding.  The biggest culprit in this crisis, however, may be the State of California itself. Since 2007, the state has diverted almost the entirety of the $1 billion annual State Transit Assistance Fund � over $3 billion in total � to its General Fund and it has diverted a voter-approved gas tax that was intended to go to transportation.  "Right now the state has decided that they don't want to fund mass transit anymore," said Carolyn Cavecche, mayor of the City of Orange and board member of the Orange County Transportation Authority. "They're out of the bus business.  Somebody's going to have to step up and fund that if you want a transit system in the state of California."  The recent adoption of budget bills ABx8 6 and ABx8 9 provide $400 million of operations funding for fiscal year 2010-11 and $350 million for the following year. These funds � along with some federal stimulus money that can be used for operations � has postponed a complete meltdown of the public transit system, at least for now.  "In the short run, it may prevent people from getting to work, whether it's not going to be affordable or the service simply is not going to be available," said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities.  The longer term, however, may be even more certain. This month the California Air Resources Board will releases its draft greenhouse gas emissions targets, and it will finalize them in September. At that point, the burden falls to the state's 18 largest MPOs to draw up sustainable communities strategies (SCS) and marry them to their regional transportation plans (RTP). Whatever the targets turn out to be � preliminary presentations from the Southern California Association of Government suggest that they may be between 6 percent and 10 percent GHG reductions � achieving them will be difficult if the buses don't run on time.  "The planning is just a piece of it," said Gary Gallegos, executive director of the San Diego Association of Governments and member of ARB's Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). "The more important piece is the implementation. I think that's where we may fall short if the state continues to rob transit or redevelopment funds. Our ability to implement some of our strategies may be weakened." "If transit is going to be how we hit those numbers, I don't know where they're going to come up with the money to do it," said Cavecche.  Even though SB 375 includes a long time horizon � targets will be for achievement in 2020 and 2035 � the current uncertainty of transit funding and service may make planning a dicey, uncertain affair for MPOs, cities, and transit agencies alike.  "You can't expect cities to re-zone land and adopt a new development pattern that assumes transit systems are going to be a principle part of moving people if the state is backing out on its commitment to fund transit," said McKenzie.  Although SB 375 explicitly charges MPOs with drawing up regional plans � and offers cities ways to opt out � the assumption is that cities will have to adjust their land use patterns and general plans to complement MPOs' regional plans.  These assumptions may have been reasonable in the more buoyant economic times when SB 375 was developed and enacted. But today the disconnect between the law's requirements and the transit funding necessary to meet those requirements strikes many critics as another example of Sacramento's disregard for local realities.  "I think there was a very reasonable expectation that funds would be available to fund this effort," said McKenzie. "Sen. Darrel Steinberg, committed not only to that but to finding additional funding for local infrastructure projects."  "(Localities) don't print money any more than the state does, but they're the ones who adopted the mandate, and they have the obligation to fund it," added McKenzie.  Steinberg did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.  Frustrated by what he describes as SB 375's "unfunded mandate," McKenzie said that the League of Cities has discussed whether to lobby for a suspension of SB 375 implementation (as well as that of its sister climate change law, AB 32) but as of yet League leadership has declined to take an official position.  Meanwhile, ARB's target-setting process is proceeding as if firing on all cylinders. The targets will be determined mainly by efficacy and feasibility but will not necessarily take into account funding constraints or the current transit crisis.  "My focus and the ARB's focus is completely on the benefits and how we can achieve those benefits from implementing SB 375," said ARB Chair Mary Nichols. Nichols said that regardless of budget constraints, cities, MPOs, and other public agencies should be prepared to coordinate and collaborate. She noted that the type of dense, mixed use development that AB 375 promotes serves many cities' interests regardless of what the law requires. And she noted that, in the case of sustainability, funding may in fact follow from good planning. Therefore, even if the current situation makes some plans seem infeasible, money may arrive down the road.  "I'm not saying that there are enough resources being provided for people to do all the things they would like to do," said Nichols. "But the only way we're going to get that funding�is by having plans in place that the funding can flow to."  Much of that funding may come from the federal government, which has recently announced programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program.  "The federal agencies are going to recognize the fact that California agencies have charged ahead here," said Steve Heminger, executive director of the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission and RTAC member. "I think it's certainly in the interest of the federal government and the Obama administration to keep California moving so we can serve as a model for the rest of the country."  Moreover, ARB's targets � whatever they turn out to be � can be achieved without heavy reliance on transit.  "There's a danger of overstating the role that transit plays," said Heminger. "One of the things about TOD is that those communities are walkable and bikeable. That can account for just as many trips as public transit, and as long as they're not auto trips then we're doing what we're trying to do."  Contacts & Resources:  Carolyn Cavecche , Mayor, City of Orange; Board Member, OCTA,  (714) 744-2200 Gary Gallegos , Executive Director, San Diego Association of Governments , (619) 699-1900 Steve Heminger , Executive Director, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission , (510) 817-5810 Mary Nichols , Chair, California Air Resources Board , (916) 322-5840 Jeff Wagner , Spokesperson, California Transit Association , (916) 446-4656 For further insight into SB 375, please visit CP&DR's SB 375 Resources Page .