State lawmakers wrapped up the first year of their two-year session without taking action on numerous bills regarding land use planning, development and natural resources. But some of the legislation could receive consideration before the end of the month because lawmakers are likely to return for special sessions called by Gov. Schwarzenegger. The Legislature passed bills that would require fire safety to be a larger factor in land use planning, allow farmworker housing to be built on agricultural land and give local government the authority to limit the conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owned condominiums. Schwarzenegger has until October 11 to sign or veto the bills. Nevertheless, the regular 2009 session, which concluded September 11, was marked by a budget deal that pillaged the budgets of redevelopment agencies (see CP&DR , August 1, 2009 ) and by failure to pass several high-profile bills. Among the failed legislation was a package of water and Bay-Delta bills, a measure exempting a planned football stadium and entertainment complex from planning and environmental laws, a bill lengthening the statute of limitations for lawsuits over a jurisdiction's housing element and a building industry proposal to extend a tax credit for buyers of new homes. Legislation may return in 2010 as a "two-year bill" or in entirely new form. Proponents of the five-bill water package, which included some Southern California water agencies and the Natural Resources Defense Council, contended that the legislation would advance the "co-equal" goals of restoring the Delta's environment and improving the reliability of water deliveries (see CP&DR Capitol Update , August 15, 2009 ). But a coalition of strange bedfellows blocked passage. The Association of California Water Agencies and the building industry said the legislation was too heavily weighted toward the environment. A number of environmental organizations complained that the bills bypassed existing water planning procedures and could authorize construction of a taxpayer-funded peripheral canal. And the Schwarzenegger administration and Republican lawmakers opposed the package because it did not contain a bond for construction of dams and water-storage facilities. Despite this, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) insisted that lawmakers were making progress toward alleviating the state's seemingly intractable water shortages. He asked the governor to call a special session of the Legislature to work on the bills this fall, but Schwarzenegger has declined to do so. Tim Coyle, vice president of the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), said builders favor legislation that would improve the reliability of water supplies because the lack of available water is stalling numerous projects. "I agree with Darrell Steinberg that progress was made," Coyle said. "There is some general interest in getting this resolved, and that's encouraging." Jim Metropulos, a lobbyist for Sierra Club California, said the package was flawed because it did not reduce reliance on water from the Delta. He recommended implementing last year's Delta Vision plan (see CP&DR Environment Watch , February 2008 ), stepping up conservation, and spending more money on improving water quality and enforcing water rights. Nearly overshadowing the debate over water was a bill advanced by the City of Industry, developer Majestic Realty and the Los Angeles Federation of Labor. The measure would exempt a planned football stadium in Industry, 2.9 million square feet of adjacent entertainment and commercial development, and related public works projects from having to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as state planning and zoning laws. The bill, AB 81 X3, by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) also would bar any legal challenge to the project, including two lawsuits already filed by the City of Walnut and a citizens group. The opponents contend that Industry violated CEQA and other statutes when it approved the project (see CP&DR Places , June 2008 ; CP&DR In Brief , April 2009 ). Proponents say the project would create about 12,000 construction jobs and more than 6,000 permanent jobs. "This is an extraordinary time for California's economy requiring us all to find ways to protect our environment and build our economy," said Hall. The bill cleared two Assembly committees and won approval of the full chamber by a 54-18 vote in a 24 hour-period concluding on the evening of September 10. But in the Senate, environmentalists, worried that the bill would set a bad precedent, lobbied hard against it, as did San Diego interests who feared a new stadium might tempt the Chargers to leave their city. Democratic lawmakers were caught in the awkward position of having to choose between two key constituencies – labor and environmentalists. But before the Senate could take eleventh-hour action, Steinberg intervened and asked all parties to negotiate. In a letter distributed to his colleagues hours before adjournment, Steinberg wrote, "Because I see the obvious merit in the proposed stadium development in the City of Industry – the creation of up to 18,000 jobs, the economic development for the area, and the tax revenue for the local and state governments – I am willing to use the full force of my office to commence negotiations in an attempt to settle the litigation in this matter. … If negotiations prove unsuccessful, the California State Senate will consider AB 81 X3 before the end of September." John Semcken, a partner in Majestic Realty with Ed Roski Jr., said the parties have commenced talks, which are being brokered by former state Attorney General John van de Kamp. "We would prefer to have a negotiated settlement," Semcken said. The bill "has been portrayed as trying to get around CEQA," Semcken said, "but we have already done two environmental impact reports." He said Majestic sponsored the bill because it could not wait years for the litigation seeking to block the stadium to be resolved in court. "There's an immediate opportunity to move a team to Los Angeles, but before we could do that, we had to have the stadium finalized," he said. While the Legislature has previously approved CEQA exemptions for some projects – such as for the expansion of the San Francisco airport, Northridge earthquake recovery and the Los Angeles Olympics – it has never before exempted a project from state law requiring development projects and public works projects to be consistent with a general plan, according to legislative analysts. Nor has the Legislature exempted a project from existing and all future legal challenges. "For the most part, this was just a huge giveaway," said Sande George, lobbyist for the American Planning Association's California Chapter. Planners, Los Angeles County and other opponents of AB 81 X3 fear that the bill would set a precedent under which lawmakers could choose to exempt any favored project from state environmental and planning laws, greatly undercutting the credibility of general plans. Approval of the fire-safety planning bills – AB 666 (Jones) and SB 505 (Kehoe) – came after years of debate and a governor's veto of similar legislation last year. The Jones measure would require counties to intensify their scrutiny of proposed development in fire-prone areas and those served by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. SB 505 would require cities and counties to add fire safety goals and policies to general plan safety elements. The California State Association of Counties opposes SB 505 but has turned neutral on AB 666. "There is just nothing in that helps with cost-recovery," CSAC lobbyist Karen Keene said. The legislation could require general plan amendments that might cost from a few thousand to several million dollars to prepare and analyze, she said. Initially, the farmworker housing bill – AB 494 (Caballero) – would have permitted new housing on any agricultural parcel. But in the face of strong opposition from planners and local governments, it was amended to allow nonprofit entities to build farmworker housing on no more than 5 acres of agricultural land. The bill's author, Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), has vowed to return in 2010 with a more far-reaching measure. A priority for housing advocates was AB 566 (Nava), which would permit cities and counties to consider resident support for a mobile-home park owner's application to convert a park to a condominium or common-interest ownership development. Park owners use such conversions to bypass local rent-control ordinances for moderate-income residents and to generate revenue through the sale of individual spaces. However, many mobile home park tenants cannot afford to buy their spaces, nor can they sell their mobile home on the open market because of the exorbitant cost of the space, explained Brian Augusta of the California Housing Law Project. Some cities and counties that count on mobile home parks to provide affordable housing have tried to limit conversions, but park owners have successfully sued to block local discretion. The legislation would provide that authority. A second priority for housing advocates was AB 602 (Evans), which proponents contend would merely clarify the statute of limitations for suing over a local housing element or implementation of an element. In Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton , 164 Cal.App.4th, 1561 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2008 ), the state appellate court said a party must serve a 60-day notice of a potential lawsuit on a city or county within 90 days of a local government action. Until that decision, parties could file a 60-day notice of a potential lawsuit over housing policy and decisions at any time, Augusta said. "There was never any question before the Pleasanton decision," he said. The bill did not pass in part because it was not folded into an unrelated bill until late in the session and in part because of opposition from planners and local government. They argue that AB 602 would provide an unlimited statute of limitations, resulting in uncertain housing policy and decisions. Also failing to pass this year was AB 765 (Caballero), which would have extended a tax-credit program for buyers of new homes. Lawmakers approved tax credits of up to $10,000 per buyer earlier this year. But the state ended the $100-million program in July when nearly 12,000 applications had been received. When the Franchise Tax Board found that many buyers did not have $10,000 worth of state tax liabilities, it announced that about $30 million worth of tax credits remained unclaimed. AB 765 would have extended the program to allow about 4,200 buyers to tap the $30 million, said the CBIA's Coyle. The original legislation "tells the story of how a public policy could have a profound impact on a troubled sector of the economy," Coyle said, pointing to new home sales increases when the tax credit was available. "We think it should be continued." While the legislation passed the Senate Appropriations Committee, which halted numerous spending bills this year, it never came up for a vote on the Senate floor. Contacts: Brian Augusta, California Housing Law Project, (916) 446-9241. Tim Coyle, California Building Industry Association, (916) 443-7933. Karen Keene, California State Association of Counties, (916) 327-7500. Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California, (916) 557-1100. John Semcken, Majestic Realty, (562) 692-9581. Sande George, American Planning Association, California Chapter, (916) 443-5301. APA California legislative update: http://www.calapa.org/en/art/260 . Key Land Use Legislation For 2009 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • AB 696 (Hagman). Would allow a project applicant to resolve CEQA disputes with a lead agency before an arbitrator. Failed in Assembly committee. • AB 1321 (Eng). Would create an "advance infrastructure mitigation program" in the Natural Resources Agency to streamline environmental review and mitigation of infrastructure projects. Stalled in Assembly committee. • AB 81 X3 (Hall). Would exempt a proposed football stadium, an associated 3 million square feet of entertainment and other development and related public works projects from CEQA and state planning and zoning law. Stalled in Senate. • SB 476 (Correa). Would require potential plaintiffs to pursue additional administrative remedies before filing a CEQA lawsuit. Stalled in Assembly committee. Climate Change • AB 1404 (De Leon). Would impose limits on a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Backed by environmentalists and social justice organizations, the measure would limit the use of offsets from outside the regulated sector. Approved. • AB 881 (Huffman). Would create the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority to coordinate the efforts of local government and private entities in reducing GHG emissions and meeting AB 32 mandates. Approved. • SB 104 (Oropeza). Would add nitrogen triflouride (NF3) to the list of gases regulated under AB 32. NF3 is used to manufacture photovoltaic solar panels, LCD television screens and microprocessors. Approved . • SB 144 (Pavley). Would require mitigation for loss of carbon storage when timberlands are converted to other uses. The bill was strongly opposed by the forestry industry and rural counties. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 295 (Dutton). Would require the Air Resources Board to prepare a study of the cost of complying with AB 32. Failed in Senate committee . • SB 391 (Liu). Would require the California Transportation Plan to address how the state will reach AB 32 emissions goals. Also requires Caltrans to report by the end of 2012 on how the sustainable communities strategies mandated by SB 375 will influence the state's transportation system. Approved. • SB 575 (Steinberg). Would clarify housing element due dates under SB 375. Approved . • SB 721 (Steinberg). Would establish a Climate Action Team to coordinate state policy. Stalled in Senate committee . SB 722 (Steinberg). Would establish advertising and documentation requirements for the sale of GHG emissions credits or reductions. Stalled in Assembly . Economic Development • AB 507 (Arambula). Would require a project that receives assistance from the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) to meet certain economic development and land use criteria. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 1047 (V. Manuel Perez). Would require the I-Bank to establish a program to assist small and rural communities with obtaining local infrastructure financing. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 27 (Hancock). Prohibits a business from collecting incentives as a result of moving its situs address but not its physical location. The bill is intended to prevent one local government from stealing another entity's sales tax, which is allocated based on situs address. Signed by governor . Finance • ACA 9 (Huffman) and SCA 12 (Kehoe). These constitutional amendments would ask voters to lower the approval threshold, from two-thirds to 55%, for local special taxes, property-tax increases and bonds. ACA 9 stalled in the Assembly, SCA 12 stalled in Senate committee . • ACA 15 (Arambula). Would lower the approval threshold for transportation tax measures from two-thirds to 55%. Stalled in Assembly . • AB 338 (Ma). Would expand from one-quarter mile to one-half mile the area around a transit station that may be part of an infrastructure financing district that uses tax-increment financing. The bill also eliminates the requirement for voter approval, and requires that all housing lost to transit-facility development be replaced. Approved . • AB 1176 (Ammiano) Would authorize the Port of San Francisco to create an infrastructure financing district to aid redevelopment of a 65-acre brownfield site at Pier 70. Approved . • AB 1192 (Audra Strickland). Would prohibit a local government from using lease-purchase financing. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 99 (Senate Local Government Committee). Would impose additional accountability requirements on public agencies that provide conduit financing. Approved . • SB 279 (Hancock). Would authorize use of Mello-Roos financing to pay for water conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. Approved . Housing • AB 558 (Portantino). Would authorize a city to meet 10% of its regional housing-needs assessment through a program that places foster youth in existing households. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 566 (Nava). Would authorize cities and counties to consider resident support for a proposed conversion of a mobile home park to a condominium or common interest development (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 1, 2009 ). Approved . • AB 570 (Arambula). Would alter a Department of Housing and Community Development program so that housing trust funds in small and rural communities are better able to compete for state funding. Approved . • AB 602 (Evans). Would provide that a lawsuit over a housing element, or implementation of the element, may be brought at any time. Stalled in Senate . • AB 761 (Charles Calderon). Would limit local mobile home rent-control measures. Stalled in Senate committee . • SB 326 (Tony Strickland). Would require a housing element to quantify existing and projected foreclosure rates, and specify how those rates affect housing needs. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 595 (Cedillo). Would place a $1.5 billion bond to fund supportive housing projects for veterans on the state ballot. Stalled in Senate committee . Local Planning • AB 333 (Fuentes). Extends the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. Signed by governor . • AB 596 (Evans). Would establish a grant program, but provides no actual money, for funding local planning. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 666 (Jones). Would require a county to make specific findings regarding fire-service availability and firefighting access before approving development in a state fire responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. Approved . • AB 853 (Arambula). Would expedite city annexation of unincorporated islands and fringe communities, and obligate local government to improve services in the areas. Stalled in Senate committee . • AB 1084 (Adams). Would authorize anyone willing to pay for an audit to request an audit of local development impact fees. If the audit finds fees are excessive, the local government must adjust fees accordingly and refund excess fee revenue. Approved . • SB 43 (Alquist). Would authorize a Santa Clara joint powers authority to use a no-bid design-build process to construct a football stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. The Santa Clara City Council is split 3-2 in favor of this approach. Approved . • SB 194 (Florez). Would require that cities and counties receiving Proposition 84 funds adopt general plan goals and policies to promote environmental and social justice in disadvantaged, unincorporated communities. Stalled in Senate committee . • SB 215 (Wiggins). Would require local agency formation commissions to consider sustainable communities strategies and alternative planning strategies required by SB 375 before acting on boundary changes. Approved . • SB 268 (Harmon). Would require alcohol and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities to comply with local zoning. Failed in Assembly committee . • SB 310 (Ducheny). Would permit a city, county or special district to develop a watershed improvement plan that addresses stormwater runoff, and to assess fees to implement the plan. The building industry-sponsored bill provides an alternative to project-specific stormwater regulation. Approved . • SB 406 (DeSaulnier). Would permit metropolitan planning organizations and county transportation commissions to levy a $2 annual fee on vehicle registrations to fund regional and local blueprint planning. The bill also would require the governor's Strategic Growth Council to coordinate with a reconstituted Planning Advisory and Assistance Council within the Office of Planning and Research on implementing regional blueprints. Approved . • SB 505 (Kehoe). Would requires cities and counties in "very high fire hazard severity zones" to adopt, by 2015, new general plan goals, policies and objectives to minimize wildfire risks to new development. Approved . • SB 518 (Lowenthal). Would prohibit the expenditure of state funds to subsidize parking and would require local governments to select from a menu of parking policies, such as eliminating minimum parking requirements or setting maximum parking standards. Failed on Senate floor . • SB 737 (Negrete McLeod). Would repeal an exemption permitting counties to avoid forming a countywide airport land use commission. The bill would affect nine counties and is strongly opposed by the City of Watsonville and cities in San Bernardino County, which now have land use autonomy around airports. Stalled in Assembly committee . Redevelopment • AB 720 (Caballero). Would permit a city or county that uses housing set-aside funding to count a rehabilitated unit toward meeting its fair share of low-, very low-, or extremely low-income housing. Approved . • SB 93 (Kehoe). Would limit the ability of a redevelopment agency to fund a public-works project outside of a redevelopment project area. Initially opposed, the California Redevelopment Association eventually endorsed the heavily amended legislation. Approved . • SB 430 (Dutton). Extends from 10 years to 15 years the time limit on San Bernardino County's Cedar Glen disaster recovery project area redevelopment plan. Signed by governor . • SB 477 (Florez). Would permit a redevelopment agency to lend or grant money to the purchaser of low-income housing-tax credits for the construction of low-income rental housing. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 530 (Dutton). Would revise how pass-through payments for certain redevelopment projects are calculated. Stalled in Assembly committee . Renewable Energy • AB 45 (Blakeslee). Would reauthorize counties to regulate small wind-energy systems and limit the height of turbines. Approved . • AB 64 (Krekorian) and SB 14 (Simitian). Together, these bills would require utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from renewable sources, primarily located within California, by 2020. The bills also would tighten the Public Utility Commission's process for siting new transmission lines. Saying the legislation is too restrictive, Gov. Schwarzenegger has promised a veto. Approved . • AB 1351 (Blakeslee). Would permit utilities to count certain hydroelectric projects in their renewable energy portfolios. Approved . SB 560 (Ashburn). Would provide emissions credits to cities and counties that permit and site commercial wind, solar and biomass energy projects. Stalled in Senate committee . Transportation • AB 744 (Torrico). Would authorize congestion-pricing programs within the nine-county Bay Area. Stalled in Senate committee . • AB 1135 (Skinner). Would require motorists to report their odometer readings when renewing vehicle registrations. Transportation engineers and planners say such information is crucial for refining transportation-demand models. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 1375 (Galgiani). Would establish a Department of High-Speed Trains, which would assume responsibility for the proposed high-speed rail system. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 205 (Hancock). Would authorize transportation planning agencies to place on the ballot for majority approval a measure raising vehicle registrations by up to $10 to fund transportation projects and programs. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 409 (Ducheny). Would consolidate existing rail programs into a Department of Railroads. Stalled in Senate . • SB 545 (Cedillo). Would require that any extension of the 710 freeway through South Pasadena be constructed in a tunnel. Approved . Water • AB 39 (Huffman). Would outline requirements for a Bay Delta conservation plan, to be adopted by a new Delta Stewardship council before 2012. Stalled in Assembly . • AB 49 (Feuer) Would establish methods for reducing urban water usage by 20% by 2020, a stated goal of the Schwarzenegger administration. Stalled in Assembly . • SB 12 (Simitian). Would create an appointed Delta Stewardship Council that would approve a Bay Delta conservation plan and have other broad authorities. Stalled in Senate . • SB 229 (Pavley). Would establish new plans for water diversions from the Delta and groundwater monitoring. Stalled in Senate . • SB 458 (Steinberg). Would create a new Delta Conservancy and modify the membership – and the responsibilities – of the Delta Protection Commission. Stalled in Senate . • AB 55 (Jeffries). Would establish new criteria for nonresidential projects that require a water supply assessment. Only projects that would use at least as much water as a 500-unit housing project would require an assessment under the bill. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 300 (Caballero). Would require a city or county to consider voluntary demand-management measures when reviewing a development project's water supply assessment. Stalled in Senate committe e. • AB 1408 (Krekorian). Would establish a "water conservation mitigation fund" into which subdivision developers would pay fees for conservation projects that fully offset the new subdivision's projected water use. The offsets could be used to meet water supply requirements for large projects. Failed on Assembly floor . • SB 565 (Pavley). Would require that 50% of wastewater now discharged into the ocean be recycled by 2030. Stalled in Assembly committee . Williamson Act • AB 494 (Caballero). Would permit construction of farmworker housing by nonprofit entities on some agricultural lands. Approved . • AB 512 (Yamada). Would make horse breeding and training facilities compatible uses under the Williamson Act. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 170 (Florez). Would permit an Indian tribal government to cancel a Williamson Act contract so the tribe may develop a cultural center, housing or infrastructure on the agricultural land. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, which operates a casino and wants to expand its reservation in Santa Barbara County, is the bill's sponsor. Stalled in Senate committee . • SB 715 (Wolk). Would strengthen various Williamson Act provisions. Stalled in Assembly committee . Other • AB 102 (Smyth). Would authorize a new Santa Susana State Park Advisory Committee to recommend whether the 2,800-acre Rocketdyne property in eastern Ventura County should become a state park. Stalled in Senate committee . • AB 109 (Feuer). Would impose a moratorium until 2012 on new digital advertising displays visible from any highway. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 210 (Hayashi). Clarifies how cities and counties may adopt their own green-building standards. Signed by governor . • AB 444 (Caballero). Would clarify that nonprofit entities may accept and disburse public funds for management of mitigation lands and conservation easements held by land trusts or special districts. Approved . • SB 213 (Florez). Would extend an existing moratorium on new card clubs from 2015 to 2020. The measure is strongly backed by existing card clubs and the City of Hawaiian Gardens, which is heavily dependent on card room revenue. Approved . • SB 690 (Leno). Would permit removal of illegal outdoor advertising displays and displays that were permitted but have been modified in a way that makes them illegal. Stalled in Senate committee .

Acting as the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to drop a long-held and controversial plan for additional water diversions from the Russian River. The September 15 decision by the board angered five cities and a Marin County district served by the water agency, because those entities have planned on the additional Russian River water being available to serve future development. The Sonoma County Water Agency currently has rights to take 75,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Russian River. Ten years ago, the agency applied to the State Water Resources Control Board for permission to take up to 101,000 acre-feet annually. The state has never acted on the proposal, which environmental organizations have opposed and cities have supported. Environmental and fiscal considerations finally forced the county to abandoned the water plan. Because of a mandate to protect coho salmon habitat in Dry Creek, the county would probably not be able to use the creek to move the additional summertime water from Lake Sonoma storage to the water system. Instead, the county would have to build a 24-mile pipeline at cost of more than $400 million. At the same time, implementation of a 15-year fisheries recovery plan required by the federal government is likely to cost $100 million, according to the water agency. There simply is not enough money for everything, according to supervisors and agency staff members. The agency provides water to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Petaluma, Windsor, Sonoma a small part of unincorporated Sonoma County and the North Marin Water District. Agency officials say they can continue to provide enough water for many years, largely based on implementing conservation efforts. However, Santa Rosa sued the county to halt the Board of Supervisors from even considering abandoning the 101,000 acre-foot application. A court declined to intervene, but additional litigation appears certain. The City of Marina, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority and California State University, Monterey Bay, have signed an agreement to settle an 11-year dispute over the effects of university expansion at the former Army base. The city and the reuse authority sued the university in 1998, charging that the campus master plan's environmental impact report did not fully address remedies for the effects of campus expansion on traffic and emergency fire services. The state Supreme Court eventually ruled in City of Marina v. Board of Trustees , (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341 that the university could not ignore the off-campus effects of its expansion (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2006 ). While it ruled that the authority could not assess an impact fee on CSU Monterey Bay, the court said that the university must negotiate with the authority over the school's contributions to the former base's infrastructure needs. The agreement, signed in September, limits daily vehicle trips to and from campus to about 13,000 (up from the current 8,500). The university also agreed to seek $1.34 million from the Legislature to cover its share of the cost of a regional water augmentation project and $52,000 to help fund a habitat conservation program. If the Legislature does not allocate the money, the university must pursue other funding sources. Gov. Schwarzenegger has signed a compact with the Habematolel Pomo tribe that could lead to development of the fourth Indian casino in Lake County. The tribe plans to build its casino on 11 acres near the town of Upper Lake and only two miles west of the Robinson Rancheria's casino on Highway 20. The tribe still needs to gain the consent of the Legislature and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to proceed. The tribe eventually wants to build a large casino and hotel on the land. The compact calls for it to pay the state 15% of net casino revenues, while a separate agreement with Lake County requires the tribe to pay a 1% assessment on its property and to make other fiscal contributions to local government. In 2001, the Habematolel Pomo tribe proposed building a $200 million casino in West Sacramento, a project that met significant opposition and died.

With California's efforts to combat climate change well underway, another country is finally being heard from: the United States. With the election of President Obama and the emergence of a Democratic majority in Congress, it appears that the federal government may soon pass sweeping legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions. Based on a preponderance of research linking greenhouse gas emissions to urban sprawl and reliance on automobiles, a national program may usher in the next great trend in urban planning. If so, California may find itself well ahead of its fellow states. "California has really pushed the envelope," said Louise Bedsford, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "California has served as a model and probably will continue to do so even if federal legislation passes." While the federal government has approached climate change with the trepidation of a skater venturing towards thin ice, California not only heeded its traditional environmental ethos but also acknowledged that the world's seventh-largest economy should play its part to mitigate climate change. In 2006 AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, authored by now-State Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), was hailed as landmark legislation, and it was followed up last year by State Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg's SB 375. AB 32 mandates a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, through a variety of means, as of 2020, while SB 375 pays specific attention to vehicle miles traveled and requires regional metropolitan planning organizations to account for greenhouse gas emissions in their transportation and land use plans (see CP&DR Insight , May 2009 ). A California Air Resources Board advisory committee's recommendations for implementing SB 375 are due September 30 (see CP&DR Environment Watch , August 1, 2009 ). Support from Washington and the prospect of a national program to encourage cleaner fuels, less pollution from industry and utilities, and even re-make cities for a greener world has received a warm reception in California. "We need federal climate change legislation not just to back us up but to make all our efforts worthwhile," said Mary Nichols, chair of the Air Resources Board. "California has made it clear that we need to be part of a national and international effort. There's no way that California on its own can curb the threat of global warming." In June, the House of Representatives passed HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Massachussets) and Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles). California's leaders are welcoming the feds to the party wholeheartedly. "Federal climate legislation is absolutely critical if we are to seriously address global climate change," said Pavley. "I think Congressman Waxman did a great job with the legislation he got through the House earlier this year." One of the strengths of AB 32, said Pavley, is that it set goals in statute that the state must meet, but provided a fairly high degree of flexibility and discretion to the California Air Resources Board for reaching the 25% reduction. In developing their regulations, the Air Resources Board has been mindful of the possibility of federal legislation, so the board designed regulations that should complement a federal bill. Though the Senate is still considering its own climate change legislation – debate was recently postponed from mid-September to later this fall – and the details yet to be worked out in conference committee, Waxman-Markey offers a hint at the requirements and guidelines that may ultimately become law. While most of its provisions apply to truly national issues – such as fuels, technologies, carbon sequestration, household appliance standards, and, perhaps most importantly, a national cap-and-trade system for issuing carbon credits – the bill also acknowledges that more efficient local land use patterns are essential for curbing carbon emissions. "Although land use is quintessentially a local issue, the federal government indirectly has very large influence on how cities have developed, primarily because of the federal dollars that go into transportation," said Nichols. Section 222 of Waxman-Markey seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by "integrating new greenhouse gas reduction planning measures into the existing transportation planning process." Though the details of this provision are far from being worked out, it represents a profound shift away from the federal government's traditional support of sprawl and dependence on the automobile. "The Waxman-Markey bill contains a provision which is similar in approach to SB 375 in that it doesn't create any mandates," said Nichols. "But it encourages states to enact land use reforms that will reduce the need to drive." The inclusion of land use in a bill as prominent and wide ranging as Waxman-Markey might present the possibility that the federal government would encroach on land use policies that have almost always been the domain of local governments. But early analysis of the bill suggests that the principles of Waxman-Markey – like those of SB 375 – will not translate into mandates or top-down controls. "State government can't create policy," said Julia Lave Johnston. "It's like lighting a cigarette with a blowtorch." Any such federal attempt would therefore resemble something along the lines of a booster rocket. Property rights and property rights law are defined on a state-by-state basis, observed Bill Higgins, legislative representative with the California League of Cities. "That's why a federal government isn't going to go in and get into the entitlement business," he said. What the federal government may do, however, is take a proverbial jackhammer to the auto-centric infrastructure that gave rise to sprawl in the first place. In conjunction with other legislation, such as the upcoming transportation reauthorization, bills such as Waxman-Markey may herald a major shift in the funding mix for highways and mass transit. Then again, funding provides only a nudge – and will not dictate particular forms of land use. "The question is, if the federal government makes those resources available in a different way, are we going to make decisions in light of the resources that are available to us?" said Higgins. "There's nothing in the federal legislation saying that a local agency can't approve a sprawl subdivision." Much like SB 375, the federal legislation does not have enforcement teeth behind it, according to Bedsford. But also like SB 375, Waxman-Markey talks about regional transportation plans and linking transportation and land use. Some people think that once the links is made, it will trickle down to how regional transportation plans are evaluated by the federal government, she said. Johnston said that the recognition that the combination of land use and transportation plays such a huge role in the production of greenhouse gas emissions will tip the playing field and result in certain types of development activities going forward. If the Waxman-Markey bill mirrors California's efforts, the question, then, is the extent to which it may complement, or even pre-empt, the policies that California is already en route to implementing. As it turns out, California's early adoption of its own climate change legislation may make it well positioned to take advantage of federal regulations and compete for federal funding. "In terms of land use and transportation, my latest read of the federal bill is that nothing in it would preclude what we are trying to do either as part of AB 32 or in terms of the other landmark bill we passed in 2008, SB 375," said Pavley. If Higgins, "If anything, the way that federal legislation works, particularly in this area, it's going to recognize that different states have different ways of doing things." Regardless of intentions, federal legislation poses the danger of creating a complicated stew of regulations and incentives that might naturally flow from overlapping legislation. "There's always the possibility for complication when you have multiple layers of government working in the same area," said Nichols. "I think there' s a concerted effort underway ... to try to make this as seamless as possible." Federal legislation can tighten those seams, in fact, by backing up its legislation with funding. An early criticism of SB 375 is that it sets guidelines and targets but offers little financial or logistical support. Backers of federal legislation hope for something more substantial as local entities try to improvise solutions to what may be the most dire issue of the 21st century. "There are very little resources, both financial and technical, to develop a regional plan or a climate change plan," said Bedsford. "I think the federal government can play a role there, and so can the state. Aiding local and regional governments will be really important." Contacts: Mary Nichols, California Air Resources Board, (916) 332 3260. State Sen. Fran Pavley, (916) 651-4023. Louise Bedsford, Public Policy Institute of California, (415) 291-4469. Bill Higgins, League of California Cities, (916) 658-8200. Julia Lave Johnston, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, (916) 324-4002. House Energy and Commerce Committee, (202) 225 2927, http://energycommerce.house.gov . California Air Resources Board: www.arb.ca.gov .

A project that had become a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lightning rod has apparently died. Nestlé Waters North America notified the McCloud Community Services District that it is dropping plans to convert a closed lumber mill in Siskiyou County into a water-bottling plant because it is building the facility in Sacramento instead. In early 2007, a state appellate court ruled that a 100-year contract between Nestlé and the district – in which the district agreed to supply the company with up to 1,600 acre-feet of water for about $400,000 a year and other considerations – was immune from environmental review because the company's ultimate project would be the subject of an environmental impact report ( Concerned McCloud Citizens v. McCloud Community Services Dist. , (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 181; see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2007 ). That decision has helped define a "project" under CEQA. An EIR for the 1-million-square-foot water-bottling plant went forward under intense scrutiny from environmentalists and fishermen worried about the project's effects on groundwater sources and creeks. Last year, Attorney General Jerry Brown threatened to sue the district and Nestlé if the EIR did not address the global warming effects of producing plastic water bottles and trucking them to the water source and then to market. At about that same time, the company announced it would scale back the project by 60%. In July, Nestlé revealed it plans to build a bottling plant in Sacramento, using water from the City of Sacramento and from a private spring. A September 10 letter from the company to the McCloud district, citing the Sacramento project, stated, "We have concluded that we no longer have a business need to build a new facility in McCloud." While Nestlé's withdrawal pleased environmentalists and anglers in Siskiyou County, it frustrated district and economic development advocates who face a county unemployment rate of 14%, according to the Employment Development Department.

A Kern County voter initiative prohibiting the disposal of sewage sludge on fields in the county has new life. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal District Court judge's ruling that the initiative violated the United States constitution's commerce clause. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel held that the alleged harm caused by the initiative is not even "marginally related" to the purpose of the commerce clause. The suit, which was filed by Southern California sanitation agencies, sludge trucking companies and Kern County landowners, was returned to the District Court for the Central District of California for further consideration. Sewage sludge is the common name for the organic solids leftover from the treatment of municipal wastewater. For decades, treatment plant operators either dumped the sludge in the ocean or buried it in landfills. Regulatory barriers, however, have made ocean dumping infeasible, and burial in landfills has become expensive. Since the 1990s, numerous out-of-county sanitation agencies have sent sludge to Kern County, where a handful of landowners and farmers accept the material (see CP&DR Environment Watch , July 2000 ). Some of these landowners and farmers consider sludge to be an organic fertilizer for farm fields, while others in the sludge trade plow the material under. But Kern County officials and residents are tired of being treated as the state's toilet, pointing out that the sludge can contain high levels of metals, as well as viruses, parasites and pathogens. In 2006, Kern County voters approved Measure E, which prohibits the spraying or spreading of sewage sludge onto land in unincorporated areas. The City of Los Angeles, Orange County Sanitation Districts, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, trucking companies and a few Kern County landowners sued to block the measure's implementation. They contended that Measure E violated the commerce and equal protection clauses of the constitution. The plaintiffs also argued that the measure was preempted by the federal Clean Water Act, the California Integrated Waste Management Act and state water law. District Court Judge Gary Feess issued mixed rulings. He rejected the equal protection argument and dismissed claims based on the Clean Water Act and state water code. But he ruled that the initiative had the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce and therefore violated the commerce clause. He also held that the state waste management act, which mandates that at least 50% of waste be recycled, preempted Measure E. In considering the appeal, the Ninth Circuit examined only the question of whether the plaintiffs – the sanitation agencies, trucking companies and landowners – could make claims based on the commerce clause. The "negative" or "dormant" commerce clause, the court explained, prohibits states from "advancing their own commercial interests by curtailing the movement of articles of commerce, either into or out of the state." The "recyclers," as the court collectively called the plaintiffs, contended that Measure E violated the commerce clause because it would force them to haul sludge to Arizona if they could not dispose of it in Kern County. But the appellate panel determined that the "recyclers miss the point." "The interest the recyclers seek to secure is their ability to exploit a portion of the intra state waste market – they want to be able to ship their waste from one portion of California to another. But as we have said, the ‘chief purpose underlying the dormant commerce clause is to limit the power of states to erect barriers against inter state trade,'" Justice Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote, citing Individuals for Responsible Gov't v. Washoe County , 110 F.3d 699, 703 (1997). In that case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a Washoe County, Nevada, ordinance mandating residents subscribe to garbage collection service, even though the ordinance would apparently end the practice of residents hauling their own trash to a garbage dump in California. "Nothing in Measure E hampers the recyclers' ability to ship waste out of state," O'Scannlain continued. "Likewise, no recycler claims to apply out-of-state waste to land in Kern County. In short, Measure E in no way burdens the recyclers' protected interest in the interstate waste market. We decline to expand the zone of interests protected by the clause to purely intrastate disputes." " inancial injury must somehow be tied to a barrier imposed on interstate commerce. The recyclers here have not established that requisite link," O'Scannlain wrote. The Ninth Circuit directed Judge Feess to reconsider his conclusion that the state waste management law preempts Measure E. " e are left with a complex question of state law preemption. Because our dismissal of the federal constitutional claim may materially alter the district court's decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the preemption claim, we vacate its judgment and remand the state law claim for reconsideration," the court concluded. The Case: City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern , No. 07-56564, 2009 DJDAR 13520. Filed September 9, 2009. The Lawyers: For Los Angeles: Thomas Hixon, Bingham McCutchen, (415) 393-2000. For the county: Steve Mayer, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, (415) 434-1600.

The planners may have all gone home from Squaw Valley, but the planning talk has continued apace in San Jose, where the League of California Cities annual conference started on Wednesday. Most of the talk, not surprisingly, is about money – specifically, how Sacramento keeps taking it – but there's also plenty of policy talk, especially about affordable housing. One of the big topics – especially among city attorneys – is affordable housing. That's largely because of two recent appellate court rulings that are reshaping the world of inclusionary housing and housing fees – Palmer v. City of Los Angeles , in which the Second District ruled that inclusionary housing requirements can't be applied to rental apartments, and BIA v. City of Patterson , in which the Fifth District rejected the city's methodology for an in-lieu fee. A third of the cities in California have "inclusionary" requirements, which force homebuilders to set aside a certain percentage of their units for low/mod housing or else pay a fee of more or less equivalent value. Inclusionary requirements are increasingly popular – and increasingly a target for the builders. The issue that both these cases bring up, according to Goldman & Lipfarb's Barbara Kautz , is what kind of an action an inclusionary housing ordinance really is. Kautz, a former community development director of San Mateo, suggested that in legal terms an inclusionary housing ordinance could be considered any one of the following three types of actions: 1. A land use control, like zoning. 2. An exaction, subject to rules under such precedents as Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich. 3. Economic regulation, similar to price controls and rent control. It's pretty clear that most planners would prefer that inclusionary housing be considered just another form of land use control – a necessary regulation to protect health, safety, and welfare. Unfortunately, Kautz said, the only place where the courts have viewed inclusionary housing as straightforward land use controls is in New Jersey, where the Mount Laurel cases have established that line of reasoning. Inclusionary housing related to rental units is getting tripped up by laws related to economic regulation, especially rent control. That's what happened in the Palmer case, where the court ruled that Los Angeles's requirement that central city apartment developers set aside some rental units for affordable housing was a violation of the state's Costa-Hawkins Act, which limits local governments' ability to maintain rent control. The law says landlords have the ability to set rental prices when they put units on the market, and then again when apartments turn over. Only when an apartment is occupied may rents  be controlled. The court said the inclusionary housing ordinance violated the landlord's right to set rents at the outset. Kautz seemed to suggest that this leaves California cities little choice but to treat inclusionary housing as an exaction – as Patterson attempted to do, but failed because the city's methodology left a lot to be desired. (In the Patterson case, the city simply took the total subsidy required to provide the low/mod units under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and divided it by the remaining residential buildout to come up with a per-unit fee.) This would appear to suggest more nexus studies, this time for inclusionary housing. (In a separate presentation on the same panel, Alan Selzer, chief deputy city attorney in Santa Monica, made an interesting point about inclusionary housing fees. Updating the city attorneys on the appellate court ruling in Action Apartment Association v. City of Santa Monica , which held that the Nollan/Dolan test can't be applied to inclusionary housing ordinances, he noted that there's a big difference between impact fees, which require a nexus study, and in-lieu fees, which simply provide a developer with the option of "monetizing" an on-site requirement such as affordale housing.)  However, as Kautz pointed out, it may be difficult to prove that construction of market-rate housing has a big impact on the supply of low/mod housing – though economic consultants will certainly be more than willing to try. Indeed, this has been the building industry's big argument all along – that the need for low/mod housing is created by a wide variety of circumstances, including job creation and non-residential development, and the burden should not be placed entirely on homebuilders. From the point of view of affordable housing advocates, support for inclusionary housing has not always been based on technical analysis but on practical reality. Inclusionary requirements are a way to make sure affordable housing actually gets built. More litigation to come, for sure. But in the meantime, bring on the nexus studies. – Bill Fulton

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

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

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

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

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

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