There's never been a weirder time to try to do planning in California. On the one hand, the state has made climate change a major priority – and it's driving local government efforts in a hundred different ways, ranging from greenhouse gas analyses in environmental documents to switching out light bulbs in city corporation yards. On the other hand, the state is cutting back all over the place because of the ever-more-dismal budget crisis. And this is going to make it hard for local governments to meet the requirements the state is laying out. For example, shortly after passing SB 375 – which seeks to reduce driving -- the state cut back on assistance to public transit considerably. In addition, the state is encouraging localities to prepare climate action plans – or at least include climate as a major issue in their general plan updates. However, the state has not appropriated any funds for such plans and, most recently, has proposed balancing its own budget by borrowing $2 billion – 8% of property tax revenues – from locals, which will make it more difficult for cities and counties to pay for planning out of their general funds. So how will the locals pay for these plans? Surely not through the federal stimulus package. After all, plans are, almost by definition, not "shovel-ready." At best, a plan leads to a project, which then requires design and environmental review before it's shovel-ready. But wait. The stimulus package does contain one pot of money that can be used for climate-related planning, if local governments apply for it and if the planners can successfully arm-wrestle the public works department for the money. That money is in the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant program, which is funneling more than $100 million into California, including $70 million directly into the coffers of cities and counties around the state. Although it's part of the stimulus package – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the energy block grants are not like the other pots of stimulus money. They can be used for a wide range of purposes, and they do not have any performance requirements attached to them. That is because the energy block grant was one of those ideas kicking around Washington, D.C., for a long time looking for an excuse to be funded. The idea was hatched by the U.S. Conference of Mayors some years ago, and now has been included in the stimulus package. Especially in the context of current local government budgets in California, the dollars are huge. Small cities such as Brea and Culver City get around $200,000 apiece. Large suburban cities – population 100,000 to 200,000 – are eligible for somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million. Bigger cities like Riverside, Chula Vista, and Anaheim get $2 million to $3 million. Very large cities get even more. The deadline for submission of proposals to the federal Department of Energy is June 25. Like regular block grants, most of the money goes straight to the locals. For jurisdictions of fewer than 35,000 people, the money is funneled through the California Energy Commission. And that's not all: There's another $20 million or so that the Energy Commission can give out however it wants. The criteria have not been established – but planning is definitely on the list. So how can all this dough be used for planning? Well, for one thing, the federal energy block grants criteria are very broad. According to the state Energy Commission, the money can be used to engage in activities that will: • Reduce fossil fuel emissions in the jurisdiction • Reduce total energy use • Develop renewable energy sources • Improve energy efficiency in transportation and buildings. Sounds like the perfect general plan funding source in the wake of AB 32 and SB 375. Except for one thing: Planners aren't the only folks in California local government who want this money. In fact, most of the time the planners don't even know about this money. Thanks to Jerry Brown and other factors, locals feel a lot of pressure these days to reduce greenhouse gases and energy consumption. SB 375 notwithstanding, there are two areas of great concern. Land use is one. The other is the actual operations of the local governments themselves. And this is where the competition for the energy block grant money is likely to come from. Brown's famous 2007 settlement with San Bernardino County, forcing the county to implement AB 32, focused on two things: first, minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions created by land use decisions the county makes, and, second, minimizing emissions from county operations ( see CP&DR , September 2007 ). In other words, the attorney general concluded that development permits and the agency's own operations are the two major items that generate GHGs which are within the agency's control – and therefore those were his targets. At the same time, many local governments have gotten a lot more sophisticated in understanding the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from their own buildings, fleets, and so forth. They're interested in retooling their recreational facilities, their corporation yards, their municipal buildings, their water and wastewater utilities – all the big energy-sucking operations. Replacing those things will help them get the GHGs down and also reduce their operating costs for electricity. But they don't want to invest their own capital funds because the payback period is so long – 5, 10, sometimes 30 or 40 years. So the first call on "free money" for energy conservation in most cities is likely to go to public works. But that doesn't ace out planners. California will also be getting a separate $226 million from the stimulus package for the State Energy Program – a program that does require local governments (and others) to forecast and document the actual energy savings from the expenditures. That's the kind of money more likely to flow into energy-saving capital projects, and it's difficult for cities and counties to combine the two programs (state energy and energy block grants) because the reporting requirements and the performance measures are different. Finally, don't forget the California Energy Commission is still sitting on $20 million it can distribute however it wants. The Energy Commission may yet decide the highest priorities are general plans and climate action plans.

With the State of California again facing financial calamity, the fight in Sacramento over tapping the revenues of local redevelopment agencies to fund schools is likely to intensify. One of the latest developments came April 30, when a Sacramento County Superior Court judge blocked implementation of a portion of a 2008 law (AB 1389) requiring redevelopment agencies to transfer $350 million in tax increment revenue to schools. The ruling was a victory for the nearly 400 redevelopment agencies and the California Redevelopment Agency (CRA), which lead the litigation. The Schwarzenegger administration will almost certainly appeal. A report released by the state controller's office days before the court decision only heats up matters. It found that more than one-quarter of redevelopment agencies face sanctions for being out of compliance for their pass-through payments to schools. That report, which infuriated the CRA and certain redevelopment agencies, will be updated shortly and is expected to show more agencies are in compliance, according to the controller's office. Still, the issue of pass-through payments remains, and it is the subject of potentially controversial CRA-sponsored legislation. Signed into law last year, AB 1389 requires redevelopment agencies to transfer a portion of their tax increment revenues to school districts. The law also requires the state controllers' office to report on the separate issue of pass-through payments from redevelopment agencies to schools for the 2003-04 through 2007-08 fiscal years. The April court ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed in October 2008 by the CRA and the redevelopment agencies of Moreno Valley and Madera County. The suit contended that the law's requirement that $350 million of tax increment revenues of the state's redevelopment agencies for the 2008-09 fiscal year be transferred to their county Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF) violated the state and federal constitution for several reasons (see CP&DR Capitol Update , October 2008 ). The ruling by Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connolly focused solely on legislative findings and declarations used by state lawmakers to legitimize the mandatory transfers. Lawmakers said the transfers were legal because the money would be distributed to schools serving students who live in redevelopment project areas and in housing built with redevelopment money. In siding with the CRA, Connolly said, " he ERAF funds are distributed without any procedures to assure that the schools and educational programs receiving funds contributed by the city RDAs are serving students within the redevelopment project areas or communities of the city RDAs or are serving students living in housing assisted by the contributing city RDAs. … These circumstances directly undermine the findings and declarations." CRA Executive Director John Shirey said he would not rule out a settlement of the litigation, but he added, "There is no indication anybody wants to work out a compromise with us." A legislative remedy might be the more likely outcome. Shortly after Connolly's ruling came down, legislative staff members were reportedly working on a remedy to the legal flaw Connolly cited. But a legislative remedy may be too late for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Gov. Schwarzenegger's "May revise" contained no shift of money away from redevelopment agencies, even though the governor proposed "borrowing" $2 billion in property tax revenues from cities and counties. The state controller's report on property tax pass-through payments covered the five fiscal years from 2003-04 through 2007-08. State law requires most redevelopment agencies to share a portion of tax increment with school districts – a "pass-through" payment. The amount of pass-through payments varies depending on the redevelopment project area's age and negotiations between the redevelopment agency and school districts. The Legislative Analyst's Office previously estimated that, over the five yeare period, redevelopment agency underpayment of pass-throughs to schools combined with school errors in reporting these pass-throughs to the state increased the state's education costs by about $98 million. The controllers' office followed up last year with a report that said schools had underestimated the amount of pass-through payments received by more than $100 million in one year alone. The controller identified many other discrepancies in the complex and inconsistently implemented pass-through system. The latest controller's report, issued in April, found that the redevelopment agencies were supposed to make $355 million in pass-through payments to school districts for the five-year period, and that agencies had paid $331 million by the end of February. At that time, 67 agencies had not fulfilled their pass-through obligations, according to the controller's office. That number has since dropped but many agencies still lack a "finding of concurrence" from their county auditor. A total of 107 agencies face sanctions for not making payments, lacking a finding of concurrence or not filing a report, the controller concluded. Eighty-three agencies submitted statements of dispute with their county auditors. The CRA's Shirey lambasted the report. "It was full of errors and mistakes. There has been no leadership or guidance on the part of the controller," he said. Controllers' office spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said her office's role is merely to compile the information as required by law. She said the report would be updated as the state receives new information from redevelopment agencies and county auditors. In an attempt to clarify the enormously complex pass-through requirements, the CRA is sponsoring SB 530 (Dutton). The bill initially met stiff resistance from schools. "It was kind of redevelopment agencies' wish list on how to allocate redevelopment money," said Dennis Meyers, lobbyist for the California Association of School Business Officials. In response, the CRA dramatically narrowed the bill for the time being but intends to push for significant amendments later this year. Jean Hurst, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties, said her organization, CRA and the California Association of County Auditors continue SB 530 negotiations. "We've aired all the issues. We're trying to work it out," Hurst said. School representatives, however, have not been closely involved with the talks. Lawmakers last year approved a measure (SB 360 – Negrete McLeod) that would have given the authority to make and report pass-through payments to county auditors instead of redevelopment agencies. Schools and State Controller John Chiang endorsed SB 360, while county auditors opposed it. The bill was one of the victims of Schwarzenegger's mass veto of what he determined was not priority legislation. Contacts: John Shirey, California Redevelopment Association, (916) 448-8760. Dennis Meyers, California Association of School Business Officials, (916) 447-3783. Jean Hurst, California State Association of Counties, (916) 327-7500. State Controller's Office report on pass-through payments: http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/ab1389_proptax_passthru_pments_0409.pdf Court case: California Redevelopment Association v. Genest , Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2008-00028334-CU-WM-GDS.

Voters in the Santa Clara County city of Morgan Hill have changed their minds and approved a growth control modification to permit additional housing development in the downtown area. Measure A keeps in place Morgan Hill's population cap of 48,000 by 2020, but permits 500 more units downtown than had been allowed. In November 2008, the nearly identical Measure H failed by 10 votes. When the governor called a special election, the City Council quickly placed Measure A on the May 19 ballot. This time supporters ran a more aggressive campaign, winning 58.8% of the vote. Downtown Morgan Hill has rebounded during recent years, but city officials and a downtown association say the district would benefit from additional private investment and a built-in base of residents to patronize businesses. A residential development control system first approved by voters 30 years ago limited downtown development. Measure A modifies the growth-control system in a fashion that supporters say encourages "smart growth," mixed-use development and housing that appeals to a broader demographic than Morgan Hill's single-family subdivisions. City councilmembers envision a bustling, walkable neighborhood and often point to nearby Los Gatos as a model.

A charter city does not have to comply with California's prevailing-wage law if its public works projects are financed exclusively with city revenues, a divided three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The reason: The state law "does not touch upon matters of statewide concern sufficient to outweigh the power of charter cities over their municipal affairs," Justice Patricia Benke wrote for the court's majority. In a long dissent, Justice Joan Irion contended that her "colleagues improperly perform an inquiry into the effectiveness and advisability of the prevailing wage law" rather than review the statute's reach under the state constitution. The case involved the San Diego suburb of Vista, one of the state's 83 charter cities. In November 2006, Vista voters approved a half-cent sales tax to finance construction of two fire stations, a civic center, a sports park and an amphitheater stage house. The estimated cost of the projects was about $100 million. Seven months later, the city's voters approved a charter to govern city affairs. Among the pro-charter arguments was that a charter would permit Vista to bypass prevailing wage and other public contracting statutes that apply to general law cities. "One of the advantages that the charter gave us was the ability to do design-build," city attorney Darold Pieper said. "All of these projects are design-build." The fire stations are occupied, and the stage house is scheduled to be completed this summer. The civic center and sports park are under construction and due to open in 2010, according to Robin Putnam, community projects director. Shortly after voters approved the city charter, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO, filed a lawsuit asking a court to direct Vista to comply with the prevailing wage law despite the city's charter status. San Diego County Superior Court Judge Robert Dahlquist ruled against the union, a decision upheld by the appellate court panel. Adopted in 1937, the prevailing-wage law (Labor Code §§ 1720–1780) aims to ensure that contractors that use union labor can compete for public works projects; to prevent public agencies from undercutting local wage rates; and to maintain construction trades apprentice programs. To achieve these goals, the law requires contractors on public works projects to pay their workers, skilled and unskilled, a "prevailing wage." The state director of industrial relations determines that wage in different labor markets by consulting local collective bargaining contracts. Hence, prevailing wages are typically urban area union rates. The law also requires contractors in most instances to hire some lower-wage apprentices and to pay into a state fund for apprentice training programs. Public agencies frequently complain that the law drives up the costs of construction. Labor unions counter that it ensures high-quality work on public works projects. In arriving at its ruling, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, first examined the "home rule," or municipal affairs clause, of California's constitution. This clause – article XI, § 5 – permits cities to adopt charters to govern their municipal affairs. A state's interest may supersede city charter powers only when a state law qualifies as a matter of "statewide concern," Justice Benke wrote in the majority opinion. If a state law meets that standard, the reviewing court must determine whether it "is both reasonably related to resolution of that concern and narrowly tailored to limit incursion into legitimate municipal interests." In turning to the prevailing wage law in question, the court focused on the statute's exemption for construction projects that do not use public funds. "This basic exception to the application of the law is, for us, telling," Benke wrote. "The protection which the PWL provides to workers is plainly not so vital a part of the state's larger overall goal of protecting the state's workers that it applies generally to all construction contracts. Thus, at its most basic level, the dimensions of the policies advanced by the PWL are limited." In addition, the court noted, the Legislature has exempted some agreements between public agencies and private entities – including those to construct low-income and group housing – from the law's provisions. " pplication of the law is fairly elastic," the court declared. " he statute is not designed to raise or set local wages and working conditions, but rather to keep state contracting from undermining what local labor markets have established," Benke wrote. "At its core, the PWL is not a mandate, but a restraint on the manner in which the state spends its resources." A city's decision to expend its resources on public works is solely a municipal concern and does not undermine the state government's contracting practices, the court concluded. " t does not take undue speculation to recognize that in any given locality the volume of private construction activity is likely to match or exceed the volume of a municipality's public works contracts. As has been the case since the PWL was enacted, in this factual context, it is difficult to conclude that extraterritorial impact of a municipality's contracting practices is significant and substantial enough to warrant subordination of a municipality's power over its spending, when the Legislature itself has determined that no regulation is necessary with respect to what, in any particular area, might be an equal or far larger volume of private contracting," wrote Benke. The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO, she added, "offers no evidence which suggests the contracting activity of municipalities materially impacts regional labor markets. ... he wages paid on local public works projects are not matters of sufficient extramural dimension to support legislative intervention." In her dissent, Irion contended that the panel's majority had framed the question incorrectly to address the law's effectiveness. "In my view, using the proper legal construct, the record establishes that the legislative purposes of (1) maintaining the wage base in the construction industry and (2) promoting quality apprentice training in the construction trades are both matters of statewide concern and, further, that the prevailing wage law is reasonably related to advancing those purposes." Pieper, Vista's attorney, said the city is "especially pleased that the electoral will of the citizens of Vista will be respected, and that their decisions to tax themselves and assert local autonomy can be fully implemented." The union will appeal to the California Supreme Court, said Sandy Harrison, the union's spokesman. "It is a matter of statewide concern, and charter cities are able to skirt state law only on matters of exclusively local concern," he said. While the state's top court accepts only about 1% of the cases brought to its attention, observers see the Vista case as a strong candidate for review. "Given the importance of this issue and the divided vote in the Court of Appeal, this case seems like a very good bet for Supreme Court review," wrote Steven Mayer, an appellate lawyer with the law firm Howard Rice who has argued before the state high court. Harrison added that, "There are a great many charter cities that find that it's in their interest to pay a prevailing wage." According to Putnam, Vista's projects director, some of the workers on the city's projects, such as the iron workers building the civic center, are indeed union members. The Case: State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista , No. D052181, 2009 DJDAR 6133. Filed April 28, 2009. The Lawyers: For the Trades Council: Scott Kronland, Altshuler Berzon, (415) 421-7151. For the city: Darold Pieper, city attorney, (760) 639-6119.

Seven years ago, Bill Fulton and I wrote a lengthy story for Governing magazine about San Bernardino County. We didn't write the headline, but it was appropriate: "Addicted to Corruption." Apparently, the county still has not entered rehab. On Tuesday, May 12, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors released an investigative report into the county assessor's office. The report says Bill Postmus – who resigned as assessor in February after an extended leave of absence, an admission of drug addiction and lots of bickering with the Board of Supervisors – along with his appointed staff, ran the office as "a personal political operation fully funded by San Bernardino taxpayers." Postmus and his lieutenants spent virtually no time actually assessing property values, according to the report. Also on the 12th, the Board of Supervisors sued Postmus and five other individuals to get back taxpayers' money. Among the other five are Rancho Cucamonga Councilman Rex Guiterrez, a former Postmus aid who was also fired from his job with the county's Economic Development Agency. The board's news release, the investigative report by former federal prosecutor John Hueston and the civil suit are available on the county's website . Back when we were reporting our story for Governing , the county was pursuing similar lawsuits against two former county administrators, the former treasurer-tax collector and about 20 other individuals and legal entities. The county eventually got more than $10 million in restitution. Careers ended. People went to prison. (Our story was reprinted in a book from CQ Press .) Because of the county's ongoing civil suits, as well as state and federal criminal prosecutions, we originally thought our story was going to explain how a local government pulls itself out of corruption scandals and rebuilds its integrity and reputation. We ended up less than fully convinced the county was going to change its ways. Why? Because Supervisor Gerald Eaves was still in office despite having recently pleaded guilty to accepting bribes. Because two reformers brought in by the board – a highly regarded county administrator and an ethics consultant – gave up because they were convinced the elected leadership was not serious about reform. (I still remember the ethics expert, Michael Josephson, telling me, "There was a big kill-the-messenger situation.") Because I hadn't been in town more than few hours before people started leaking damning internal documents to me. Besides Eaves, one of the other members of the Board of Supervisors at that time was Postmus. They made up two-thirds of what I would characterize as the pro-corruption bloc on the board, which has since turned over entirely. In a written statement released this week, Postmus described the latest investigation as "a taxpayer-funded hit piece." Former Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman, among those sued by the county, said in a separate statement that the political activity in the assessor's office was no different from "what occurs in the offices of other county elected officials." Among the things Aleman reportedly did on county time was edit the Republican website www.redcounty.com (which has had little to say about situation). The level of corruption on which we reported seven years was shocking. Not only was the county implicated, but so were the cities of San Bernardino and Colton; some councilmembers in both cities were indicted. Nearly as shocking to me, though, was the lack of public outrage. "Good government" groups and true watchdogs were virtually nonexistent. I couldn't even get the local League of Women Voters to call me back. It was almost as if government corruption was an accepted part of the landscape. I know there are honest people in San Bernardino County, and I feel badly for the hardworking civil servants who get splashed by the mud. Still, the Postmus situation suggests that we got it right seven years ago. San Bernardino County smelled bad then. The stench remains overwhelming today. Bill Postmus will not be the last government official in the county to fall amid scandal. – Paul Shigley

A City of Los Angeles ordinance that subjects replacement rental units to the city's rent control scheme has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The city's law provides that if a landlord demolishes a residential property that is subject to the city's rent stabilization ordinance, and then builds new residential rental units on the same property within five years, the new units are also subject to the rent stabilization ordinance. The Apartment Association of Los Angeles County challenged the law as prohibited by the Costa-Hawkins Act, which exempts newly constructed units from local rent control measures. The court, however, disagreed with the association's reading of state law. For years, Los Angeles has had a rent stabilization ordinance that limits the amount landlords may charge for certain residential units. The ordinance applies to an estimated 700,000 apartments. In 2007, the city adopted a new ordinance that applies the rent control provisions to replacement units built within five years of demolition of the rent-controlled units. The apartment owners group sued, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Grimes ruled for the city. The apartment owners then appealed. At issue in the litigation was interpretations of the Ellis Act and the Costa-Hawkins Act. In general, the Ellis Act (Government Code � 7060 et seq .) permits the owner of a rental property to evict the tenants and go out of business. However, the Ellis Act contains recontrol provisions intended to prohibit bogus evictions. If a landlord begins renting a property again after evicting tenants, local rent control measures still apply. In addition, local governments may impose rent control on replacement units under the Ellis Act. The Ellis Act was passed in 1985. Ten year later, lawmakers passed Costa-Hawkins (Civil Code � 1954.50 et seq.), which prohibits the application of local rent control ordinances to units built after February 1, 1995, and which establishes "vacancy decontrol" that permits a landlord to reset rent levels when a tenant has voluntarily vacated, abandoned or been legally evicted. The Apartment Association argued the Costa-Hawkins prohibition on rent control of newly built units repealed the Ellis Act provisions regarding replacement units. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Three, disagreed. The court examined the legislative history of the Ellis Act and found that the original bill was amended to include recontrol provisions after concern arose that landlords would evict tenants under the pretext of going out of business. Specifically at issue here was Government Code � 7060.2, subdivision (d), which applies to demolished rent controlled units that are replaced within five years. " he legislative history of � 7060.2, subdivision (d), clearly indicates that the statute was enacted to authorize local public entities to promulgate ordinances that discourage landlords from evicting their tenants under the false pretense of going out of business pursuant to the Ellis Act," Justice Patti Kitching wrote for the court. Los Angeles adopted the ordinance in question pursuant to this statute. Costa-Hawkins repealed portions of the Health and Safety Code related to housing, but did not repeal the Ellis Act, the court noted. Specifically, Costa-Hawkins did not affect the authority of local government to "regulate or monitor the basis for eviction" as provided in Ellis Act provisions against bogus evictions. Moreover, lawmakers amended the Ellis Act in 1999 and 2002, the later time specifically to make nonsubstantive amendments to the recontrol provision. "The 2002 amendment to the Ellis Act shows that after Costa-Hawkins was enacted, the Legislature continued to regard � 7060.2, subdivision (d), as the law of this state," Kitching wrote. "This amendment conclusively rebuts position regarding the alleged implied repeal of � 7060.2, subdivision (d). The Legislature would not have amended section 7060.2, subdivision (d), in 2002 if it had repealed the statute with Costa-Hawkins in 1995. We cannot presume the Legislature engaged in an idle act." Rather, the court ruled, the statutes "should be interpreted to work together." The Case: Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles , No. B204334, 09 C.D.O.S. 4583, 2009 DJDAR 5455. Filed April 17, 2009. The Lawyers: For the Apartment Association: Trevor A. Grimm, California Apartment Law Information Foundation, (213) 380-0303. For the city: Gerald Sato, city attorney's office, (213) 485-5417.

The San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission may proceed with the proposed consolidation of two water districts, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the argument of one district that the proposed consolidation is not subject to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act and that the consolidation is actually a dissolution. The entities involved in the controversy are the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District and the much larger San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. The Water Conservation District covers 78 square miles in Highland, Redlands, Loma Linda, Colton, San Bernardino and unincorporated San Bernardino County. The district's primary responsibility is diverting water from the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek into percolation basins in order to recharge the groundwater aquifer, which is the primary water supply for the area. A seven-member board elected by districts governs the district. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District covers 352 square miles encompassing all or parts of nine cities and unincorporated territory in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The district serves as a water wholesaler that imports water from the State Water Project and manages the groundwater basin. A five-member board elected by districts runs the district. The Water Conservation District lies entirely within the Municipal Water District. In 2006, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) board decided that because the districts provide similar services to the same area, the districts should be considered for consolidation. Late that year, the Municipal Water District submitted an application for consolidation. The Water Conservation District sued LAFCO to bar it from processing the application. The City of Highland and environmental organizations oppose the consolidation because they say the move would jeopardize a proposed habitat conservation plan for the Upper Santa Ana River Wash. The Water Conservation District has sought increased rights to Santa Ana River water to provide for environmental needs in the habitat conservation plan area. A final environmental impact report on the district consolidation that was released earlier this year, however, concluded there would be no significant impacts resulting from the consolidation. A LAFCO study concluded the consolidation would save the Water Conservation District's taxpayers about $700,000 annually, a conclusion disputed by the district and environmentalists. The lawsuit was moved to a neutral venue in Ventura County, where a Superior Court judge ruled LAFCO could proceed with the application. On appeal, the Ventura-based Second Appellate District, Division Six, upheld the lower court. The Water Conservation District argued that because it was organized pursuant to the Water Conservation District Law of 1931, LAFCO could not proceed under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act to consolidate the districts. In a to-the-point opinion, however, Justice Paul Coffee noted that the Legislature repealed the 1931 law and incorporated the pertinent provisions into the District Reorganization Act of 1965, which created LAFCOs and served as the precursor to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. Thus, the San Bernardino LAFCO has the authority to order the consolidation of the two districts "should it determine that such a consolidation is in the public interest," Coffee wrote. The Water Conservation District argued that the proposal would prompt creation of a new successor district, which would not be possible because two districts already exist. The court rejected this interpretation. The Water Conservation District's "contention ignores that the term ‘successor' is included in the statutory phrase. The creation of a ‘new successor district' necessarily implies the existence of multiple entities that become a single entity," Coffee wrote. It is up to LAFCO to decide which existing district will be the consolidated successor, the court ruled. The proposal before LAFCO calls for the Municipal Water District to assume all of the Water Conservation District's duties, obligations and employees. The LAFCO board is scheduled to decide on the consolidation in July. The Case: San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District v. Local Agency Formation Commission , No. B208974, 09 C.D.O.S. 4833. Filed March 23, 2009. Certified for publication April 22, 2009. The Lawyers; For the Water Conservation District: H. Jess Senecal, Lagerlof, Senecal, Gosny & Kruse, (626) 793-9400. For LAFCO: Kendall MacVey, Best, Best & Krieger, (909) 686-1450. For the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District: David Aladjem, Downy Brand, (916) 444-1000.

The Southern California Association of Governments has unveiled a new "conceptual land use plan" that concentrates development on a half-million acres of land near rail, bus rapid transit, and local bus lines in the six-county SCAG region. Initial numbers suggest that this plan would only get SCAG 60% of the way toward the region's likely SB 375 emissions reduction target. During SCAG's annual conference in La Quinta, Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata emphasized that the new map is simply "the starting point of a conversation" and that SCAG would not force local governments to take an allocation number for emissions reduction purposes because SB 375 does not require it. "We are not here to tell people what to do," Ikhrata said. "We do not have the power or the inclination to do that. We are here to help cities implement SB 375 in a way that is beneficial to everybody." Councilmember Larry McCallon of Highland, who chaired the meeting of SCAG's Committee on Economic and Human Development, added: "We're not going to ask SCAG dictate to you what needs to be done. We're going to put these out there for discussion. Whatever we put out there as a region reflects your input. This is a law we are trying to implement good or bad and you are not obligated to use anything, it's not mandatory. You are welcome to come out with your own ideas on how to make this whole thing work and get involved in process." Reaction from local elected officials on the SCAG Regional Council was predictably unenthusiastic. Several local officials said they thought emissions reduction targets should be balanced on other sectors of the economy, such as cleaner fuels for both cars and trucks and energy efficiency. But heavy trucks and energy efficiency are being dealt with outside the SB 375 process. Others feared that if they were already built out and did not densify they would lose transportation dollars. Ikhrata assured them that they would not, though SB 375 directs SCAG to dole out transportation dollars so as to maximize emissions reduction. SCAG is assuming that when the California Air Resources Board issues regional targets for emissions reduction sometime next year, the six-county Southern California region will be required to take about half the reduction in the state � or about 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Alone among regional planning agencies in the state, SCAG is permitted under SB 375 to downshift implementation of these emissions reduction targets to some or all of its 14 subregions. But unlike with the regional housing assessment, SCAG is not required by law to give the subregions � or individual cities and counties � a hard target for emissions reduction. To read more about the plan and proposed methodologies for distributing emissions reductions, click here .� � Bill Fulton

Southern California's regional planning agency unveiled a new "conceptual land use plan" on Friday, May 8 – but the plan does not meet the presumed greenhouse gas emissions target for the region under SB 375, and SCAG has not revealed yet how growth would be split up under the most transit-oriented interpretation of the plan. The plan – unveiled during the Southern California Association of Governments' annual meeting in La Quinta – concentrates development on a half-million acres of land near rail, bus rapid transit, and local bus lines in the six-county SCAG region. Initial numbers suggest that this plan would only get SCAG 60% of the way toward the region's likely SB 375 emissions reduction target. Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata emphasized that the new map is simply "the starting point of a conversation" and that SCAG would not force local governments to take an allocation number for emissions reduction purposes because SB 375 does not require it. "We are not here to tell people what to do," Ikhrata said. "We do not have the power or the inclination to do that. We are here to help cities implement SB 375 in a way that is beneficial to everybody." Councilmember Larry McCallon of Highland, who chaired the meeting of SCAG's Committee on Economic and Human Development, added: "We're not going to ask SCAG dictate to you what needs to be done. We're going to put these out there for discussion. Whatever we put out there as a region reflects your input. This is a law we are trying to implement good or bad and you are not obligated to use anything, it's not mandatory. You are welcome to come out with your own ideas on how to make this whole thing work and get involved in process." Reaction from local elected officials on the SCAG Regional Council was predictably unenthusiastic. Several local officials said they thought emissions reduction targets should be balanced on other sectors of the economy, such as cleaner fuels for both cars and trucks and energy efficiency. But heavy trucks and energy efficiency are being dealt with outside the SB 375 process. Others feared that if they were already built out and did not densify they would lose transportation dollars. Ikhrata assured them that they would not, though SB 375 directs SCAG to dole out transportation dollars so as to maximize emissions reduction. SCAG is assuming that when the California Air Resources Board issues regional targets for emissions reduction sometime next year, the six-county Southern California region will be required to take about half the reduction in the state – or about 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Alone among regional planning agencies in the state, SCAG is permitted under SB 375 to downshift implementation of these emissions reduction targets to some or all of its 14 subregions. But unlike with the regional housing assessment, SCAG is not required by law to give the subregions – or individual cities and counties – a hard target for emissions reduction. Ikhrata's presentation Friday had two components. First, he showed the conceptual land use plan and its potential for emissions reduction. Second, he revealed several possible methodologies for distributing emissions reductions among the subregions – but did not reveal the results of the most interesting one. (You may find all of Ikhrata's PowerPoint slides and the underlying data on the SCAG website .) The conceptual land use plan would reduce emissions by 1.5 million metric tons from a "baseline" analysis by 2020. This is far better than the adopted Regional Transportation Plan, which would have virtually no reductions. But it's not nearly as good as the ill-fated "Envision" plan created by SCAG last year, which almost hit the 2.5-million-metric-ton target but was so extreme that SCAG's Regional Council (made up of local elected officials) wouldn't adopt it. SCAG originally tried to create the conceptual land use plan by concentrating development around rail and bus rapid transit lines. But this approach – which loaded most development onto about 120,000 acres, largely in Los Angeles County – couldn't accommodate enough growth at current general plan densities. So SCAG then added another 400,000 acre around local bus transit lines. Ikhrata also unveiled six possible methods for divvying up the emissions reduction target among SCAG's 14 subregions – but he did not reveal modeling results for the most important one. Four of the methods are straightforward and actually somewhat similar, based on a subregion's (1) total growth, (2) incremental growth, (3) total emissions, and (4) per capita or per household emissions. Not surprisingly, all four of these methods require 60-70% of the regional reduction to come from four subregions: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Western Riverside counties. The methods based on overall totals (whether growth or emissions) load more burden onto Los Angeles and Orange counties, which are more populous whereas the methods based on incremental increases load more burden onto San Bernardino and Riverside, which are growing faster. A fifth method weights the others equally and, not surprisingly, spread the burden more or less evenly among the four big subregions. The final method, however, would place a greater emissions reduction burden in areas with significant transit investment, especially rail and BRT, and infill potential – the method most similar to the ideas in the conceptual land use plan. But Ikhrata did not reveal the modeling results from this method, nor did he explain why the results were not available. Such a model would almost certainly require concentration of most new growth in Los Angeles and, to a lesser extent, northern Orange County, where the transit system is strong and infill sites are plentiful. It may be that this method requires densities far in excess of what current local general plans call for – which would cause a political problem for SCAG. Or it may be that there are internal debates within SCAG over how this methodology should work, because it is more complicated and less straightforward than the other five. Ikhrata did not say when the results of this methodology might be made public. The Air Resources Board is scheduled to receive an overall statewide methodology proposal this fall from the Regional Targets Advisory Committee, a group created by SB 375 to provide advice on how to divvy up the targets among regions.

Public policy regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is in an age of "absolutely" and "absolutely nots," according to Jeffrey Mount. But policy could enter an age of reason within a decade, he said. A hydrologist and Director of UC Davis's Center for Watershed Sciences , Mount has been sounding alarms about the state's water system – specifically the Delta – for a very long time. In delivering the final keynote speech at the Great Valley Center's annual conference in Sacramento on May 6-7, Mount continued to ring the bell. But he also painted a somewhat hopeful vision for the Delta if we can simply get past the current rough patch. Conference organizers asked Mount to predict what the Delta would be like in 2020. He presented the following timeline: 1996 to 2006: "The age of indecision." (This could also be called the age of Cal-Fed .) Every interest group tried to get better together. Instead, they all got worse together. 2007 to 2017: "The age of absolutes and absolutely nots." Everybody has dug in their heels and is suing one another. 2018: "The dawning of the age of reason." Things start to become clearer as courts issue opinions in the litigation. 2020: "The age of reason in the Delta." Mount went on to present a Top-10 list of what he called myths that will be defeated during this age of reason. 1. Water that flows to the sea is wasted. (No, said Mount, that's how the natural world works.) 2. Most of the water is allocated to the environment. (This is bogus accounting, according to Mount.) 3. Groundwater is separate from surface water. ("Groundwater is not separated from surface water except by lawyers.") 4. Conservation can solve our water problems. 5. Desalinization can solve our water problems. (It's an "energy hog.") 6. The Peripheral Canal is a Southern California water grab. (5/6th of the water a canal would deliver would go to San Joaquin Valley farms and the Bay Area cities, Mount contended.) 7. Water markets will solve the Central Valley's problems. 8. We can restore native ecosystems. (The Delta's native ecosystem is gone, said Mount. What we can do is create an ecosystem based on desirable plants and animals.) 9. Fix the levees and reduce exports, and everything will be fine in the Delta. 10. More surface storage will solve the problem of . Mount even offered a bonus myth he thinks will get busted: Because of climate change, we must . Mount's PowerPoint presentation and related items are posted on the Great Valley website . Mount readily conceded he would not make broad policy recommendations during his speech – or ever. His primary contention was that policymakers need to make hard decisions on the peripheral canal, Delta governance and other things. Get off the dime, he said. Fortunately, we appear to have a political moment right now during which there is a willingness to make those decisions, he observed. Oh, and one more prediction from Mount: If a major earthquake strikes the system, all predictions are off. – Paul Shigley

In a way, San Diego might be the anti-Petaluma. Instead of laying off all the planners like Petaluma is doing, San Diego is investing heavily in long-term planning as an economic development strategy. I should say right up front that it's a bit unfair to compare a suburb of 57,000 people with a major city of 1.3 million. Still, the contrasting responses to difficult economic times is instructive. As we have reported, the Petaluma City Council decided in April to eliminate the planners and disband the Community Development Department. The city manager and councilmembers described the decision as a temporary move driven by ongoing budget deficits and a significant drop in development-related fees. "Advance planning is not something that I'm going to address at this moment," Petaluma City Manager John Brown told me. "I'm more concerned at this point in dealing with the current planning, making sure the people who come forward with projects are served." Essentially, Petaluma is going to process applications and abandon long-term planning until the economy gets better. Clearly, this was a difficult decision to make. San Diegans know all about local government fiscal problems. Back in 2003, it become public that the city had systematically underfunded its pension and health care obligations for years and was on the hook for more than $2 billion. Because prior years' financial statements did reflect the obligations, the city's bond rating fell and federal authorities opened investigations. Both the city manager and the mayor eventually resigned. That mess combined with the recent recession forced San Diego to eliminate about 8% of its 10,000-employee workforce. San Diego's Development Services Department, which handles minor development project reviews as well as plan check and building inspection, recently cut 28 out of about 450 position. However, the city has a separate City Planning & Community Investment agency, which not only oversees larger discretionary projects, but also long-range planning, economic development, redevelopment and facilities financing. This organizational structure reflects city leaders' belief that land use planning is directly related to economic growth. "We and the mayor have taken the attitude that this is a good time to plan so we're teed up when the economic recovery happens," explained Bill Anderson, who heads City Planning & Community Investment. "It is important for economic development to get the land uses and zoning in place." After years of planning, study and haggling, the San Diego City Council adopted the City of Villages general plan last year. Implementation of the general plan requires updating of all 35 community plans. In his proposed budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year, Mayor Jerry Sanders actually increased funding for community plan updates so that Anderson's department may work on 13 community plans simultaneously. Funding is coming from the city's general fund, redevelopment revenues, and grants from Caltrans and the San Diego Association of Governments, according to Anderson. "We're trying to focus on comprehensive community planning," said Anderson, who noted that both business and environment advocates have endorsed the effort. Everyone's hope is that having updated community plans will eliminate the painful battles that have marked major discretionary projects during recent years and that have made desired infill development quite difficult. Anderson declined to criticize Petaluma for narrowing the planning function down to application processing. He simply pointed out that issues surrounding quality of life and economic wellbeing never go away, no matter how little fee revenue a city is receiving. – Paul Shigley

State lawmakers have introduced an extraordinarily diverse collection of bills regarding land use planning, natural resources and infrastructure this year. While lawmakers' interest in affordable housing and redevelopment reform appears to have waned, the number of bills related to climate change or renewable energy has increased dramatically in 2009. Legislators have proposed at least five measures that would place water bonds before voters. Other measures are aimed at enhancing the health and changing the governance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Bills concerned with development in fire-prone areas have returned after failing last year, as has a measure to ease use of tax increment financing for infrastructure around transit stations. There is also a bill that would raise vehicle license fees to fund at least some of the regional planning required by last year's SB 375. Looming over everything, however, is the state's fiscal plight. Even if voters approve tax and spending measures during the May 19 special election – which appears unlikely – the state will probably face another significant budget deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year. The fiscal picture should be clearer after Gov. Schwarzenegger provides the "May revise" toward the end of the month. "It looks like it's going to be another year when the state budget is going to be the center of discussion," said Daniel Carrigg, legislative director for the League of California Cities. For that reason, the League is not pursing an aggressive agenda in Sacramento this year, except to block any proposal to grab local revenues. "Now is not the time to add a bunch of new programs and require new fees," Carrigg said. "It seems like it's time to focus on the basics, which is to balance the budget and get those infrastructure dollars out there." The California Building Industry Association (CBIA) is sponsoring a revision of the Mitigation Fee Act and a bill that would extend the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by six years. The industry's priority, however, is an extension of a $10,000 state tax credit for buyers of new homes, said CBIA Vice President Tim Coyle. The state budget deal approved in February included authorization for $100 million worth of new homebuyer tax credits. The state put a one-year time limit on the program, but it appears buyers will burn through the $100 million in less than five months, Coyle said. "It has produced the kind of response we were looking for. Traffic in new home subdivisions is up by incredible numbers," Coyle said. Environmentalists, meanwhile, are backing various climate change and water bills. The Planning and Conservation League (PCL), for example, is sponsoring two bills intended to promote water conservation and recycling as complementary measures to increasing water storage, as most water bonds propose. Hot Year For Climate Bills The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and last year's SB 375 – which uses greenhouse gas emissions targets to force more regional and sustainable planning – marked turning points for land use policy and process. Such major changes naturally result in follow-up legislation. In general, Republican lawmakers are carrying bills to blunt the impact of AB 32 and SB 375, while Democrats have measures that build on the earlier legislation. Republican measures such as AB 118 (Logue), which would repeal AB 32 entirely, and SB 295 (Dutton), which would delay AB 32 implementation until the unemployment rate drops below 5.8% (about half of the March rate), are unlikely to gain much traction. On the Democratic side is SB 104 (Oropeza), which would permit the Air Resources Board to regulate any anthropogenic gas (a gas created by humans) under AB 32. Other Democratic legislation is aimed at protecting forests for their carbon sequestration properties. It is unclear how well Democratic measures will fare. The best odds probably belong to bills by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the author of SB 375. Steinberg's SB 575 currently modifies San Diego County housing element deadlines but could serve as an omnibus SB 375 cleanup measure, while his SB 722 would place parameters on greenhouse gas emissions mitigation credits. Three other bills of more immediate concern to cities, counties and property owners address development of renewable energy facilities: AB 64, AB 45 and SB 560. Assembly Bill 64 by Assemblyman Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) is a complex bill that, among other things, would create a Renewables Infrastructure Authority (RIA) that would identify suitable zones for renewable energy generation facilities, and then regulate their development. The measure would apparently eliminate local governments' ability to regulate wind energy facilities, the California Energy Commission's authority to regulate large solar facilities, and the Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) authority over transmission facilities. Assembly Bill 64, according to an analysis by the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce, "provides RIA with siting authority for all renewable energy generation facilities greater than 5 megawatts. Any facility proposing to locate in a designated renewable energy designation zone will fall under the RIA's programmatic environmental impact report and can use the RIA's report to comply with CEQA." While AB 64 has received endorsement by renewable energy companies, environmentalists have lent only cautious support. Public and private utilities oppose the new regulatory arrangement, as does the PUC. Assembly Bill 45 by Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) would authorize cities and counties to regulate small wind energy systems. Senate Bill SB 560 by Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) would provide greenhouse gas emissions credits under SB 375 to cities and counties that permit and site commercial wind, solar and biomass energy projects. Local Planning Lawmakers have introduced numerous bills that would affect city and county land use planning. One of the more unusual but potentially far-reaching bills is SB 518 by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), which is intended to reduce the amount of free parking funded by public entities or required of development. Sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the bill would prohibit the use of state funds directly or indirectly for subsidizing free parking, with a few exceptions. The bill also would require cities and counties to adopt and implement by 2012 a selection of parking reform measures, which could include reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements, establishing maximum parking restrictions, and allowing shared parking facilities to meet commercial area needs. "My intent is not to discourage driving but to reduce subsidies that artificially encourage driving," said Lowenthal. "Free parking has a lot of negative consequences. It artificially encourages people to drive, resulting in more traffic congestion, greenhouse gases and other emissions. It spreads out land uses and makes public transit less feasible. It drives up the cost of development." Lowenthal acknowledged the bill is proposed at the same time the state has eliminated all funding for transit operations but said he is trying to restore the transit money. "Ultimately, I believe that reducing subsidies for parking will increase the market for and financial feasibility of expanded transit service," he said. On a different front is a CBIA bill, AB 1084 by Assemblyman Anthony Adams (R-Hesperia), that would revise the Mitigation Fee Act. The bill requires updated nexus studies that justify fees, allows anyone who is subject to a fee to demand that a local agency update its fee calculations, and eases the appeal process. The CBIA's Coyle said most jurisdictions have maintained the level of impact fees despite housing price drops of 40% or more, which makes construction of new units economically infeasible. "It's definitely not an in-your-face approach to reforming the law," Coyle said of AB 1084. "There's just got to be some give in this process of imposing these impact fees on projects. We can't stop an economic recovery in its tracks." Coyle said the bill could force some jurisdictions to reduce fees, but he noted a number of cities and counties have already begun to do so voluntarily in order to spur construction. The prospects for AB 1084 are uncertain, as Adams is a minority party member and he faces a Republican-sponsored recall effort because he voted for the budget package earlier this year. Back for another round this year are two fire and planning measures – Assembly Bill 666 by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) and SB 505 by Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego). The Jones bill would prohibit counties from approving a subdivision map in a "state responsibility area" (SRA) or "very high fire hazard severity zone" unless the county makes findings that sufficient firefighting service is available and that the development provides adequate access. The Kehoe bill would require cities and counties with SRA or very high fire hazard severity zone territory to update their general plan safety elements to reflect recommendations by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The bill would also require the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to update its fire hazard planning guidelines and recommend new CEQA Guidelines that address fire hazard impacts. While Jones's bill is very similar to a measure vetoed last year, Kehoe's measure is less stringent than a failed 2008 bill that would have prohibited certain development. In general, fire agencies and firefighters back the bills, while property owners, developers and local governments oppose them. During a committee hearing in April, Kehoe said her bill was intended to encourage communication between entities that approve development and entities responsible for fighting fires in those developments – essentially, between counties and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. "This bill is good planning. It's common sense. Frankly, it makes good fiscal sense," said Kehoe, who pointed out the state spends about $1 billion a year on fire suppression. "The whole goal here is to bring down the state's cost for fire suppression." But Sen. Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley), most of whose district would be affected by the legislation, said the real issue is forest management, not development. "We don't need to do any more talking. What we need to do is get rid of the fuels. … We don't need to be regulating community development." Kehoe's bill made it out of committee on a party line vote. Water, Water Everywhere A third consecutive year of less-than-average precipitation and growing concern over the health and reliability of the Bay Delta have resulted in a flood of water bills. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have introduced water bonds, which range from $9.8 billion to $15 billion apiece, and the governor has stated an interest in getting a water bond in front of voters. Some of the water bond bills are better defined that others, but most would allocate the money for a combination of increased storage, improved conveyance and environmental restoration. In addition, Democrats are carrying more than half a dozen bills that address Delta governance and management, and one of those bills could become a vehicle to block development of a peripheral canal that would divert fresh water away from the Delta. Other legislation deals more directly with the link between land use planning and water. Sponsored by the PCL, AB 1408 would permit developers to use water conservation measures to satisfy water supply requirements for large subdivisions and commercial projects. The bill also establishes a "water conservation mitigation fund" into which developers could pay fees to offset fully a project's estimated water use. The bill would set up a voluntary, not mandatory, process, noted Mindy McIntyre, PCL's water program manager. "It does help accommodate growth in an environmentally sustainable manner," she said. Another PCL bill, SB 565 (Pavley), mirrors a bill from the late 1980s that established a target for recycling and trash reduction that counties were forced to meet. In this case, SB 565 would mandate that 50% of wastewater now discharged into the ocean be recycled by 2030. The idea is to quadruple the amount of water now recycled to 2 million acre-feet annually, which is about the amount the State Water Project delivers on average, McIntyre said. The Pavley bill is receiving stiff resistance from the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, who argue that funding for treatment and distribution facilities needed to recycle more wastewater has been lacking for years. Lawmakers have until June 5 to move bills out of their house of origin. The first year of the two-year legislative session is scheduled to conclude September 11. Bills that do not pass by that deadline could return in 2010. Proposed Land Use Legislation For 2009 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • AB 696 (Hagman). Allows a project applicant to resolve CEQA disputes with a lead agency before an arbitrator. • AB 1204 (Huber). Expands CEQA streamlining in last year's SB 375 to include commercial projects that comply with a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy. • AB 1321 (Eng). Creates the "advance infrastructure mitigation program" in the Natural Resources Agency to streamline environmental review and mitigation of infrastructure projects. • SB 476 (Correa). Modifies the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement for CEQA litigation. Climate Change • AB 118 (Logue). Repeals AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. • AB 376 (Nava), AB 1404 (De Leon), SB 722 (Steinberg). A three-bill package that addresses the use of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation credits. • AB 782 (Jeffries), AB 881 (Huffman), SB 560 (Ashburn). Three very different SB 375 follow-up bills. AB 782 exempts near-term transportation projects, and prohibits anyone from suing over approval of a sustainable communities strategy. AB 881 is specific to Sonoma County. SB 560 provides emissions credits to cities and counties that permit and site commercial wind, solar and biomass energy projects. • AB 1504 (Skinner) and SB 144 (Pavley). Two bills intended to preserve forests for their carbon sequestration qualities. The Assembly bill would require timber harvest plans to mitigate against the release of carbon dioxide. The Senate bill would permit the state to impose a fee on the conversion of timberlands to other uses, and permit the state to acquire forest conservation easements. • SB 104 (Oropeza). Adds any anthropogenic gas to the list of gases regulated under AB 32. • SB 295 (Dutton). Prohibits the Air Resources Board from implementing AB 32 until the state unemployment rate falls below 5.8%. • SB 391 (Liu). Requires the California Transportation Plan to address how the state will reach AB 32 emissions goals. • SB 575 (Steinberg). Provides SB 375 cleanup. This bill could evolve greatly. • SB 721 (Steinberg). Establishes a Climate Action Team to coordinate state policy. Economic Development • AB 507 (Arambula). Requires a project that receives assistance from the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) to meet certain economic development and land use criteria. • AB 1047 (V. Manuel Perez). Requires the I-Bank to establish a program to assist small and rural communities with obtaining local infrastructure financing. • SB 27 (Hancock). Prohibits the payment of incentives to a business that moves its situs address but does not move the physical location of the business. The bill is intended to prevent one local government from stealing another entity's sales tax, which is allocated based on situs address. The bill has already passed the Senate. Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill last year. Finance • ACA 9 (Huffman) and SCA 12 (Kehoe). These constitutional amendments ask voters to lower the approval threshold for local special taxes, property tax increases and bonds from two-thirds to 55%. • ACA 15 (Arambula). Lowers the approval threshold for transportation tax measures from two-thirds to 55%. • AB 338 (Ma). Expands 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. Also eliminates the requirement for voter approval. The governor vetoed a similar bill last year. • AB 878 (Caballero). Permits local governments to expand use of public-private partnerships to fund "revenue-generating infrastructure projects." • AB 1176 (Ammiano) Authorizes San Francisco to create an infrastructure financing district along the waterfront. A similar bill died in 2008. • AB 1192 (Audra Strickland). Prohibits a local government from using lease-purchase financing. Housing • AB 558 (Portantino). Authorizes a city to meet 10% of its regional housing needs assessment through a program that places foster youth in existing households. • AB 566 (Nava). Limits the conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owned subdivisions. • AB 570 (Arambula). Alters 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. The bill contains modest changes from legislation vetoed last year. • AB 761 (Charles Calderon). Limits local mobile home rent control measures. • SB 16 (Lowenthal). Allows low-income housing tax credits awarded between July 1, 2008 and January 1, 2010 to be refundable. The intent of this urgency legislation is to bring investors back to the market. • SB 326 (Tony Strickland). Suspends certain housing element update obligations until after completion of the 2010 census. The bill also requires a housing element to quantify existing and projected foreclosure rates, and specify how those rates impact housing needs. • SB 500 (Steinberg). Spot bill that will likely address creation of a permanent funding source for affordable housing development. • SB 595 (Cedillo). $1.5 billion bond to fund supportive housing projects for veterans. Local Planning • AB 333 (Fuentes). Extends the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by 72 months. • AB 408 (Saldaña). Requires a city or county to notify the applicable regional water quality control board of a proposed general plan amendment or plan adoption. • AB 596 (Evans). Requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop model form-based zoning ordinances that reflect smart growth principles. • AB 666 (Jones). Requires 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. Similar legislation was vetoed last year. • AB 1084 (Adams). Revises the Mitigation Fee Act to require updated nexus studies, provide greater ability to appeal fees and permit developers to request annual recalculation of fees. • SB 194 (Florez). Requires that cities and counties receiving Proposition 84 funds adopt general plan goals and policies to promote environmental and social justice in disadvantaged, unincorporated communities. • SB 215 (Wiggins). Requires local agency formation commissions to consider sustainable communities strategies before acting on boundary changes. • SB 268 (Harmon). Requires alcohol and drug abuse recovery or treatment centers to comply with local zoning. • SB 310 (Ducheny). Permits a city, county or special district to develop a watershed improvement plan that addresses stormwater runoff. The building industry-sponsored bill would eliminate project-based regulation of runoff. • SB 406 (DeSaulnier). Permits 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 requires 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. • SB 505 (Kehoe). Requires cities and counties in "very high fire hazard severity zones" to adopt new general plan goals, policies and objectives to minimize wildfire risks to new development. Unlike legislation that failed in 2008, SB 505 would not prevent development that lacks sufficient fire protection. • SB 518 (Lowenthal). Prohibits the expenditure of state funds to subsidize parking, and requires local governments to select from a menu of parking policies, such as eliminating minimum parking requirements or setting maximum parking standards. • SB 737 (Negrete McLeod). Repeals an exemption permitting counties not to form 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. • SB 763 (Walters). Extends the expiration date of vesting tentative subdivision maps by 12 months. Redevelopment • AB 720 (Caballero). Permits a city or county that uses housing set-aside funding to rehabilitate a unit to count that unit toward meeting its fair share of low-, very low-, or extremely low-income housing. This bill may be substantially amended. • AB 1422 (Bass). Permits redevelopment agencies until 2013 to use money not in the housing set-aside fund to refinance or purchase subprime and nontraditional mortgages for income-eligible households, and to help lenders and developers in purchasing and selling vacant, foreclosed homes regardless of income levels. • SB 93 (Kehoe). Requires a redevelopment agency to make updated blight findings before funding a public works project within or outside a redevelopment project area, and to find there is no other reasonable means of financing the project. The bill is intended to prohibit redevelopment fund transfers, such as a $31 million transfer in San Diego from the Grantville area to fund a downtown trolley project. The California Redevelopment Association and numerous cities oppose the bill. • SB 430 (Dutton). Extends from 10 years to 20 years the time limit on San Bernardino County's Cedar Glen disaster recovery project area redevelopment plan (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , January 2007 ). • SB 477 (Florez). Permits a redevelopment agency to loan or grant money to the purchaser of low-income housing tax credits for the construction of low-income rental housing. • SB 530 (Dutton). Revises calculation of pass-through payments for certain redevelopment projects. Renewable Energy • AB 45 (Blakeslee). Authorizes cities and counties to regulate small wind energy systems. • AB 64 (Krekorian) and SB 14 (Simitian). The first bill requires utilities to get 50% of energy from renewable sources by 2035, while the second bill sets a standard of 33% by 2020. AB 64 also creates a Renewables Infrastructure Authority that would identify suitable zones for renewable energy generation and serve as lead agency for reviewing projects in the zones. • AB 1351 (Blakeslee). Permits utilities to count certain hydroelectric projects in their renewable energy portfolios. • SB 281 (Runner). Eases endangered species requirements for renewable energy projects in the Mojave and Colorado deserts until the state adopts a regional conservation plan, which is in process. Transportation • AB 113 (Portantino). Requires the state to sell properties acquired for extension of the 710 freeway through South Pasadena, a stalled project that has been on the drawing board for decades. • AB 744 (Torrico). Authorizes congestion pricing programs within the nine-county Bay Area. • AB 1135 (Skinner). Require motorists to report their odometer readings when renewing vehicle registrations. • AB 1375 (Galgiani). Establishes the Department of High-Speed Trains, which would assume responsibility for the proposed high-speed rail system. • SB 205 (Hancock). Authorizes 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. • SB 409 (Ducheny). Creates the Department of Railroads and prohibits any other state agency from obtaining federal funds for intercity rail, high-speed rail or freight rail projects. The Public Utilities Commission opposes the bill. Water • AB 13 (Salas), AB 39 (Huffman), SB 12 (Simitian), SB 229 (Pavley) SBs 457, 458 and 808 (all Wolk). This legislation all concerns the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. AB 13 establishes a conservancy to oversee a Delta sustainability program. AB 39 requires the state to implement the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force's strategic plan (see CP&DR , February 2009 ). SB 12 creates a Delta Council to adopt a comprehensive Delta ecosystem and water plan. SB 229 reconstitutes the California Water Commission and authorizes it to oversee Delta governance. SB 457 creates the Delta Stewardship Council to adopt a new Delta plan. SB 458 creates a conservancy specifically to promote public access and protect agricultural and cultural resources. SB 808 attempts to protect beneficial uses of water in the Delta and could be a tool to block a proposed peripheral canal. • AB 49 (Feuer). Requires California to achieve a 20% reduction in urban water use by 2020. • AB 55 (Jeffries). Establishes 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 AB 55. • AB 300 (Caballero). Requires a city or county to consider voluntary demand management measures when reviewing a development project's water supply assessment. • AB 1187 (Huffman), SB 371 (Cogdill), SB 456 (Wolk), SB 735 (Steinberg), and SB 301 (Florez). The first four of these bills would place a $10 billion water bond before voters. The Florez bill proposes a $15 billion water bond. • AB 1408 (Krekorian). Establishes 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. • SB 565 (Pavley). Requires that 50% of wastewater now discharged into the ocean be recycled by 2030. Williamson Act • AB 494 (Caballero). Permits a parcel split of up to 10 acres on land covered by a Williamson Act contract in order to accommodate construction of farmworker housing. • AB 512 (Yamada). Makes horse breeding and training facilities compatible uses under the Williamson Act. • SB 170 (Florez). Permits a 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 sponsor. • SB 715 (Wolk). Strengthens various Williamson Act provisions. Other • AB 102 (Smyth). Establishes the Santa Susana State Park Advisory Committee to recommend whether the 2,800-acre Rocketdyne property in eastern Ventura County should become a state park. For many years, the site was used to test rocket engines and nuclear reactors. Lawmakers have sought to ensure the property is not developed for residential uses. • AB 109 (Feuer). Imposes a moratorium until 2012 on new digital advertising displays visible from any highway. • AB 210 (Hayashi). Clarifies how cities may adopt their own green building standards. • AB 397 (Jeffries). Converts the South Coast Air Quality Management District board from an appointed to an elected body. • AB 444 (Caballero). Clarifies that nonprofit entities may accept and disburse public funds for management of mitigation lands and conservation easements held by land trusts or special districts. • SB 690 (Leno). Permits the removal of illegal outdoor advertising displays and displays that were permitted but have been modified in a way that makes them illegal.