In order to avoid having your takings claim dismissed, your timing must be just right. Unfortunately for Colony Cove Properties, LLC, the timing was off, and its multifaceted takings claim was rejected by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for being both too late to challenge a rent control ordinance and too early to challenge how a city applied its ordinance.  The decision by the unanimous three-judge appeals court panel came in one of the many lawsuits filed by real estate investor James Goldstein against the City of Carson. Goldstein, who owns Colony Cove Mobile Estates and Carson Harbor Village mobile home parks, has sued the city at least eight times over mobile home rent control and the city's procedure for considering mobile home park conversions into residential subdivisions (see CP&DR Legal Digest,  September 15, 2010 , February 2004 ).  The City of Carson passed the Mobilehome Space Rent Control Ordinance in 1979. The ordinance established a Rental Review Board that makes determinations regarding rent increases. The city also adopted guidelines for implementing the ordinance. Although the ordinance has not been amended recently, the guidelines were amended as recently as 2006. Prior to the city amending the guidelines in 2006, Goldstein, acting as Colony Cove Properties, LLC, purchased the Colony Cove mobile home park. In 2007, Colony Cove filed an application for a 136-179% increase in rent. About a year later, the Rental Review Board granted an increase of only 8-10%. Colony Cove subsequently filed suit in U.S. District Court claiming a regulatory, physical and private taking as well as violations of substantive due process. The District Court dismissed Colony Cove's claims and Colony Cove appealed. The Ninth Circuit began by addressing the takings claims, which the court separated into two categories: facial challenges of the ordinance itself, and as-applied challenges, which concern how the city applied the ordinance to Colony Cove. Regarding the facial challenges, the court found that the statute of limitations had long since expired. Colony Cove argued that the statute of limitations started anew when the guidelines were amended in 2006, but the court disagreed. Unlike the ordinance, the guidelines do not have the force and effect of law, and therefore, the facial challenge to the ordinance was filed years too late, the Ninth Circuit ruled.  Addressing the as-applied challenge, the court found that Colony Cove's claim was untimely for the opposite reason – it was too early. Pursuant to federal takings law, a claimant must first attempt to obtain relief through state inverse condemnation proceedings, which Colony Cove did not do. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that the claim was not ready for federal court review. (Goldstein did sue the city in state court for $78 million in damages while his appeal was pending at the Ninth Circuit. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled against him in March.) Lastly, the Ninth Circuit evaluated whether the city's decision on the application for rent increase was "arbitrary, irrational, or lacking any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate government interest." Using this low threshold, the court found that the city acted reasonably in deciding to increase the rent by only 8-10%, instead of up 179%, and there was no violation of substantive due process. This case reminds plaintiffs that timing is crucial, especially with a takings claim. You must jump through all the hoops at the proper time in order to have a cognizable claim. The Case: Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, No. 09-57039, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6240, 2011 DJDAR 4487. Filed March 28, 2011. The Lawyers: For Colony Cove: Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny & Myers, (213) 430-6000. For the city: William Wynder, Aleshire & Wynder, (949) 223-1170.

Being governor of a state that includes Hollywood requires mastering the art of the cameo. Governor Brown demonstrated his skill at the craft when he arrived, unstaffed, at the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) meeting blocks away from his Capitol office, saying that he just stopped by to see what exactly the Council had in mind regarding strategic growth--and to get a handle on what, exactly, the SGC does.  The Council members were, at that moment, considering the Health in All Policies (HiAP) priority actions. HiAP includes supporting implementation of "complete streets" policies, using SB 375 to promote active transportation, and promoting sustainable development for smart housing siting. Council Chair and newly installed OPR Director Ken Alex--a longtime colleague of Brown's--brought the governor up to speed, describing that the goal was to consider how all state policies affect human health. The governor recast it tongue-in-cheek as one policy objective "colonizing" all the other policy areas. In the end, the governor expressed his general support for the the HiAP concept, but not before he warned of potential resistance from those who might find even more strings attached to California's growth policies--actually citing tea party opposition to overly intrusive government.   The take-away message (if there was one) for the SGC was a reminder that they have to balance the laudable policy objectives with political realities---and proceed accordingly.  Or maybe it's just that their boss may wander in on them from time to time.  Governor Brown quickly exited—as a good cameo requires--and the Council returned to approving the HiAP Priorities. The ensuing discussion highlighted some of the delicate balances that the Governor brought up.  Council members approved of the general voluntary nature of the HiaP Priorities, but also discussed how the Council can be a "bully pulpit" to promote HiAP-related policies.   The discussion then moved to SB 375 and the role that Council might play in its implementation.  For those who are thinking that SB 375 does not assign any role to the SGC, Ken Alex noted that they have an oversight responsibility related to granting MPOs' funding under the Sustainable Planning Grant Program (see CP&DR Jan. 2011 ). It was clear that the Council intends to scrutinize MPOs to learn how they are spending their grant money. Indeed, looking forward, it seems clear that the SGC wants to leverage the SB 375 process beyond its climate change goals.  There was a specific discussion about SANDAG's recently released draft Sustainable Communities Strategy (see CP&DR Vol. 26, No. 10 ), but there was no credit given for the fact that SANDAG is projected to exceed its 2020 target.  Rather, SANDAG's plan was characterized as a moderate reduction in VMT with a question of how can more reductions, and other benefits, can be gained from the process.  Ultimately, the conversation returned to the larger picture of the SGC's mission and strategic plan. Council members agreed with one statement that articulated three elements to the SGC work program:  first is providing resources (funding, data, etc) when available, the second is facilitating better coordination between agencies in policy implementation, and the third is policy advocacy. As the SGC continues its strategic process over the summer, it remains to be seen as how these roles will evolve under the new administration.  But stay tuned, you never know when the Governor may make another cameo. Link to SGC Agenda Materials: http://sgc.ca.gov/meetings/20110601/ --Bill Higgins Bill Higgins is the director of the California Association of Councils of Government .

Even if it takes a village to raise a child, apparently it does not take a planning department to raise a village. Or even a city of villages.  The City of San Diego's Planning Department won national acclaim for its 2008 "City of Villages" general plan update, which was guided by outgoing Planning Director Bill Anderson and his predecessor, Gail Goldberg. But budget constraints have compelled Mayor Jerry Sanders to order that the department be shut down and merged with the Development Services Department.  Sanders hopes that the newly merged departments will operate as an efficient unit for a projected savings of $1 million annually. The city is facing a $179 million budget deficit for 2011.   Sanders' structure mimics that of 1995-2000, when the two departments were combined, also for fiscal reasons. Planning regained its independence as it embarked on the process to update the city's general plan in the early 2000s.  The new merger has prompted the resignation of Anderson, who stepped down May 27. He will be taking a position in the private sector with planning giant AECOM. (Prior to becoming planning director, Anderson was a longtime principal at AECOM's predecessor firm, Economic Research Associates, and a San Diego city planning commissioner.) Anderson said that his personal focus is on long-range planning and economic development.  The new, combined department will be headed by Development Services Director Kelly Broughton.  Though much of the city's advance planning work has already been done, many community plans have yet to be completed. Some fear that by allowing planning to be subsumed by Development Services, which is focused on case processing rather than forward planning—and generates its own funding from developers' fees rather than from the city's general fund—these community plans and the overall vision for the city could suffer if planning becomes too businesslike.  "They look at applicants as their customers," said Leo Wilson, chair of the city's Community Planners Committee, which advises the Planning Department. "That's not a bad thing for the department to do that. But planning should be for the city. It's a more esoteric process." It's a process that could become even more esoteric if the city's budget crisis precludes the implementation of the community plans, especially with regards to public services, amenities, and infrastructure.  Anderson believes, however, that the new department will have no trouble picking up on the  Planning Department's ongoing work programs.  "We've kind of set the table already," said Anderson. "We're handing off about 10 community plans (in-progress), so there's enough to keep people busy for 2-3 years."  The city has 51 community planning areas in total.  For developers, the combined department may lead to a more streamlined development process and save money for everyone—not just for the city. Representatives of the San Diego County Building Industry Association have reportedly said that lack of coordination between Planning and Development Services has unnecessarily hampered development.  Broughton did not respond to an interview request.  The move also includes changes to the mission statement of the Development Services Department. The revised DSD mission statement does away with the Planning Department's goal "to envision, plan, implement and maintain a sustainable city," and instead pledges to provide "safe, effective, and quality development…through community planning." It does not elaborate on a vision for "community planning."   "The focus would be different," said Anderson. "We in our City Planning and Community Investment Department were very much a proactive planning department where we're trying to envision and then implement economic development and redevelopment."  Anderson said, however, that under his tenure the department has already changed the city's approach to planning and that most of the major work—especially as it relates to SB 375—is already enshrined in the 2008 general plan.  "We've had to the change a lot of the methodologies or approaches to community plans, because a lot of the policies that were in place were really geared towards and development as opposed to urban infill," said Anderson.  For the new department to continue in that vein, said Wilson, the planners doing the long-term planning must be functionally separated from those doing day-to-day development services. He said that there is a perception that some applicants wield influence in the department and that the city planning process must remain focused on the good of the city as a whole and not on the need of individual developers.  "I think it's more of an issue of separating the planning process from the development approvals process," said Wilson.  "They need to build up sort of an invisible firewall."

If, as the adage goes, it's impossible to tell the dancer from the dance, then it might be even harder to tell the SCS from the RTP.  With perhaps less grace than that of a ballerina, the much-anticipated Sustainable Communities Strategies mandated by Senate Bill 375 are set to become cornerstone of regional planning. And yet, amid Regional Transportation Plans � not to mention regional comprehensive plans, county general plans, transportation funding schemes, and, of course, cities' own general plans � it's hard to tell where a region's own initiative ends and SB 375's mandate begins. That is the impression given off by the combined draft RTP/SCS that the San Diego Association of Governments released April 22. In accordance with SB 375, the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations must devise an SCS to demonstrate how they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land use and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. SANDAG has been scheduled to release and complete its SCS first.  The release of SANDAG's draft RTP/SCS therefore marks a highly anticipated juncture in the long saga of reducing California's carbon footprint. The draft RTP/SCS is currently in its 45-day public comment period; a series of seven region-wide workshops is scheduled to begin June 7. SANDAG plans to release the draft environmental impact report for the RTP/SCS in June as well.  For all the debate surrounding the SCS and its emissions targets, the document that the public will consider during those workshops is relatively thin in light of its statewide significance. It occupies only a single, 77-page chapter in SANDAG's nine-chapter, 313-page draft RTP and summarizes the region's overall growth and transportation strategies.  Since the SCS is not a plan per se but rather a way of showing that a region can meet SB 375 targets, the SCS chapter deals largely in generalities and goals. It quotes mandates from SB 375 and then explains how the RTP and Regional Comprehensive Plan meet those goals. The remainder of the draft RTP, based partly on existing plans such as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and the cities' and county's general plans explain how the region's landscape is actually going to change.  While the notion of efficiently coordinating transportation, housing, and commercial development across thousands of square miles and millions of people sounds daunting, officials in the San Diego area say that drafting the SCS was not nearly as difficult as it may be for other regions.  "A lot of the stuff in our plan is not new to us," said SANDAG Executive Director Gary Gallegos. "It's not a huge game-changer because we were already doing a lot of these things because they were good for us."  The SCS relies on complex forecasts for regional growth--which is anticipated to include a growth in population from 3.2 million to 4.4 million and 400,000 more housing units by 2050--but much of the actual planning work that will contribute to the SCS has already been done.  Indeed, much of the region's growth is already prescribed and accounted for, some of it before SB 375 was even imagined.  "San Diego, in spite of the fact that SB 375 and AB 32 came along, was already doing a lot of what was required by those pieces of legislation we had incorporated into our planning," said County Supervisor Ron Roberts, who also is also an ARB board member. "We were already on a course to get to the transportation corridors and move the density from the furthest out areas."  The California Air Resources Board set per capita emissions reductions targets for the state's MPOs just last October. San Diego's targets are 7% by 2020 and 13% by 2035.  By now, the methods for reaching such targets have become well accepted throughout the state. Regions are encouraging compact development, beefing up public transit plans, and allocating new housing�according to Regional Housing Needs Assessments�in locations that enable residents to drive less, rather than by spreading housing evenly around a region. San Diego especially is investing in transportation demand management (TDM) strategies such as high-occupancy toll lanes on its freeways.  A combination of all of these tactics, officials say, will enable the region to meet, or even exceed, its SB 375 targets. Moreover, SANDAG is going beyond 2035 and actually is planning for growth through 2050.  While this might seem like a bold move, many are not convinced that 40-year projections are even realistic.  "I'm kind of cynical about how clear the crystal ball is when you get out 15 or 20 years," said Roberts.  Moreover, even after a lengthy debate at ARB over what would constitute "ambitious but achievable" targets, some say that San Diego's plan is nether ambitious nor achievable.  "I don't think it hits the mark at all," said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League and former executive director of San Diego's Coastkeeper. "It's kind of funny because I know the San Diego plan is heralded as first out of the gate and a good model."  Reznik said that SANDAG's SCS has fallen prey to what he described as low expectations fueled by enthusiasm for SB 375.  "Everyone wants to see 375 be successful," said Reznik. "You pass this law, and (Sen. Darrel) Steinberg and the Legislature and the environmental groups want to see the momentum and see the first one be successful. The problem is you can't lower the bar so much that anything looks like success." Reznik said that the bar has been lowered by virtue of the RTP's continued emphasis on automobiles in the region. While the plan envisions significant capital investments in infrastructure such as new light rail lines, critics note that the driving force behind the transportation plan still prioritizes roads.  That driving force is TransNet, a $40 billion sales tax measure passed in 1988 and renewed in 2004 to fund up to $17 billion worth of transportation projects in the region through 2050. Much of that funding is earmarked for road improvements, thus relegating the vast majority of transit projects to a distant, uncertain future. The estimated cost of all the measures envisioned by the SCS is considerably more, however.  "It's got some good transit measures but the reality is that they're looking to massively fund highway expansion before you ever seen real, meaningful transit adopted," said Reznik. "Yes, there's money for transit down the line, but it's totally speculative."  The RTP predicts, but does not guarantee, revenues of $196 billion projected out 50 years, with 60% from local sources, 22% from the state, and 18% from the federal government.  Moreover, sources of funding to operate many of these planned capital investments and service improvements remain discomfortingly unclear. Anderson admitted that the funding for transit operations that would support the SCS are far from secured.  "Transnet is focused on the capital side, but to get the headways that create a real effective transit system requires operating funds and an affordable price," said Bill Anderson, San Diego's outgoing planning director (see sidebar).  Fitts said that if San Diego and other cities increase their densities, as planned, then the southern part of the county will become a cauldron of gridlock if transit funding does not materialize.  "If you don't have robust transit infrastructure, it's going to look like west Los Angeles," said Michael Fitts, staff attorney at the Endangered Habitats League. "It's going to be a nightmare." Anderson suggested that a current proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown to allow local taxes to pass with a 55% -- instead of two-thirds -- vote could allow cities to create special funding districts to support transit. He also warned that the city should continue to assess impact fees on new development, even though officials might be tempted to lower those fees amid the recession.  Gallegos said, however, that the RTP does emphasize public transit and takes a new approach to highways by including elements like managed lanes and high-occupancy toll lanes. As well, he said that the inclusion of projected funding as opposed to specific funding sources is nothing unusual for a long-range plan.  "The plan itself does rely on future revenues, but that's the case in all plans that are put together throughout the state," said Gallegos. SB 375 was designed largely as a method of encouraging, but not mandating, development that would reduce per capita carbon emissions. Though SCSs are tied to RTPs, which are, in turn, tied to federal transportation funding, the implementation of an SCS ultimately depends on the voluntary participation of member cities�and, less directly, on the enthusiasm of developers to build higher-density projects. In a dramatic shift from past patterns, the SCS, in accord with SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, envisions that 87% of new housing will consist of multifamily housing.   Accepting the new affordable and market-rate housing envisioned by SANDAG's projections is crucial to the plan's success because new housing is expected to not only ease the jobs-housing imbalance within the county, but also between the county and neighboring counties. For instance, many commuters come into the jobs-rich county from housing-rich Riverside County, thus creating long-distance traffic and pollution on a daily basis.  "Right now San Diego is a jobs safety valve for the housing surplus in Riverside County," said Fitts.  While new transportation projects that are funded at the county level are likely to be embraced, housing and other improvements at the municipal level may complicate SANDAG's vision.  "As an MPO, they don't have any land use authority," said Barry Schultz, former chair of the San Diego (City) Planning Commission. "So we're dependent upon the local cities to actually implement the type of land use pattern that is the foundation of the whole SCS."  In the City of San Diego, the SCS is not expected to be a tough sell. The city encompasses roughly half the region's population and spans roughly as much built acreage as do the cities and unincorporated communities throughout the rest of the county. Therefore, some say, as goes San Diego's municipal general plan, so goes the region.  "The single most important land use decision had already been made, and that was the approval of an updated general plan for the City of San Diego," said Fitts.  The city completed an overhaul of its general plan in 2008 and subsequently won the American Planning Association's Burnham Award for excellence in a comprehensive plan. The plan is built around the concept of a "City of Villages" in which future development in the famously sprawling city is concentrated around commercial and mixed use nodes to create neighborhoods that are both pleasant and energy efficient.  SANDAG's SCS embraces this strategy wholeheartedly, say local officials.  "They're really well matched up," said Anderson. "Our plan, called City of Villages, was already predicated on steering future growth towards mixed use, transit-served, pedestrian-oriented areas near job centers. The SCS is just a natural extension of what we're already planning."  Likewise, the more dense, and poor, cities of the southwest county, including National City and Chula Vista, have indicated their embrace of density. Moreover, Schultz noted that the SCS and RTP could, if implemented properly, contribute to equity in the region by giving poorer residents ways to reach and live in more prosperous parts of the county. But, he said, it shows little promise of doing so.  "We really haven't done the type of analysis to identify where the gaps are in connecting low- and moderate-income communities to the job centers in the region," said Schultz.   As well, cities on the other end of the county may not be such eager participants in some elements of the plan.  "Some of (cities) seem to be adamant that there's no room, they've already done their share, they don't want more (housing) allocations," said Roberts. "In some of the northern beach communities there was a feeling that we're all built-out." Some of this attitude, critics say, stems from the relative affluence of some North County cities.  "Smaller cities that tend to be more affluent and want to limit growth so that they don't change the character of their community," said Stephen Haase, a senior vice president at developer Baldwin and Sons. "That to me is unfortunate because they're limiting themselves and the diversity that that community can embrace."   Carl Hilliard, deputy mayor of Del Mar, acknowledged that he is wary of the possibility that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, in conjunction with the SCS, could compel Del Mar to take on an amount of affordable housing that might be discomfiting. One scenario under the RHNA, he said, would call for the city, which has 4,500 residents and a median household income of $120,000, to take on 2,400 new affordable units.  "The affordable housing element is problematic because of the fact that we're so small," said Hilliard. "We're totally built-out.  And 22 percent of our land is fairgrounds and flood plain.  We're willing to do our share to the extent that it's possible to do it."   Contacts & Resources: SANDAG RTP/SCS Documents  Michael Fitts, Staff Attorney, Endangered Habitats League, 310.947.1908  Gary Gallegos, Executive Director, San Diego Association of Governments,  619.699.1900 Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Planning & Conservation League,  916.822.5631 Ron Roberts, Supervisor, County of San Diego,  619.531.5544 Barry Schultz, Special Counsel, Stutz, Artiano, Shinhof, & Holtz, 619.232.3122

Even with the preoccupation over the state budget--and especially the fate of redevelopment--Sacramento lawmakers have managed to advance a typically broad array of bills related to land use.  Several of those bills focus on redevelopment reform, most notably Sen. Alan Lowenthal's SB 450, which seeks to preserve funds for affordable housing, and Sen. Rod Wright's SB 286, aimed at comprehensive reform -- but not elimination -- of the state's redevelopment system. Both bills have the support of the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association.  But that's not all. Those and dozens more bills relating to everything from climate change to transportation to local planning issues remain on the table in Sacramento, where June 3 is the deadline for each house to pass bills introduced in that house. Bills that do not pass out by then are effectively dead for the remainder of the year.  Herewith is CP&DR's roundup of pending legislation:  CEQA & Climate Change AB 320 (Hill). Makes clarifying amendments to CEQA to ensure that all parties with a direct interest in a case brought pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are aware of the pending litigation. It seeks to ensure that lawsuits and litigation from being thrown out in the event a "recipient of approval" emerges after the statute of limitations time period has passed.  AB 605 (Dickinson). Directs the Office of Planning and Research to set standards for vehicle-miles traveled reductions and CEQA exemptions. The Act would adopt guidelines establishing a percentage reduction of vehicle miles traveled for a proposed project, in comparison to the average VMT of a project, that would assist a region in meeting the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board for the vehicles of that region. AB 752 (Brownley). Requires cities, counties and harbor districts to have a plan in pace by 2013 to deal with floods resulting from rising sea levels. Passed Assembly.  AB 931 (Dickinson). Extends the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre. AB 1285 (Fuentes). Creates community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses. SB 241 (Cannella). Enacts the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of 2011 and would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar year between 2012 and 2016.  SB 246 (DeLeon). This bill would require the state board to meet specified requirements relating to verification and oversight of compliance offsets, as defined, if the state board allows the use of compliance offsets as part of a regulation adopted pursuant to AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Housing AB 483 (Torres). This bill would modify the definition of the term "target population" under the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act and make several changes to the information a borrower may include in his or her annual report. AB 542 (Allen). Requires, under housing element law, densities less than those specified in the housing element, to be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households, if the site is owned by a city or county planning agency and set aside for affordable housing development, or if the planning agency has offered to provide subsidies per unit for affordable housing construction. AB 826 (Atkins). Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to include in its annual report specified cumulative totals for each program funded under the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Acts of 2002 and 2006.  AB 1103 (Huffman). Allows localities to count foreclosed homes and second units converted into deed-restricted homes toward their regional housing needs assessment requirement.  AB 1198 (Norby). This bill would repeal the requirement that the Department of Housing and Community Development determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and other specified provisions relating to the assessment or allocation of regional housing need.  AB 1220 (Alejo/Steinberg). Allows a five-year statute of limitations to challenge the adequacy of a housing element. Responds to ruling in Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton .  Local Planning & Land Use AB 46 (J. Perez). This bill would provide that every city with a population of less than 150 people (i.e. the City of Vernon) as of January 1, 2010, would be disincorporated into that cityÂ''s respective county as of 91 days after the effective date of the bill, unless a county board of supervisors determines that continuing such a city within that countyÂ''s boundaries would serve a public purpose if the board of supervisors determines that the city is in an isolated rural location that makes it impractical for the residents of the community to organize in another form of local governance.  AB 147 (Dickinson). Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities under the Subdivision Map Act. AB 208 (Fuentes). This bill would extends by 24 months the expiration date of any approved tentative map or vesting tentative map that has not expired as of the effective date of this act and will expire prior to January 1, 2014. AB 485 (Ma). Eliminates the requirement of voter approval for the adoption of an infrastructure financing plan, the creation of an infrastructure financing district, and the issuance of bonds with respect to a transit village development district.  AB 502 (Bonilla). Authorizes the County of Monterey, and specified cities within that county to establish the Fort Ord Reuse Authority to, among other things, plan for, finance, and manage the transition of the property known as Fort Ord from military to civilian use. Authorizes Contra Costa County and the City of Concord to establish the Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Authority to plan for, finance, and manage the transition of the property formerly known as the Concord Naval Weapons Station from military to civilian use. AB 579 (Monning). This bill would permit the award of attorney's fees and, in some cases, other litigation expenses, to a local governmental entity in an action brought by the owner of a mobile home park to challenge the validity or application of a local ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure that regulates space rent or is intended to benefit or protect residents in a mobile home park, if the local governmental entity is determined to be the prevailing party. AB 710 (Skinner). Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development. AB 995 (Cedillo). Requires the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development. AB 1072 (Fuentes). This bill would establish the California Promise Neighborhoods Initiative in the Office of Economic Development. It would require the office to establish 40 promise neighborhoods throughout the state, according to specified criteria, to maximize collective efforts within a community to improve the health, safety, education, and economic development of each neighborhood. AB 1170 (Alejo). This bill would authorize the planning commission or city council of the City of Watsonville to amend a specified preliminary plan and redevelopment plan, respectively, to add described territory, known as the Manabe-Bergstrom Site, currently referred to as the Manabe-Ow site.  AB 1220 (Alejo). Changes the decision of a Court of Appeal (Urban Habitat v. city of Pleasanton). The bill would create a five-year statute of limitations to challenge land use planning decisions. SB 132 (Lowenthal). Requires State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies for the acquisition of school sites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the State Department of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities. SB 184 (Leno). In response to Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. city of Los Angeles, seeks to clarify that the Costa-Hawkins Act does not apply to inclusionary housing programs. This would make clear that inclusionary zoning is a permissible land use power. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances to establish, as a condition of development, inclusionary housing requirements, as specified, and would declare the intent of the Legislature in adding this provision. SB 244 (Wolk). Requires, prior to January 1, 2014, and thereafter upon each revision of its housing element, a city or county to review and update one or more elements of its general plan, as necessary to address the presence of island, fringe, or legacy unincorporated communities, inside or near its boundaries, and would require the updated general plan to include an identification of unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities within or near the city or county, a quantification and analysis of specific infrastructure deficiencies, an analysis of current programs for addressing conditions and deficiencies within these communities, a statement of goals for addressing these issues, and finally a set of implementation measures designed to achieve these goals.  SB 310 (Hancock). Eliminate the requirement of voter approval and authorize the legislative body to create the an infrastructure financing district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. SB 444 (Evans). Allows an application to convert a mobile home park from rental to resident-owned to be subject to all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. SB 469 (Vargas).  Requires a city or county prior to approving or disapproving a "superstore retailer" to require, at applicant expense, a private consultant to prepare an exhaustive economic impact report examining 17 different detailed conditions. A "superstore" is defined as more than 90,000 square feet, selling a wide range of consumer goods, and where 10 percent of the total floor area is devoted to selling non-taxable food items.  SB 552 (Huff). The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act prohibits offering a voter or landowner, and would prohibit a voter or landowner from accepting or receiving, consideration to forgo the filing of a protest. Redevelopment AB 14 (Wieckowski). Authorizes the Fremont Redevelopment Agency to adopt a redevelopment plan for a project area encompassing or surrounding the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) automobile manufacturing plant and the Warm Springs Bay Area Rapid Transit station.  AB 101. Eliminates state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly "wind down" of their responsibilities and assets. AB 330 (Norby). This bill establishes a specified procedure by which the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Attorney General, and the courts would handle major audit violations committed by redevelopment agencies. AB 343 (Atkins). Encourages redevelopment plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008. AB 445 (Carter). This bill would require, notwithstanding anticipated proposed legislation, that a redevelopment agency shall continue in full force and effect with respect to a military base reuse project under the jurisdiction of that agency, as specified.  AB 936 (Hueso). Requires that, with regard to matters considered by a local legislative body, any matter on a meeting agenda to forgive a loan, advance, or indebtedness of a redevelopment agency be made public at a public meeting at least two weeks prior to the adoption of any action relating to that matter. AB 1234 (Norby). Prohibits redevelopment agencies from using specified revenue for the promotion, recruitment, or retention of any professional sports team, or any related activity, as defined or for the development, planning, design, site acquisition, subdivision, financing, leasing, construction, operation, or maintenance of infrastructure, as defined, related to the occupancy, recruitment, or retention of any professional sports team. AB 1250 (Alejo). Amends definition of blight; prohibits agencies from collecting the school share of local property tax or tax increment in new project areas starting in 2012; limits the percentage of total land area of a jurisdiction which may be included in redevelopment project areas; prohibits use of tax increment for specific purposes such as golf courses and race tracks; strengthens agency reporting and accountability requirements; focuses redevelopment activities on priorities such as job creation, cleaning up contaminated property basic infrastructure needs, and affordable housing. AB 1317 (Norby). Requires, in addition to consistency with the general plan, that a redevelopment plan be consistent with any specific plan for which the community has adopted for the same territory.  SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review). Eliminates state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly "wind down" of their responsibilities and assets.  SB 191 (Sen. Governance and Finance Cmte). Validating Acts. Included provision that would have aided in the elimination of redevelopment. Senate refused to approve.  SB 214 (Wolk).  This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval and authorize the legislative body to create an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions.  SB 286 (Wright). Adds specificity to the types of information needed for making findings of blight; limits the percentage of total land area of a jurisdiction which may be included in project areas; exclude the schools share of property taxes in new project areas formed after January 1, 2012; prohibits uses of tax increment for specific purposes such as golf courses and professional sports facilities without voter approval; adds new requirements to five-year implementation plans and require agencies to focus activities on state priorities such as job creation, cleaning up contaminated property, basic infrastructure needs, and affordable housing; provide for more public oversight; require development of performance indicators to measure agency success; require performance audits of agencies by the State Auditor and provide funds for those reviews. Failed to pass Senate. SB 450 (Lowenthal). Restricts how redevelopment agencies spend their low- and moderate-income housing funds. Passed Senate. Transportation & Infrastructure AB 31 (Beall). Establishes the High-Speed Rail Authority to develop and implement an intercity high-speed rail system in the state, exclusively grants to the authority the responsibility for planning, construction, and operation of that system, and confers upon the authority specified powers and duties relating to that system. This bill would establish the High-Speed Rail Local Master Plan Pilot Program, applicable to specified cities and counties, and would authorize each of those jurisdictions to prepare and adopt, by ordinance, a master plan for development in the areas surrounding the high-speed rail system in each jurisdiction. AB 345 (Atkins). Requires Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices. AB 441 (Monning). Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans. AB 539 (Williams). Authorizes local government to double fines for speeding in a school zones. AB 650 (Blumenfield). Convenes "blue ribbon" task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources. AB 676 (Torres). Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program. AB 696 (Hueso). In conjunction with the existing Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act, This bill would require the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to consult, and authorize it to coordinate implementation of its revolving loan program, with local and regional revolving loan funds and networks of revolving loan funds, for specified purposes. AB 700 (Blumenfield). The act provides that California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank is governed and its corporate powers are exercised by a board of directors of which the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing or his or her designee shall serve as chair. AB 819 (Wieckowski). Augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways.  AB 893 (Manuel Perez). Incorporates a requirement into the State General Obligation Bond Law that a bond act include a provision that includes a plan on how the bond will be administered, including outreach and oversight, to ensure that the objectives of the bond act will be adhered to. AB 910 (Torres). In addition to public capital facilities, requires an infrastructure financing district to finance affordable housing facilities and economic development projects. SB 214 (Wolk). Eliminates requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval. SB 310 (Hancock). Eliminates requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. Creates streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District. SB 446 (Dutton). Establishes the Ontario International Airport Authority as a local entity of regional government. Authorizes the authority to enter into an agreement with the City of Los Angeles to facilitate the sale of, or the transfer of management and operational control of, the Ontario International Airport to the authority.  SB 468 (Kehoe). This bill would impose additional requirements on Caltrans with respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate with local agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide or regional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestion reduction goals. Passed Senate. SB 517 (Lowenthal). Reorders the High-Speed Rail Authority and places the Authority within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and require the members of the authority appointed by the Governor to be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Passed Senate. SB 535 (De Leon). Requires minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change. Passed Senate. SB 907 (Evans and Perez). Creates Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013. SB 910 (Lowenthal). Requires the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction to pass at a safe distance, at a minimum clearance of 3 feet, or at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the bicycle, without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle. AB 1308 (Miller). In any year in which the Budget Act has not been enacted by July 1, provides that all moneys in the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund, except as specified, are continuously appropriated and may be encumbered for certain purposes until the Budget Act is enacted. Environment/Open Space AB 703 (Gordon). Provides property tax incentives for non-profit ownership and stewardship of open-space and park lands. Lands benefiting from the current exemption complement existing local, state, and federal park lands, and they do so without drawing upon scarce public funds. Passed Assembly.  SB 436 (Kehoe). Until January 1, 2022, authorizes a state or local public agency to provide funds to a nonprofit organization to acquire land or easements that satisfy the agency's mitigation obligations, including funds that have been set aside for the long-term management of any lands or easements conveyed to a nonprofit organization if the nonprofit organization meets certain requirements.  SB 580 (Kehoe and Wolk). This bill would prohibit land acquired for the state park system, through public funds or gifts, from being disposed of or used for other purposes incompatible with park purposes without the substitution of other land. Passed Senate. SB 618 (Wolk). Creates a solar easement program for siting solar on marginally productive agricultural lands. Easements would look similar to Williamson Act contracts, with a term of no less than 10 years, and an automatic annual renewal, and termination only by a process of non-renewal. SB 668 (Evans). Until January 1, 2016, authorizes a nonprofit land-trust organization, a nonprofit entity, or a public agency to enter into a contract with a landowner who has also entered into a Williamson Act contract, upon approval of the city or county that holds the Williamson Act contract, to keep that landowner's land in contract under the Williamson Act, for a period of up to 10 years in exchange for the open-space district's, land-trust organization's, or nonprofit entity's payment of all or a portion of the foregone property tax revenue to the county, where the state has failed to reimburse, or reduced the subvention to, the city or county for property tax revenues not received as a result of Williamson Act contracts. SB 833 (Vargas). Prohibits a person from constructing or operating a solid waste landfill disposal facility located in the County of San Diego if that disposal facility is located within 1,000 feet of the San Luis Rey River or an aquifer that is hydrologically connected to that river and is within 1,000 feet of a site that is considered sacred or of spiritual or cultural importance to a tribe and is listed in the California Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Inventory. Building & Development AB 49 (Gatto).  The Permit Streamlining Act requires each state agency and local agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, and requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project,  or a public agency which is a responsible agency for a development project that has been approved by the lead agency, to approve or disapprove the project within applicable periods of time. AB 482 (Williams). This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to encourage innovation in green building design and natural building that meets or exceeds all existing health and safety requirements.  AB 1338 (Hernandez). Requires that on and after January 1, 2012, all real property purchased or otherwise acquired in exchange for financial remuneration by an agency pursuant to the above provisions be subject to an appraisal by a qualified independent appraiser to determine the fair market value of that property. Other AB 331 (Brownley). States the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would create the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2012, a state general obligation bond act that would provide funds to construct and modernize education facilities, to become operative only if approved by the voters at the next statewide general election, and to provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election.  SB 194 (Senate Committee on Governance). Establishes the Shasta County Regional Library Facilities and Services Commission, and authorizes the commission to, among other things, issue bonds, levy a special tax pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, levy a special tax pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A of the Constitution, levy a retail transactions and use tax, and levy service charges and fines, as specified. This bill would repeal this act. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. SB 653 (Steinberg). Allows local government (county, city, or even a school district) to impose a number of taxes which currently can only be levied by the state, upon voter approval.

For years, major cities, especially in California, have held their ground in what some consider an unwelcome onslaught by Walmart stores and their like. In the City of San Diego, however, Walmart has been making one of its most significant plays yet in attempting to establish itself in urban California. Its recent announcement of its intention to build up to a dozen stores comes amid a political battle that has raged for a half-decade. In November, the city council voted in favor of an ordinance requiring that retail superstores such as Walmarts submit extensive economic impact reports detailing the projected effects they would have on neighboring small businesses. The ordinance was directed at stores with over 90,000 square feet of retail space, at least 10% of which is dedicated to items exempt from state sales tax, such as groceries.  The Ordinance to Protect Small and Neighborhood Businesses, introduced by councilmember Todd Gloria, passed in November. It was vetoed almost immediately by San  Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.  "Passage of the superstore ordinance…will cause confusion in the development process," said Sanders in a statement issued following the November veto. "(It adds) an additional layer of regulation that fails to identify objective review criteria or conditions under which superstore development may ever be considered to be appropriate." While a similar ordinance had been approved and then vetoed in 2007, this time the council overrode the mayor's decision in early December on a 5-3 vote. And yet, the controversy continued.  In response, Walmart brought about a petition campaign, purportedly spending near a million dollars to promote its message, gathering 54,000 signatures (about 4% of San Diego's population) in opposition to the bill. Under city law, the council was forced to vote on the ordinance again, this time with the prospect of a costly special election if the bill went through. Leading up to the follow-up vote, Walmart announced, on Jan. 27, that it planned to develop 12 new stores in San Diego, including several supercenters that would be subject to the ordinance. At a Feb. 1 the City Council ultimately voted, 7-1, to repeal the ordinance, reasoning that in the light of a near $50 million budget deficit, securing funds to put the measure on the ballot was not practical. Walmart did not respond to interview requests.  According to opponents of the ordinance, that process would be burdensome, unnecessary, and produce results that would be vague at best. They say that it uses the land-use planning process as a way to inappropriately hinder a certain type of development.  "They still have to go through the discretionary process— that's what the frustrating part of this was—any project of that size still requires discretionary review," said Matt Adams, vice president of the Building Industry Association of San Diego. "They were just piling on all these other finding requirements and economic analysis that when you looked at it, you thought, no one can meet these. But it was like, of course, if they can't meet them, then they can't build it." While Walmart and its supporters, such as Sanders, reason that supercenters provide jobs and consumer choice to cities, numerous studies have shown the negative aspects of supercenters on communities: the increase in traffic that results in higher pollution levels, the loss of local diversity and color, even the increase in crime. Opponents note that supercenters can generate as many as 10,000 car trips in a weekend, which, they say, places an undue burden on urban streets.  Walmart supporters find both the state bill and city ordinance simply meddlesome.  "We believe that the actions of the city and now the actions of the state are counter to providing free markets and free commerce," said Paul Webster, vice president of public policy at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. "The state does not have any business regulating business expansion, business development and job creation in this way." Matt Adams, the Vice President of the Building Industry Association of San Diego, was a public opponent of the anti-superstore ordinance. Among allegations of manipulating land development code to target a specific company, his main concern was for the loss of jobs in his industry. "At the end of the day we're talking about job-creation in a city that has 10 percent unemployment and the potential for construction jobs which this thing would have prevented and we were strongly opposed to it for those two mains reasons," said Adams. Adams estimated that with each Walmart that is not built, 100 possible construction jobs, from both contractors and subcontractors, will not be created. He imagines it will be a couple years at least before construction starts on the 12 newly proposed stores.  Sanders' veto message notes that if those stores – or ones like them – are not built in the City of San Diego, they will likely crop up elsewhere in the region, thus creating even more traffic congestion than would the more centrally located stores. He contends that such stores would also deprive the city of tax revenue.  "(The anti-superstore ordinance) action creates a competitive disadvantage for San Diego in the pursuit of sales tax revenue," said Sanders. "Superstores will be built to serve our residents, but they will simply locate outside of the city's boundary, causing sales taxes to go to other jurisdictions and increasing traffic as people must travel further in search of lower prices." This scenario would potentially be addressed by Senate Bill 469, sponsored by Sen. Juan Vargas (D-Chula Vista), which is currently under consideration in Sacramento. The goal of Vargas's bill, according to his chief of staff, Jim Harrison, is to provide a uniform means of assessing the impact of supercenters across the state, while ultimately letting adjacent local planning agencies decide which effects of supercenters are objectionable and which are palatable. "We don't know what the studies will show; there's a chance they could show positive things in some areas and negative things in others," said Harrison.  The studies will be paid for by the permit applicants at a cost estimated at somewhere around $30,000 per report. In addition to assessing the economic impact on small businesses, the reports promoted by SB 469 would also investigate the projected effect a superstore might have on a neighborhood's affordable housing, destruction of parks and playgrounds, traffic and other blight. They will also be open to public review. Like the Councilmember Gloria's failed ordinance, SB 469 defines a superstore as "any business with 90,000 square feet that sells a wide range of consumer goods and that devotes 10% of its sales floor area to the sale of items that are not subject to the state sales tax." Harrison said studies have found that supercenters have a higher rate of visits per week among consumers than either of these types of establishments. In the meantime, in San Diego, there are certainly alternatives for those seeking low-cost fresh produce according to councilmember Gloria, whose district is one of the poorest in the city.  "There are ways to improve the availability of affordable fresh groceries without sacrificing neighborhood character," said Gloria. Contacts:  Matt Adams, Vice President, Building Industry Association of San Diego, 858.450.1221 Todd Gloria, Councilmember, San Diego 3rd District, 619.595.1481 Sen. Juan Vargas, 40th District, 916.651.4040 Paul Webster, Vice President of Public Policy, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, 619.544.1300  (CP&DR contributor Kate Wolf is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.)

If you think things are bad in California, then you probably don't live in Silicon Valley. And if you think things are swell, you probably don't live in Kerman (or in the Schwarzenegger household). That's the conclusion of a new report released this month about the state of human well-being in California.  The American Human Development Project, a series of studies in all 50 states, is part of a growing movement to measure development not only in terms of economic prosperity but also in terms of quality of life and—to the horror of 1950s-era quantitative analysts—happiness. It's in the Declaration of Independence, so I suppose it's about time we paid attention to it.  Authored by Sarah Burd-Sharps and Kristen Lewis, A Portrait of California uses methodology for assessing well-being that has been developed by the United Nations. It synthesizes measure of health, education, and income into a single index, ranging from 0 to 10.  A Portrait of California is an expansive study that boils the state down to one little number. With a statewide score of 5.46, California ranks above the national average of 5.09. However, the study revealed that California also has the greatest range of scores among all the states surveyed. With nearly perfect scores, five of California's congressional districts rank in the national top-10. Meanwhile, Mississippi, Flint, and the Bronx have nothing on the Central Valley. Congressional District 20, near Fresno, ranks at the very bottom nationwide. Average incomes range from $73,000 in parts of Silicon Valley to $15,000 in parts of the City of Los Angeles. Broadly, the Bay Area is by far the most prosperous metro region, with an index just under 7; no other metro breaks 6 as San Diego, Sacramento, and Los Angeles—the other "big four" metros--were measured at 5.65, 5.48, and 5.28, respectively. The San Joaquin Valley measures 3.84.  Variations within metros were, predictably, even more pronounced. In the Los Angeles area, a 7-point gap separates the mostly white residents of Laguna Hills from the mostly African-American residents of Watts. You can guess which placed ranked higher.  Similar disparities cross ethnic lines. Asian-Americans rank 7.61, with nearly twice as much well-being (as it were) as Latinos, whose index is 3.99. Slice the data however you want—gender, location, education, immigrant status, ethnicity—and predictable patterns persist.  The study concludes that, contrary to what planners may think about cities, on the one hand, and metro regions, on the other hand, there are five "Californias": Silicon Valley Shangri-La, Metro-Coastal Enclave, Main Street, Struggling, and Forsaken. Each of these states corresponds with varying access to quality education and shocking disparities in quality of neighborhoods and social services. The study lists the exact cities and communities that fall into each California, so everyone in the state can find his or her place in the inequitable mess that the state has become.  Any planner with a conscience should pay attention to the development factors that relate to land use, of which there are many. For instance, the study points out that residents of Palo Alto get around via three public bus systems plus a commuter rail line, thus fulfilling the contentions of everyone from Jane Jacobs to Ed Glaeser that connectivity equals prosperity. Just a stone's throw from Steve Jobs' house, East Palo Alto is served by a single public bus system. Shangri-La it is not.  The study concludes by identifying 12 categories of action that are required to bring the respective Californias up to a level of respectability. Not surprisingly, the Forsaken California requires all 12 fixes; Silicon Valley needs only to reduce the gender gap in earnings (presumably, though, women tech executives who make $10 million compared to men who make $20 million are fighting more of a moral battle than a financial battle).  The categories, numbered below as they appear in the report, that should concern planners include the following:  4. Reduce residential segregation. With astounding disparities in amenities, services, and social capital among the Californias—and with some of them sitting cheek by jowl—the study implies that the stakes in the battle for affordable housing are higher than merely having a place to live. 5.  Facilitate healthy behaviors. This is nothing new. Walking and cycling should be easy, not marginalized in favor of the auto.  11. Stabilize housing costs. As far as I'm concerned, this means relaxing zoning laws, speeding up the entitlement process, and otherwise getting rid of many artificial barriers to the production of privately developed housing. (Harvard professor Ed Glaeser says nothing less in Triumph of the City (see CP&DR Book Beview May 2011 .) Aside from those, a full four categories of action relate directly to education.  None of this data is news to anyone who lives in these different Californias. But the report does offer a striking holistic portrait of the state as a whole: planners and public officials who read the report – however valid or invalid its conclusions might be – cannot ignore how the other half lives. This sort of analysis, especially at the level of the metro region, would be nearly useless if it weren't for the dawning of a new age of regionalism in California. SB 375 intends to reduce vehicle miles traveled on the regional scale, but in directing transportation investment, development, and especially housing development, SB 375 has the chance to promote equity. And that's something that many will consider more important than VMT reduction.  --Josh Stephens

Plenty of people who live and work in West Los Angeles have zero firsthand knowledge of redevelopment. So a hotel in Brentwood probably doesn't provide the most appropriate venue for a discussion thereof. Nevertheless, the Westside Urban Forum gave it a good shot this morning and the results were telling.  With any issue as controversial as redevelopment, you'd expect a panel with four members to represent a balance between pro and con. In these times, the pro-redevelopment argument would contend that the current doing peachy, thank you very much. If it wasn't, why would nearly 400 agencies been allowed to proliferate across the state and control billions of dollars in public funds? The opposition would say that it's all a bit, corrupt waste of money.  Among the four panelists -- State Controller John Chiang; L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky; Bill A. Witte, president of Related California; and Michael Dieden, one of the founders of the California Infill Builders Association -- not a single one spoke in favor of the status quo.  I don't fault the organizers for assembling an imbalanced panel. I just don't know if anyone, anywhere thinks the current system -- the one that Gov. Jerry Brown thinks is beyond salvation -- is any good. When the status quo has no friends, you know something is terribly, terribly wrong.  If recommendations were bricks, you could build a football stadium out of the ideas that have been advanced for the reform of redevelopment. A few interesting ones popped up this morning.  Yaroslavky, who may be run for mayor of Los Angeles in 2013, took the hardest line against redevelopment, calling it "welfare for the rich." He said he has looked for blight in cities like Arcadia and Industry -- both of which have RDAs -- and has yet to find it. Regarding projects like L.A.'s Bunker Hill, which now features gleaming Class A office buildings, he asked, "How long do you keep pouring money in?" Yaroslavsky bemoaned the evolution of redevelopment from a blight-fighting tool to a development tool. He noted that some cities in L.A. county have no blight and that some have even proposed legislation in Sacramento to do away with the requirement to find blight, because, he said, it only invites cities and developers to make bogus findings. Yaroslavky's opposition is predictable, of course: the tension between cities and counties over diverted tax increments is as old as redevelopment itself.  Chiang hesitated to pass judgment on the concept of redevelopment but instead said that agencies have failed to prove their own worth. According to a survey of 18 agencies that he oversaw in March, not one of the 18 agencies had filed proper paperwork to disclose all of their activities and finances. Chiang thus issued a plea for agencies to be more transparent and, indeed, more competent.  Witte, like Yaroslavsky, said that the blight requirement is a sham, "because blight is whatever you want it to be." Witte recommended that RDAs become more like other city agencies: a core function but without the legal charade associated with findings of blight. Witte recommended that redevelopment be recast to cover three situations: 1) economically distressed areas that currently produce no tax revenue; 2) areas with such poor infrastructure or contamination that private-sector developers cannot make viable; 3) production of affordable housing.  Dieden referred to a forthcoming white paper to be published by the California Infill Builders Association that describes comprehensive reform measures that would provide the state with $1 billion in the first year and $500 million in the following years. He also favored replacing designations of blight with those of "challenged" and providing agencies with the legal framework for addressing "challenged" parcels.  Tellingly, one of the most prominent reform measures that is getting attention in Sacramento seemed like a non-starter. The California Redevelopment Association has proposed that agencies voluntarily turn over a portion of their TIF, so as not to run afoul of Prop. 22. And yet Yaroslavsky cautioned that such a move would be penny-wise and pound-foolish: "A voluntary $1 billion will be the victory and reform will be the causality." The panelists presented ideas with the sort of sobriety and thoughtfulness you would expect from thinking people who are aghast at a public policy disaster. It's quite a different tone than that which persisted seven months ago, when advocates of redevelopment were talking tough and pushing Prop. 22, which promised to preserve the sanctity of TIF financing for all eternity. Of course, Prop. 22 has backfired. By thwarting the state's ability to appropriate any TIF monies, it forced the governor to propose the elimination of the entire system. Had supporters of redevelopment been talking seriously about reform last year -- or even longer ago -- the current crisis might never had befallen them.  It's worth noting that, to my knowledge, this morning marks the first time that there has ever been an event on the Westside dedicated to a broad discussion of redevelopment. And you wonder how we got into this mess in the first place?  --Josh Stephens Correction Appended: An earlier version of this post erroneously identified Bill Witte as an executive with Caruso Affiliated.  William B. Witte is with Caruso; William A. Witte, who was on the WUF panel, is president of Related California. CP&DR regrets this error.

Needless to say, realigning the relationship between state and local government in California isn't going to be as easy, say, as realigning the tires on your car. Then again, at the rate things are going, there won't be any decent roads left on which to drive. So your car might not matter anymore.  The Public Policy Institute of California has announced that it will publish a series of papers concerning the process and wisdom of realigning, per Gov. Jerry Brown's intentions in his 2011 budget proposal. The first report, Rethinking the State-Local Relationship: An Overview , was released in April. Authored by Dean Misczynski, it outlines the general principles of realignment and lays out some of the challenges that the state and its localities will face. Under the governor's budget proposal, counties would take over responsibility for, among other funcitons, housing certain low level offenders and juvenile offenders; providing mental health, drug treatment, and child and adult protective services; and, of course, the elimination of redevelopment zones (but possibly not Enterprise Zones, per the governor's recent budget revise ). Many of these services would be paid for by a temporary increase in vehicle license fees and sales tax, pending voter approval.  The report outlines what it considers some of the factors that have prompted the need for realignment in the past, most notably Prop. 13 , which deprived localities of the ability to raise money via certain property taxes and therefore tied their fates to the largesse of the state.  Clearly, the success of realignment depends on implementation and not on any conceptual framework. Nevertheless, the report cites several benefits that may come from realignment: efficiency, better outcomes, and a balance between local control and statewide equity. This last point is the thorniest, however, since localities may become more free to provide, or ignore, services as they see fit. Therefore, funding and standards must, Misczynski, be put in place in order to ensure that localities do not go astray. Aside from the ethical obligation to provide for citizens equally, he notes that if services are not provided equitably, then residents might be compelled to move from poorly served areas to well served areas, thus creating undesirable migration patterns.  Among the constraints that will complicate the realignment process are 1) the mandate to reimburse localities for new obligations; 2) Prop. 96's mandate that 45% of general fund monies go to schools; 3) Props. 1A and 22, which limit the uses of sales tax revenues and of monies related to redevelopment and transportation. And even if those hurdles are cleared, the report notes that the real devil may be in the financing details. Not surprisingly, the state will want to lowball the value of the services that it is delegating to localities, and localities will demand generous funding from the state. How far apart these numbers will be remains to be seen. But while money is fungible, facilities and expertise are not. In some cases, it could take years before localities built the capacity to take on all that will be asked of them.  What all of this means, of course, is that realignment could go swimmingly and save millions of dollars. Or it could be a nightmare for local governments that already feel put-upon by the state.  --Josh Stephens

The words "pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure" probably cannot motivate the masses the same way an unguarded 8-year-old in a faded crosswalk can. That's understandable. According to the Centers for Disease Control, two-thirds of drivers nationwide exceed speed limits around schools. The result is that one child ages 5-15 per 200,000 are killed as pedestrians each year.  Funding the sorts of safety projects—and neighborhood co-benefits—that would improve those grisly statistics tend to make up a small fraction of transportation spending in the United States. But a safety program aimed at schoolchildren that originated a little over a decade ago in Marin County has found a way to introduce pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure funding into budgets at nearly every level of government. Tugging at the heartstrings of parents while also promoting policies near and dear to smart growth advocates, Safe Routes to School (SRTS) reaches out to school officials, parents, students and local government officials on encouraging more kids to walk to school and making it safer for those who do. While the program is explicitly focused on the safety of schoolchildren, urban planners see it as another way to bolster the case—and get public support—for programs that make neighborhoods more pedestrian-friendly for everyone.  "This program is one of the best leverage points for creating more walking and biking in our communities," said Jessica Meaney, California Policy Manager for the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a network of organizations focused on implementing Safe Routes to School programs. Two generations ago, walking and biking didn't need advocacy. They were the norm and driving to school was the curious exception. According to Low-Income Schools and Communities Study released last year by Caltrans, as recently as 1980 the majority of children living within a 2-mile radius of a school walked or bicycled to school.  Today, that number has dropped to less than 15%.  Not coincidentally, said the study, 5% of children between the ages of 6 and 11 were considered to be overweight or obese in 1980.  "These statistics point to a rise in preventable childhood diseases, worsening air quality and congestion around schools, and missed opportunities for children to grow into self reliant, independent adults," the study concludes. In recognition of these trends, SRTS caught on in Marin because, according to the Marin Bicycle Coalition, up to 27% of the county's morning commuters consisted of parents driving their children to school in the largely affluent, suburban county. Ironically, this contributed to a higher-than-average carbon footprint for the environmentally conscious county. The coalition then set up nine test cases in a pilot program. The coalition reports that by the end of the program, the participating schools experienced a 57% increase in the number of children walking and biking and a 29% decrease in the number of children arriving alone in a car – all without heavy investments in development or infrastructure. Instead, SRTS attempts to make profound changes through interventions as subtle as signage, bike lanes and routes, sidewalk fixes, and outreach campaigns.  The program went countywide in 2003 and was incorporated into federal transportation funding authorization of 2005.  Ten years since its inception, pending state legislation seeks to make the program even more widespread and to engrain the program in neighborhoods that are not nearly as affluent as those in Marin County.  AB 539 would authorize local governments to double the base fines for speeding in school zones where existing law prohibits local governments from reducing the speed limit. AB 516, sponsored by Manuel Pérez (D-Indio), would help ensure low-income communities are able to bring SRTS programs to their local schools. AB 516 would require that at least 50% of grants go to those communities and it would require greater public participation in the SRTS planning process.  AB 516 has been re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations while AB 539 was passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.   AB 516 was prompted in part by the Caltrans study that found that only 44% of state Safe Routes to School grants went to low-income communities. The report notes that community infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods often dissuades children from walking and biking. The report notes that low-income youth are up to three times more likely to be obese than higher-income peers and that these obesity levels are due in part to the lack of opportunities for active recreation in low-income neighborhoods.  "Disadvantaged and rural communities tend to lack the infrastructure -- sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, etc. -- that help to make communities walkable and improve quality of life," said Pérez. "The Safe Routes to School program has been an effective tool to improve walkability and pedestrian and bicyclist safety."  The report notes that the governor's Strategic Growth Council has recommended that investments in personal mobility be targeted at low-income neighborhoods.   Caltrans recently issued a call for projects to fund $42 million in projects over the next two years and has established a new website -- http://www.casaferoutestoschool.org -- to assist cities interested in implementing SRTS programs. That funding depends on the passage of a new federal Transportation Act.  Visually, the program can be summed up by the street signs commonly seen around school zones: two stick figure children carrying books as they walk to class. But in reality, those signs have a decreasing amount of relevance today. The majority of children arrive at elementary school in the back seat of a car. Safe Routes to School's  aims to change that habit. The benefits, they say, range from decreased dependence on autos to the health benefits of walking to greater connections between kids and their neighborhoods.  These statistics are, in part, a legacy of school busing programs that became widespread in the 1970s. While aiming to create more diverse student bodies, those programs also took some students away from local schools, thus forcing them to rely on buses or parents and erasing the traditional walk to school. At the same time, the preponderance of those cars and buses makes many routes less safe and palatable for those kids who can walk.  "15 to 20 percent of morning congestion is caused by parents dropping their kids off at school," said Alexis Lantz, Planning and Policy Director at the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. "And, I think, of the school-age children in the city of Los Angeles, 25 percent of them are overweight." The dual goals of reducing congestion and improving the health of students are part of the reason the City of Los Angeles recently approved a $1.2 million study to set up a citywide Safe Routes to School program and collision database. It's an effort to streamline the city's applications for Safe Routes to School grant money available through the Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration. Both of these funding programs are administered by Caltrans.  By collecting data on where collisions are occurring, by what transportation mode, and near which schools, the study and database are expected to help the city identify areas in need of attention before accidents occur. "Before, whenever there was a fatal collision, everybody would race to the site to see how we could have prevented it," said Bruce Gillman, a spokesperson at the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The city had previously applied for grant money, but always on an ad hoc basis by council district. The citywide program will replace those 15 district applications with one citywide application, a move expected to greatly increase the chances of winning these competitive grants. "It will be an infusion of literally millions of dollars," Gillman said. The funding itself is intended for a combination of infrastructure projects and non-infrastructure efforts. The latter mainly takes the form of safety education campaigns, which are as important as any improvements made to the built environment, according to education advocates. "It's one thing to put a sidewalk out there, and it's one thing if you put out bike lanes, but you really need to, especially with kids, do the safety education. Especially with parents," Lantz said. "Parents have their own fears about walking and biking to school, and that extends beyond just road safety to personal safety in regards to crime and gangs." And being that these education-heavy programs don't necessarily require shovels in the ground, they are able to cheaply achieve some of the walkability goals of the smart growth movement. "It creates an environment of people being out and walking the streets and doing activities that really support place-making and community-building," said Pippa Brashear, project manager at the Project for Public Spaces.   Gail Carlson is the public health program coordinator in Riverside County, where she has been working to implement a Safe Routes to School program at 13 elementary schools. The program's goal is to get more kids walking and biking to school, and for Carlson, that means focusing on education. "Even though sidewalks are being built, kids aren't walking. For whatever reason that is. So we need to complement that with the education and the encouragement and provide that vision that there are alternative modes that kids can get to and from school safely," said Carlson. The Riverside County program runs Safe Routes to School workshops to educate parents, and is encouraging programs in schools like "Walking Wednesdays" and "Fit Fridays." Some schools have upwards of 200 kids participating in these events twice a week. One elementary school has a Safe Routes to School page in its yearbook. In addition to these educational efforts, Carlson said a few infrastructural changes have also been made since the county's Safe Routes to School program started in 2008. Visually striking red curbs and curbcuts are some of the basic improvements they've seen, but there have also been signs posted along some "walking bus" routes – paths used by parents who will walk their kids to school and pick up other kids along the way. But getting more kids walking to school takes more than just preaching the gospel. Often what drives implementation of a program is getting stakeholders to recognize when there are safety problems. "It means working with the teachers, principals, parent organizations, the students themselves to identify the problem areas, do walk audits, do bike audits, and create encouragement programs that don't necessarily take funding, they just take parent and staff involvement, and work with the community to build that support," said Lantz. And once these audits are done and programs are starting to form, cities have higher odds of winning grant money from the state or federal government to continue the work. This is good news for kids trying to get to school safety on foot or bike, but it can also be a boon for cities with few other resources to dedicate to pedestrian and bicycle safety efforts. "If a city has gotten a Safe Routes to School grant, that could very well be one of the few sources they're getting to directly address pedestrian safety and bike safety," said Meaney. At the same time, a SRTS program may depend on the nature of the surrounding environment. Thus, locales that intend to implement a Safe Routes program have incentive to consider the broader implications of place-making.  "It's sort of a chicken or an egg: Place-making supports SRTS (and vice-versa)," said Brashear, of project for Public Spaces. She said it's no good to have "kids walk down an uninhabited street with poor facilities or poor urban design."  Brashear recommends that planners use place-making strategies "by bringing activities to areas around a school and having design for a public space and public rights of way, that not only brings safety but also comfort and excitement. That really goes hand-in-hand with laying out the sidewalk."  Meaney said Safe Routes to School programs have impacts beyond the school zone. They also help cities comply with the stipulations of SB 375, the statewide law that requires regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And by emphasizing safety around schools, the program makes those areas safer not only for kids—and other vulnerable populations—but for the entire community. "I think everybody benefits when we live in neighborhoods that kids can walk and bike to," said Meaney. Contacts: Caltrans Safe Routes to Schools Program Low-Income Schools and Communities Study (.pdf) Pippa Brashear, Project Manager, Project for Public Spaces, 212.620.5660 Gail Carlson, Coordinator, Riverside County Public Health Program, 951.358.7173 Alexis Lantz, Planning & Policy Director, L.A. County Bicycle Coalition, 213.629.2142 Jessica Meaney, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, 213.221.7179

When is $6.6 billion considered pocket change? When you're the state of California and you still have $10.8 billion to go.  Even with a tax windfall based on a better-than-expected economic projections for the next two years, that's where things stand with the budget deficit, which Gov. Jerry Brown is furiously trying to plug with a host of tax and realignment schemes. Land use has featured prominently in Brown's deficit-reduction strategies, and with his budget revise--released Monday--it appears that Enterprise Zones may be spared while redevelopment remains on the chopping block.  Ironically, the roughly $900 million Enterprise Zone program has relatively few friends in the state and has been fiercely criticized by researchers. Conversely, nearly every local official, real estate developer, and planner in the state has, either because of genuine conviction or parochial interests, issued resounding protests against the killing of redevelopment .  Brown reportedly salvaged Enterprise Zones in part because he did not have enough support in the Legislature to kill them. Instead, he proposes a reform that would extend tax breaks only to companies that can prove they are creating new jobs. His redevelopment proposal, however, remains unchanged.  Other elements of the governor's revised budget related to land use:  Closure of 70 state parks < pdf =">pdf"> , for a savings of $33 million Increase in Prop. 1B capital funding from $2.3 billion to $3.3 billion. Reinstatement of allocations for Prop. 1C funding, including 25 million for the Housing, Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks Program; $18 million for the Transit-Oriented Development Program; and $20 million for the Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) Program. Prop. 1C grants had been suspended several months ago.  Elimination of over 40 state boards and commissions. The League of Cities identified several of interest to cities:  State Mining and Geology Board State Office of Gang and Youth Violence Prevention Commission on the Status of Women Governor's Office of Gang and Youth Violence Prevention California Council on Criminal Justice Fair Employment and Housing Commission Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Standard Board  Selling non-essential properties such as the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, the Montclair Golf Course in Oakland, and most of the holdings of the Capital Area Development Authority in Sacramento.  To the last point, it's understandable that the governor would want to get some white elephants off the state's books. Lord knows, the Coliseum -- a partnership between the the state, the City of L.A., the County of L.A., and its main tenant, USC -- is a hot mess. But liquidation of CADA properties would kill one of the major drivers of development in downtown Sacramento, where CADA acts as the de facto redevelopment agency. Though this move would follow the spirit of the governor's intention to eliminate all redevelopemnt agencies, the difference is that CADA is a zero-sum game, since it's a state entity in the first place.  June 15 is the deadline for the Legislature to act on budget proposals.  --Josh Stephens

With different aspects of the City of Bell scandal continuing to come to light, "Bell" is starting to become short-hand for government corruption. Still, Bell's mess does not displace San Bernardino County from its longtime position at the top of the local government corruption charts. The situation in Bell is easily summarized: A small group of top-level city employees and four councilmembers abused their powers to get rich at taxpayers' expense. According to prosecutors and news investigations, the city officials may have received millions of dollars in excessive salaries. They simply wrote themselves large paychecks. Meanwhile, the corruption allegations, indictments and convictions in San Bernardino County are numerous, complicated and mostly concern real estate development. The latest twist was last week's indictments of former county Supervisor Paul Biane, developer Jeff Burum, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, a former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt and currently the county's director of governmental affairs. San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramon and the state attorney general's office allege that Burum used campaign contributions, gifts and threats to get Biane, Ovitt and then-Supervisor Bill Postmus to approve a $102 million settlement of a lawsuit that Burum had filed against the county. Biane, Erwin, Kirk and Burum have denied wrongdoing. In 2006, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted, 3-2, to settle the lawsuit filed by Burum's Colonies Partners, which was developing a 440-acre housing and retail project in Upland called Colonies Crossroads. The developer had sued for reimbursement for providing flood control facilities that it said were the county's responsibility. The settlement smelled bad at the time, as the county had already won one appellate court ruling in the litigation, and both the county counsel's office and outside attorneys urged rejection of the settlement. Maybe it was merely business-as-usual. Back in the 1990s, consecutive county administrators, Harry Mays and James Hlawek, went down after running the corner office like a criminal enterprise. Both were fined and subjected to county civil suits to recover ill-gotten riches. Mays spent two years in prison; Hlawek got off with three years probation. A county investment officer and the treasurer/tax collector also did time for taking bribes from a local businessman in exchange for county contract favors. In 2004, then-Supervisor Gerald Eaves pleaded guilty to accepting unreported gifts from a businessman who received county approval to erect billboards on county land. The mayor of Colton and two city councilmen went down in the same bribes-for-billboards scheme. Around the same time, two San Bernardino councilmembers pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from a developer. To summarize: Seven elected officials and three appointed government officials in three jurisdictions were guilty of various corruption schemes from the mid-'90s to the mid-'00s. In March of this year, Postmus, the former supervisor who resigned under pressure as county assessor in 2009, agreed to plead guilty to three felonies for conspiracy to accept a bribe, conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds. The plea deal included Postmus's agreement to testify in future criminal trials. Two of the felonies to which Postmus copped stemmed from payments and gifts that he and his political operations received from Colonies Partners. (The other felony concerns Postmus hiring people in the assessor's office to do nothing but political work. Postmus aide Adam Aleman had already pleaded guilty to destroying public documents and lying to a grand jury about the political operations on the public's dime; a different aide is awaiting trial.) When the district attorney and attorney general's office indicted Postmus last year, they did not name five un-indicted co-conspirators. However, it was easy to identify Biane (who voted for the settlement and lost re-election last year), Kirk, Colonies managing partners Jeff Burum and Dan Richards, and Colonies PR consultant Patrick O'Reilly as the five. All have vigorously denied wrongdoing, but the indictments appeared to be a matter of time. Erwin was already being prosecuted. Meanwhile, local newspapers have reported that the county has spent $21 million suing the City of Upland, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Caltrans in an attempt to recoup some of the $102 million settlement cost. SANBAG recently increased its contract with attorneys defending against the lawsuit to $8 million. Upland has spent $3.6 million defending the lawsuit. That's more than $30 million in public funds spent in an argument over a lawsuit settlement that, according to prosecutors, was illegitimate. And there's so much more. In April, the attorney general's office charged county Supervisor Neil Derry with perjury and filing a false campaign expense report. The attorney general alleges Derry laundered $10,000 in campaign contributions, including $5,000 from area developer Arnold Stubblefield, through Postmus's political operation. Rex Gutierrez, a former assessor's office employee and Rancho Cucamonga councilman, is now a resident of Tehachapi State Prison. Postmus hired Gutierrez at the assessor's office as a favor to Burum, whose nonprofit company received a $42.5 million contract from Rancho Cucamonga to maintain affordability covenants at an apartment complex. Former San Bernardino County CEO Mark Uffer last year filed a whistle-blower retaliation lawsuit against the county after the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to fire him. Uffer alleges he was dumped because he tried to halt the county-Colonies settlement and reign in numerous other corrupt practices. A trial on Uffer's claims could provide the biggest show yet. John Pomierski resigned as Upland mayor in February, shortly before being indicted for allegedly trying to extort money from a nightclub and medical marijuana cooperative that were seeking city permits. Also indicted was John Hennes, an appointee to the city's building appeals board. District attorney's office investigators and the FBI raided Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, the county hospital in Colton, last fall. Investigators have not explained what they were seeking, but there are allegations that high-ranking county officials received free treatment at the hospital. District attorney's investigators also are known to be asking questions about the county's negotiations, since suspended, with potential developers of 1,200 acres of surplus county land in Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Bell? One simple scheme to take tax money. That's the minor leagues compared with San Bernardino County. – Paul Shigley