Cambridge, Mass. -- Imagine you're a former Treasury secretary, or, a former Interior secretary, or a former governor with national influence and you've been tasked to discuss land use on a springtime Friday in 2011. What in the world do you talk about? You can't talk about development per se, because there isn't much of any. And you can't talk about particular cities because you're a former federal official who takes a broad view of the state of affairs. And you probably want to say something positive.  This unenviable dilemma faced Lawrence Summers and Bruce Babbitt -- both of President Bill Clinton's cabinet -- and former Philadelphia Mayor and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell at different sessions this weekend at the Forum on Land Use and the Built Environment, sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy , the Harvard Graduate School of Design , and the Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. With a nod to the idea that the U.S. has entered a new era of urbanism, the forum's theme was "The Next City."  The purpose of the forum is to assemble a slate of A-list speakers to help us land-use journalists put our finger on the pulse of land-use trends. That's a fraught metaphor, of course, at a time when real estate development hardly has a pulse at all. Instead, this year we found ourselves putting an ear to the rail. The high-speed rail.  The forum's organizers did not assign themes or topics to its speakers. So it's a small wonder that almost every speaker -- including the three most prominent politicos of the bunch -- chose to discuss infrastructure and, among all infrastructure projects, high-speed rail grabbed the most attention. It is one of the few optimistic elements of the urban zeitgeist, and one of the few elements that are tangible enough to discuss.  Summers led off the conference with a brief assessment of the causes of this past decade's economic disaster. In some ways, he promoted infrastructure investment and stimulus spending, saying that it would be far better for the federal government to err on the side of spending too much rather than spending too little. However, he summarily rejected the idea that stimulus has to flow through infrastructure, saying that the most "visionary" projects were poorly suited for stimulus. In particular, the vaunted "shovel-ready" projects of 2009 were pure myth. He explained the shovel-ready is inherently contradictory because no one is going to spend the money on design, engineering, and environmental review if a project isn't already funded. It's no wonder, then, that Summers dismissed such a speculative, long-term venture as high speed rail. As an alternative, Summers said that the most effective, if least sexy, stimulus spending that the feds could do would be to give funds to state and local governments.  To my surprise, Babbitt sang the praises of the Interstate Highway System and, in particular, the 1956 act that created it and set the standard for its development across the 50 states. That's a bold admission from one of the county's most distinguished environmentalists. He did not, however, endorse a nationwide high speed rail system. Babbitt reminded us that the first national rail system -- the Transcontinental Railroad – and its financing arm, the Credit Mobilier, was "one of the biggest frauds of all time." As well, Babbitt rejects the concept of infrastructure banks, saying that unless there's a clear source of user fees, it doesn't matter where the capital comes from (he did not, however, dismiss Los Angeles' attempt to get federal funding for its "30/10" plan, though he did say that it should not lead to a national program). Instead of a national HSR program, Babbitt wants national standards to inform regional efforts, and he said that we should start in the most obvious place: the Eastern Corridor. He said that, unlike California, the mid-Atlantic has the density and history of rail travel that would make HSR a success. And he proposes a regional funding scheme: a gas tax imposed in the seven states that the corridor serves. If you think that states can't cooperate, Babbitt will remind you that he was once the governor of Arizona, one of the seven states of the Colorado River Compact.  In contrast with Babbitt's and Summers' sobriety, the avuncular, irrepressible Rendell sees infrastructure -- of all kinds -- as the best, and perhaps only, solution to the country's employment crisis. Dismissing Babbitt's claim that "there's no such thing as shovel-ready," Rendell proposed the establishment of a national capital budget. It would be $300 billion per year, to be spent over six years. That would take care of the $2 trillion maintenance and improvement backlog -- the one that prompted the American Society of Civil Engineers to award the country's infrastructure a D+ in its latest report card. And it would, said Rendell, create 12 million jobs. That's exactly the number of jobs that the economy needs to return to normalcy. How to pay for it? Stop spending $2 billion per day in Iraq and Afghanistan, says Rendell.  Petra Todorovich, of New York-based America 2050 , played the role of rational promoter of HSR with all the facts and figures about its benefits as well as a sober assessment of the political and financial obstacles. It's worth noting that Petra, unlike Babbitt, thinks that California's HSR system has the advantage of being in a single jurisdiction. Of course, though, the geography of California means that we'd be starting the line on the outskirts of Fresno. That's not exactly Penn Station.  One sure thing emerged from this weekend's conference: All signs--from Ed Glaeser's economic data about the value of cities to Ed Blakely's sobering descriptions of rebuilding New Orleans--suggested that the old model, dominated by the conquest of the crabgrass frontier, is dead. Everyone is waiting for the realization of a new model, which will most likely be inspired by the fight against climate change, the embrace of smart growth, and, yes, the need to rebuild our infrastructure. But that model will emerge at a geological pace, if ever. Until then, we will experience something so complex we can't even call it a model. If the collective opinions of these experts and power-brokers tell us anything, it is that the coming decades will not be planned. They will simply happen, and they will happen in different ways in different places. Is that too vague? I simply don't know how else to describe it.  Then again, maybe there will be no growth at all. Prof. Chris Nelson of the University of Utah told us that a host of factors -- including higher household densities and the utter inability of anyone short of Lloyd Blankfein to qualify for a mortgage -- means that more people will be renting and that we're not going to fill the glut of existing housing anytime soon (even as the total population, and the minority population, continues to grow). In other words, no one knows what's going on.  How far we've come from the times when Ike deployed bulldozers as if they were Sherman tanks. Which brings me back to high-speed rail. HSR is comforting. It's tangible. It's a thing. And it's an attractive thing at that. Maybe, then, it is simply the thing we're talking about because we don't know what else to do. We can dream about it while we wait for all those other forces to assemble themselves and create the cities of the future. A postscript: At one point, Prof. Nelson introduced what I have decided to refer to as the "McTenement" concept: the idea that 12 or 15 people -- three families -- could comfortably fit into your average, unexceptional suburban McMansion (many of which are vacant and under foreclosure).  When an audience member pointed out that many homeowners association restrictions would prevent such arrangements, someone else noted that many such regulations still permit an unlimited number of servants. In response to that anachronism, Ed Blakely, who is perhaps best known as New Orleans' "recovery czar," chimed in with a lighthearted, yet breathtaking, rejoinder.  "That helps me," said Blakely, who is African-American. "I don't know about you."  As Blakley knows all too well, we're all going to need help.   -- Josh Stephens

As a journalist, I regularly say some strong things about buildings and urban planning, although not without the anxious feeling deep inside that my big mouth will someday get me into trouble. And, as it turns out, not entirely without reason: sometimes, I can lose work because of my opinions. Wherein hangs the tale. The Los Angeles Chapter of Urban Land Institute -- how shall I put it? -- un-hired me as a documentation writer. I, among other writers, had been approached by the institute to provide written documentation of the two institute's continuing education seminars. After vetting and hawing and hemming, I was selected for the writerly task. The fee probably wasn't going to be a fortune, but it was a paycheck for a self-employed person during the slowest economic recovery in anyone's memory, and it would have helped.  Now, in this blog and other places, I have written critically -- very critically, but not uncivilly -- about the some of the dubious qualities of LA Live as an example of urban design.  I argued that this sports, entertainment and hotel cluster, which fills about 20 acres, essentially makes the southern end of downtown into a private enclave. And as I have written here and elsewhere, the whole $4 billion package is essentially a mousetrap to capture tourists, who may be tempted to stay and spend their money in this Vegas-sized extravaganza, without having ever ventured into the city proper, and then go home and tell the folks they've "seen L.A." I think it's a bad project, and a co-option of decades of planning by big money. Then the phone rang a few days ago. On the other end was an executive with the Los Angeles Council of ULI. The person was very courteous, and wanted to speak to me personally. The person told me, very civilly, that I could no longer serve as a writer-for-hire for Urban Land,  because, and this is verbatim, "we can't use writers who have opinions." Opinions, that is, on a multi-billion-dollar project in downtown Los Angeles, the developer of which, Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), looms above other Los Angeles developers like a turkey buzzard among pigeons. (I could have chosen a more flattering metaphor, such as "like an eagle soaring above the meadowlarks," but I'm feeling piqued.) Anyway, I politely pointed out to my caller that Urban Land Institute itself had recently given  LA Live an award. Couldn't an award be viewed as opinionary? "It was recognized for certain qualities," hedged the caller, who seemed uncomfortable. "No, it was given an award for excellence," I replied, "which is why I wrote that blog criticizing ULI's decision." The caller acknowledged that he/she/it had private opinions about LA Live, but in the official capacity as a Person Without Opinions, kept personal feelings close to the vest. As for my doing any work at ULI, well, I could always volunteer to work on committees. In a gracious l‘envoi, the caller told me to "keep holding our feet to the fire." Now, I understand that Urban Land Institute does not owe me a job. And I also understand the potential embarrassment ULI officials would suffer should an irate official with Anschutz Entertainment Group, the developer of LA Live, express displeasure that I was feeding at their trough, so to speak. On the other hand, unhiring me could be interpreted as censorship. How? Imagine, if you will, if I had written a highly flattering, sickeningly effusive review of LA Live? Would that overt expression of opinion have cost me paying work with a non-profit trade group. (Long silence for dramatic effect.) No, I don't think so, either.  I was punished for having a particular type of opinion about a highly conspicuous project, the developer of which enjoys a favorite-son status in the otherwise stagnant pool that was formerly the development industry in Los Angeles. And that's the burn. Urban Land Institute, you are a valuable organization that does fine work in advisory city planning in Los Angeles and the rest of the country. If you smell something burning, however, it could be your feet. May I advise you, very tactfully, to keep them out of your mouth.  --Morris Newman (Naturally, Morris Newman's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of CP&DR or its editors.)

The Malibu policeman's immortal warning "keep out of my beach community!" in the 1998 leisure-sport epic The Big Lebowski could just as easily have been uttered last autumn by certain residents of Orange County's unincorporated community of Sunset Beach. In this case, though, they would not be shouting at The Dude but rather at the entire City of Huntington Beach. Instead, a group of Sunset Beach residents are suing the City of Huntington Beach for, they say, unfairly imposing a 5% Users Utility Tax on them.  Last year residents of Sunset Beach, which has roughly 1,100 residents, commissioned an incorporation study that ultimately demonstrated a lack of viability, according to the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission. Instead, because of Orange County's aggressive pursuit of so-called "small island" annexations, Sunset Beach was slated to be subsumed by Huntington Beach late last year. That decision was met with mixed reviews in the fiercely independent community.  "Some people thought that the study justified becoming our own city," said Mike Van Voorhis, president of the Sunset Beach Community Association. "There are others, me included, that when I looked at the study to become a city, it…made more sense to become part of Huntington Beach." Small island annexations are supposed to proceed without much fuss and without a popular vote. But the lawsuit suggests that a potential contradiction in state law could – in the absence of a clear court ruling on the Sunset Beach case – complicate countless other small island annexations throughout the California.  "The Sunset Beach situation has the capacity to have statewide implications," said Huntington Beach City Attorney Jennifer McGrath. This merger will take place against the backdrop of a lawsuit that has exposed a potentially troubling conflict between the Knox-Cortese-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 -- the law that governs annexations and local agency formations -- and Proposition 218, the 1996 ballot measure that requires voter approval for most local tax increases.  In 2000 Knox-Cortese-Hertzberg was updated to include a Section 56375.3, a provision for the streamlined annexation of unincorporated islands of less than 150 acres. The law gives LAFCOs the discretion to approve, but not to deny, island annexations without protest or popular votes. The provision was designed to do away with small islands in order to promote efficient governance.  For the most part, these annexations take place smoothly, as the law intended.  "There's been a lot of island annexations that have occurred over the last few years with this provision in the law," said Bill Chiat, executive director of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. "In almost all cases they're done collaboratively.  LAFCOs' commissions and cities rarely want to do an annexation where the residents aren't at least neutral if not supportive." Sunset Beach is not literally an island, but it comes fairly close, occupying a thin spit of coastline with Los Alamitos Bay on one side and the Pacific on the other.It's also adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach. In the 107 years since its founding as a railroad depot, Sunset Beach has attempted to remain a place of houseboats, dive bars, and flip-flops while its larger, richer neighbor has gamely marketed itself as "Surf City, USA."  This marriage of beach bum and trophy wife comes about as a result of Orange County LAFOO's assignment of the 134-acre community to Huntington Beach's sphere of influence in 2009. Sunset Beach is one of 26 remaining small islands in the county that are being eyed for annexation. The Huntington Beach City Council began annexation proceedings in August of 2010. In January a court issued a preliminary injunction against the annexation, which has yet to be recorded by LAFCO.  A group of Sunset Beach residents called the Citizen's Association of Sunset Beach filed a suit Dec. 9, claiming that a 5% Utility User Tax that is charged throughout Huntington Beach violates Prop. 218. The suit originally challenged the annexation in its entirety but, following a January ruling that stayed the annexation, the suit is now limited to the utilities tax but is not challenging the annexation.  Plaintiffs have argued that the imposition of the tax violates their right to consent to the tax under Prop. 218. City officials contend that it is not a new tax per se but rather the expansion of city boundaries, which thus applies an existing tax to new residents. City Councilmember Keith Bohr, who was mayor when the council approved the annexation, said that Huntington Beach's 5% UTT is actually the lowest such tax among all the options that Sunset Beach faced. Annexation by Seal Beach, to the north, would have likely resulted in a higher tax, and the community's own incorporation study estimated that utilities taxes would have to be as high as 10%.  The City Council had initially not intended to levy the utilities tax but, acting on advice from McGrath, determined in November that existing Huntington Beach residents might sue if Sunset Beach was exempted from the tax. In any event, they say that the tax was not an issue during the discussions leading up to the approval of annexation and that they did not expect Prop. 218 to force their hand.  "When we sat down with them initially, they gave us 14 points that were really important to them and we agreed on 13 of the 14 points. This utility tax came up later after that," said Joe Carchio, mayor of Huntington Beach. "We were hopeful that we not going to tax them.  We didn't realize—at least I didn't realize—that Prop. 218 would come into play." McGrath contends that Prop. 218 does not, and should not, come into play because the tax is not "new" as such. Instead, she argues that it is an existing tax being levied on new taxpayers. LAFCO's annexation study projects that Huntington Beach would net roughly $600,000 annually on just over $1 million in tax revenues collected in Sunset Beach; Sunset Beach's portion of the UTT would amount to roughly $200,000. "These are taxes that residents of Huntington Beach pay," said McGrath. "By LAFCO's decision to annex that unincorporated area into the City of Huntington Beach they will be merely paying the same taxes as would any other resident of the city." If the UTT was not imposed until a citywide vote took place – which would not be until 2012, according to the city's current election calendar – then Huntington Beach would be forced to withhold some services from the residents of the untaxed area. If it did not, then, McGrath said, the city could face a lawsuit from existing residents who would likely see Sunset Beach as getting a free ride.  "Obviously the citizens of Huntington Beach don't want to subsidize the citizens of Sunset Beach," said McGrath. McGrath said that she is confident in her position in part because the 2000 update of Cortese-Knox-Herzberg came after the passage of Prop. 218, meaning that legislators have implicitly addressed any issue that Prop. 218 would raise.  "The Legislature is presumed to know what the law is when they're creating new legislation, so an inconsistency would have been remedied if it was needed," said McGrath.  Opposing counsel says that Prop. 218 requires that the consent of the annexed residents must take precedence or else the annexation should not take place.   "If you get a vote for purposes of annexation, that is sufficient to satisfy your right to a vote under 218," said plaintiff's attorney John McCarron, of law firm Stern, Van Vleck, and McCarron. "In the standard annexation, your vote (to annex) kind of qualifies as both and the constitution is satisfied. Here, that's not the case."  While the suit has been a headache for Huntington Beach, it could foreshadow further complications for countless future island annexations around the state.  Fresno County LAFCO has already faced a similar issue. In 2009 the City of Fresno was set to annex, and impose its city utilities tax on, 49 acres comprising a relatively upscale residential neighborhood through the islands annexation law. That annexation was suspended when the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association threatened a lawsuit. The city then sued LAFCO for suspending the annexation on the grounds that it was treating the Jarvis letter as a "protest" and thus violating Knox-Cortese-Hertzberg.   That case settled with an unpublished opinion.  "Courts have never settled the question as to whether or not a protest proceeding satisfies the requirements of Proposition 218," said attorney Kenneth J. Price, of Baker, Manock & Jensen, which represented Fresno LAFCO. "This is really a two-part analysis: the first question is, is there this conflict between the statute and 218? And even if there were a protest, does the protest satisfy the requirements of 218?"   Thus, the relationship between small island annexations and Prop. 218 remains very much an open question. This apparently intractable conflict in Sunset Beach will likely lead to a precedent-setting ruling if and when the suit goes to trial in August.  "I expect the question will continue to be raised as annexations occur in the future and there is some kind of assessment that comes with the annexation that people will be concerned if their costs increase," said Chiat.  If a court was to find in favor of the plaintiffs in Sunset Beach, the ruling could undermine the small islands annexation provision in Knox-Cortese.  "The whole point of an island annexation is to fast-track simple, small annexations," said Price. "And if a 218 proceeding is imposed that's exactly like a protest proceeding. It's going to slow down the process."  Cities could, of course, agree not to impose contestable taxes, but doing so would, according to McGrath, eliminate cities' incentive for annexing islands in the first place.  "They encourage this type of annexation so that counties are basically getting out of the business of running cities. They designed it this way," said McGrath. "If the city can't collect the taxes there's no incentive for the city to take it on."  Many opponents of the lawsuit feel that it amounts more to an expression of civic pride than of genuine concerns over governance.  "There is a legitimate legal issue that needs to be determined, but I believe that the people who have this lawsuit simply are trying to find a way to crush the annexation," said Voorhis. Representatives of the Citizen's Association of Sunset Beach were not available for comment before press time.  Huntington Beach officials insist that the Sunset Beach faithful have nothing to worry about.  "In the long run, much happier that they're going to be part of Huntington Beach and still maintain that small-town flavor in that their name is still there," said Carchio. "We're not going to go in there and start bulldozing properties and start putting up large hotels."  Contacts:  Joe Carchio, Mayor of Huntington Beach, 714-536-5553 Bill Chiat, Executive Director, California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions , 916.442.6536 John McCarron; Partner; Stern, Van Vleck, and McCarron , 916.442.1298 Jennifer McGrath, Huntington Beach City Attorney, (714) 536-5555  Kenneth J. Price, Attorney, Baker, Manock & Jensen , 559.432.5400 Mike Van Voorhis, President, Sunset Beach Community Association

In 2007, then-Attorney General Jerry Brown established a new paradigm for planning in California. With his settlement in a lawsuit against San Bernardino County, he clearly signaled that cities, counties, and county subregions would have to account for, and attempt to mitigate, greenhouse gas emissions in their general plans under the California Environmental Quality Act and AB 32. In fact, Brown went so far as to vow to sue any city that failed to account for its greenhouse gas emissions. Last month, Brown's newly installed successor Kamala Harris, issued a sharp critique of regional plan in the Santa Clarita Valley in north Los Angeles County -- indicating that she will be carrying on this legacy. Commenting on a environmental impact report circulated by Los Angeles County planners, Harris says that the draft – which was revised and re-circulated late last year -- insufficiently addresses many issues, including greenhouse gas mitigation. Planners say that her approach, though in keeping with CEQA, could end up stifling the collaborative planning efforts that will be necessary to implement the Sustainable Communities Strategies that SB 375 calls for. The "One Valley, One Vision" (OVOV) plan will govern the next generation of growth both in the City of Santa Clarita and in the surrounding unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Founded in 1987 in the rugged hills north of the City of Los Angeles, Santa Clarita has grown to 176,000 residents both through build-out and voracious annexation of heavily-developed surrounding areas. The area, which consisted of barren hillsides 30 years ago, is expected to gain 90,000 dwelling units – an increase of 230 percent – by 2035, according to projections by the Southern California Association of Governments. These projections have inspired an effort that planners say is unique in California regional planning. As its name implies, OVOV is actually two plans in one: a general plan update for the City of Santa Clarita and an area plan update for the surrounding county territory. Planners from the city and county are drawing up separate documents and conducting separate environmental impacts reports, but otherwise they are coordinating and collaborating in an attempt to manage growth in the entire area. "The city is very unique because it's surrounded by unincorporated territory and the city has grown and annexed territory over the years so there was a real interest in joint planning," said Mitch Glaser, supervising regional planner with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. In an age when regional planning is coming to the fore because of SB 375, officials say that this sort of collaboration will become increasingly necessary. "As (the Southern California Association of Governments) is dealing with developing the first sustainable communities strategy in order to reduce greenhouse gases and vehicle miles travelled in the region, we're actually very supportive of the types of policies that are going into that plan," said Mark Butala, manager of comprehensive planning at SCAG. "The cooperation that we're seeing…is a model, on a smaller scale, of where we expect the region to go as we move forward in this more integrated planning approach." Both portions of the OVOV plan involve heavy doses of smart growth principles. The City of Santa Clarita is increasing density on its transit corridors, envisioning the repurposing of retail strips, and promoting mixed-use development -- all in a city that promotes itself as a quintessential suburb of single-family homes. Meanwhile, the county is down-zoning some of the more remote developable land while up-zoning land adjacent to major arteries. The plans also call for intensive development around the valley's three Metrolink commuter rail stations. All of this, planners say, is a recipe for sustainability. "We are supportive of the fact that county unincorporated area is willing to downzone considerably in some areas and the city is taking on additional density in a strategic way in their transit corridors," said Butala. The attorney general's office, however, contends that the harmony that has developed between city and county does not excuse what it considers to be an insufficient environmental review. The attorney general's office's letter, signed by Senior Attorney Susan Durbin on Harris' behalf, calls into question both the plan and some of the methodology present in the re-circulated DEIR. The letter was directed only at the county's portion of OVOV; her office did not raise concerns about the city's portion.  Durbin was one of Jerry Brown's key aides on greenhouse gas emissions when Brown was Attorney General. The letter criticizes the plan's projected increase in ground-level pollution as well as in greenhouse gas emissions from increased car trips. The letter notes, "rather than proposing land use changes that reduce the need to drive  in the Valley, the OVOV Plan will result in a 120 percent increase in existing driving trips," for a total of 3 million additional annual miles. Most damningly, the letter hones in on the DEIR's admission that the increase in car trips far outstrips the projected increase in population. The letter criticizes the plan for relying on vague mitigation measures, such as increased use of transit, without offering any assurances that the mitigation measures will be feasible. And the attorney general's office was disappointed in what it considered a lack of information on certain key points. For example, our concern about full disclosure of housing development that has already received entitlements arose because the revised DEIR seems less informative on this point than the original EIR," wrote a spokesperson for the Department of Justice in an email. (The spokesperson requested that neither he nor staff attorneys be identified by name; this article presents those comment as official representations of department's views.) Environmental groups are also wary of the plan. Though it is separated from the perennially smoggy San Fernando Valley by the Santa Susana Mountains, the Santa Clarita Valley emits plenty of its own pollution, which is then trapped by the mountains that surround it on all sides. They say that concerns such as Harris' are well founded. "The Santa Clarita Valley…suffers from some of the most intractable air pollution, ozone problems in the region," said Damon Nagami, staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.  We see this as a battleground and a place where we're glad to see the attorney general stepping in and taking a strong stance that GHG emissions need to be properly analyzed and fully mitigated for." County planners say that they would like to be able to mitigate more of the impacts from dispersed development, but their hands are tied by several factors. While it may seem that greenfield development on the urban fringe is a thing of the past, thanks to the recession and current planning trends, in the Santa Clarita Valley is, to an extent, stuck in the 1980s. County planners are working with SCAG's population projections as well as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, both of which compel them to accommodate a certain number of units. As well, tens of thousands of undeveloped units are already entitled and therefore exempt from OVOV, no matter how much those developments might clash with OVOV's goals. Glaser said that SCAG projects an increase of 61,000 dwelling units in the unincorporated area, but 33,500 percent of that growth has already been approved (and not yet built). This leaves only 45 percent of potential new development under the plan's jurisdiction, and the county is reluctant to constrict development further. "The total amount of growth that's provided for under OVOV would accommodate all of what's being proposed by SCAG," said Paul Brotzman, Santa Clarita's director of community development. But in accommodating that growth, the plan – especially the county's portion – is constrained. "We're a very large jurisdiction that has a large area that has not been developed. There has to be some sort of development potential," said Glaser. "We're not in a position where we can go out and designate all remaining land as permanent open space." County planners say that the attorney general's office did not fully appreciate these constraints. The attorney general's letter, however, says that that DEIR falls short by not identifying the location of the approved units. As well, Harris' office may be sending a message to other planning agencies to indicate in no uncertain terms that she is serious about enforcing greenhouse gas regulations. "I do think that part of the reason why this was publicized is that it's absolutely a message to all other local jurisdictions that this administration is going to be looking at this just as much as Mr. Brown's administration did," said Glaser. Glaser noted that he was, in fact, taken aback by the fact that he learned of Harris' concerns via a press release rather than by an advance copy of the letter. More importantly, though the attorney general may be within her rights to consider CEQA litigation against the plan, CEQA's narrow concerns for individual plans does not take into account region-wide efforts to combat greenhouse gases. The North County Subregion is only one of several subregions in Los Angeles County, which is, in turn, only one piece of the five-county SCAG region. Because the Sustainable Communities Strategies that are now under development take a regional approach to reducing vehicle miles travelled and GHG emissions, planners say that to single out one plan like OVOV – which, they say, is intended to complement the region's SCS – ignores the benefits that will accrue to the county as a whole. "Our modeling and analysis has shown that by increasing growth and densities strategically in parts of our region, while showing some localized adverse impacts, can have some potentially very positive impacts at the greater regional scale," said Butala. The attorney general's office confirmed that they did not contact SCAG before submitting their letter to the county. They were, however, "generally aware of the development of the Sustainable Community Strategy while we were preparing our comments," according to the Department of Justice spokesperson. Regardless of the substance of Harris' letter, officials working on the OVOV plan say they were taken aback by the way that she delivered it. The attorney general's office not only sent the letter directly to the L.A. County Planning Department but also issued a press release that broadly publicized her concerns. "I do think that part of the reason why this was publicized is that it's absolutely a message to all other local jurisdictions that this administration is going to be looking at this just as much as Mr. Brown's administration did," said Glaser. "I think that cities and counties should be on notice that the old tricks just aren't going to fly any more," said Nagami, of the NRDC. The Department of Justice spokesperson wrote that the office will be keeping a close watch on cities' and counties' plan updates. "The AG will evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether, when, and where litigation is the best option to fulfill our office's statutory responsibility to enforce CEQA," wrote the department spokesperson. "Cities and counties should perform their duties under the planning laws and under CEQA because that is their job and their duty to their residents, not because the AG might sue them." Though Los Angeles County faces the relatively immediate threat of a lawsuit if it does not satisfy the attorney general's office, planners hope that this sort of dispute becomes less common as considerations for greenhouse gas emissions become common practice. "I think there's a learning curve, but there was (one) with the basic disclosure and evaluation and mitigation of all sorts of environmental impacts four years ago when CEQA was young in the early 1970s," said John Buse, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Once that becomes more routine I don't think it's going to be any more difficult than looking at any other air quality impacts, for example." Contacts & Resources One Valley, One Vision Plan  Paul Brotzman, Director of Community Development, City of Santa Clarita, 661.255.4330 John Buse, Senior Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity, 323.533.4416 Mark Butala, Manager of Comprehensive Planning, Southern California Association of Governments, 213.236.1809 Mitch Glaser, Supervising Regional Planner, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, 213.974.6476 Damon Nagami, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, 310.434.2300

An appellate court has directed a trial court to set aside all of a project's approval because portions of an environmental impact report were found to be inadequate. The Fifth District Court of Appeal declined to follow the practice of allowing severance of project approvals unaffected by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violation. Instead, the court required that the project approval be set aside in its entirely once the CEQA violation was shown. The disputed project involved land owned by the California State University, Fresno.  The university had leased the property to an associated university foundation, which ground leased the property to developer Kashian Enterprises for a 45-acre mixed-use project adjacent to the school's basketball arena. The CSU Fresno Board of Trustees certified an EIR and approved the project, called Campus Pointe, in 2007. The owner of a Clovis shopping mall located three miles away filed a lawsuit alleging that the EIR was inadequate and that Trustee Moctesuma Esparza had a conflict of interest because he held a sub-sublease for the cinema portion of the development project. Although Esparza resigned from the board during the project approval process, Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton in 2009 determined a conflict of interest existed and voided the sub-sublease between Kashian and Esparza. Hamilton also concluded that the EIR's analysis of water supply, traffic and parking, and air quality was inadequate. The plaintiff appealed because Hamilton's determination did not halt the entire project. The first CEQA question for the Fifth District concerned the obligation of the trial court to issue a writ of mandate following the entry of judgment. Hamilton had entered a judgment in favor of the project opponent, but he did not issue a writ, which ordinarily would specify what the Board of Trustees must do to satisfy CEQA. On this procedural issue, the appellate court held that Public Resources Code § 21168.9 makes the issuance of the writ mandatory. The appellate court's most significant holding, though, has to do with what CEQA practitioners refer to as severance. Under this approach, if the trial court finds that an element of the CEQA document must be redone, the court may sever one portion of the project from the portion tainted by the invalid CEQA and allow the untainted portion to proceed. While many practitioners believe that such an approach is allowed by the California Supreme Court and appellate courts, as well by as the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, the Fifth District disagreed. "The statutes and CEQA Guidelines provide for the certification of an EIR when it is complete, and the concept of completeness is not compatible with partial certification. In short, an EIR is either complete or its not," Justice Betty Dawson wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. " he trial court's determination that the final EIR was inadequate in certain respects requires an order directing the Board of Trustees to set aside its certification of the final EIR as well as its approval of the project," Dawson wrote. If this decision remains undisturbed, the issue of severance in CEQA cases will likely have to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. As for Campus Pointe itself, most of the housing portion has already been constructed. The retail and office components remain unbuilt. The Case: LandValue 77, LLC v. Board of Trustees of the California State University , No F058451, 2011 DJDAR 3937, 2011 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1312. Filed February 23, 2011. Ordered published in part March 16, 2011. The Lawyers: For LandValue 77: David Douglas Doyle, Doyle & Schallert,  (559) 227-2600 . For the Board of Trustees: Ethan P. Schulman, Crowell & Moring,  (415) 986-2800 . For developer Kashian Enterprises: Harriet Steiner, Best, Best & Krieger,  (916) 325-4000 .

Lately, any murmurs of  eliminating public agencies  make people understandably jumpy. Wouldn't it be nice if not all land use institutions come crashing down at all once? So it's no wonder that the possible axing of the City of Rancho Cordova's Planning Commission has raised concerns.  In fact, the proposed "elimination," on which the City Council is soon expected to vote, is not even an elimination in the permanent sense. It would, according to both commissioners and city officials, be a temporary disbanding in response to a painfully slow real estate market. It is, city officials insist, a move for streamlining the decision-making process and not necessarily a blow to democracy and planning expertise.  "The general feeling was efficiency," said City Manager Ted Gaebler. He noted that state law requires that "a city will have a planning function; it does not necessarily have a planning commission." There was a time not long ago, in the short history of Rancho Cordova, that the Planning Commission was vitally necessary. Sitting roughly in Sacramento's lap, Rancho Cordova famously remained unincorporated as boom and bust at neighboring aerospace firms strained the area and its workforce. Since incorporating in 2002, it has grown to 62,000 residents, booming alongside the capital's other hypertrophic suburbs.  The recession, however, has been particularly unkind to Rancho Cordova.  Although up to 34,000 units remain in the development pipeline, a scant number of them are expected to go forward in the foreseeable future. At the same time, Gaebler said that the City Council's docket is fairly light, thus freeing up council members to focus on development at the same level of detail that the Planning Commission would have. Ray Savorn, current chair of the Planning Commission, added that in a city defined by growth, many council members are well versed in land use.  "The City Council is not really bogged down as it used to be," said Savorn. "They can take this on their plate at this time and handle it judiciously."  Gaebler said that the move is not necessarily intended to spur economic development. Though developers might perceive the process as being easier, and friendlier to development, with the elimination of a step in the approvals process, he insisted that the City Council would not necessarily address projects any differently than the Planning Commission would have.  Gaebler said that the City Council would not want to shoulder this burden permanently.  "I think they anticipate, if and when we get out of this downturn, that the workload for the Planning Commission, and therefore the council, would pick up," said Gaebler. "They would reconsider reconstituting the planning Commission." The city ordinance suspending the Planning Commission is expected to include a clause stating that the City Council can reconstitute it without passing a brand-new ordinance.  While the planning commission is on hiatus, residents of Rancho Cordova can ponder what sort of democracy they want to have. Planning Commissions, in their own small way, offer an object lesson in the merits of expertise versus those of direct democracy. Acting as an advisor to the City Council, a planning commission draws elected officials that much further away from the decisions they make. (In the case of the City of Los Angeles, the Planning Commission sits above Area Planning Commissions, thus adding yet another step to the process.)  Do residents trust appointed "experts" to decide on the merits of development proposals, or would they prefer that their elected officials make accountable, transparent decisions? It's likely that not enough dirt is going to move in Rancho Cordova for its residents to answer that question. But it's one that everyone should ask, recession or no.  Even as it goes on extended hiatus, Savorn insists that the expertise will not disappear.  "I would like to think that…all of us would be more than willing to step and be another set of eyes" if the City Council needed advice, said Savorn. "I think it would still serve a purpose for us to be an ad hoc planning commission."  -Josh Stephens

Since January we have witnessed the unusual spectacle of elected local officials throughout the state expressing intense and emotional anger and frustration about the possible end to redevelopment -- and no reaction at all from anybody else. Nothing from the people in blighted neighborhoods, who supposedly benefit from better housing and more jobs and more retail choices. Nor from the environmentalists who are always calling for more infill development. Nor even from the supposed fat-cat beneficiaries of the redevelopment system: the developers themselves. What's going on? Why are local officials bleeding all over the sidewalk, as it were, while everybody else just sidesteps and walks on? The answer is a long one but not surprising. What we are witnessing is the last act in an emotional drama that began 33 years ago, when the people of California, in their wisdom, approved Proposition 13--which severed the connection between local property taxes and local spending by giving the state the power to decide who gets how much of the property tax. No matter whether Howard Jarvis and the other authors of Proposition 13 meant to do this, the effect was to downgrade cities and counties from partners in governing to just another special interest group feeding at the trough in Sacramento. Way back when, cities responded to this uncomfortable situation with three very understandable responses. First, they became masters of the Prop 13 workaround--the most significant of which was redevelopment, which allowed them to unilaterally capture a greater share of the property tax. They were often able to use this tax increment to create projects in redevelopment areas that generated sales tax or bed tax that could go into their general fund. (Ironically, Proposition 13 was originally viewed as the end of redevelopment in California because it cut so much tax increment for then-existing projects.) Second, they decided that if they were going to be a special interest group in Sacramento, they'd be as good a special interest group as they could be. The League of California Cities' rise as a lobbying force dates from this period. And third, they seethed--with anger and resentment and humiliation--that they had been put in the position of having to politick in Sacramento just like everybody else. They found themselves considering that all of their carefully crafted efforts could be overpowered by a couple of carefully placed TV ads from the California Teachers Association featuring schoolchildren. Such a campaign has usually been good enough to trump all lobbying by cities (and counties, for that matter). And then, our local government leaders lived with this seething resentment and this basic conflict inside them for more than 30 years. Until January, when the governor found a very skillful way to call the question on redevelopment in spite of Proposition 22, which passed last November. Proposition 22, of course, was designed to protect redevelopment revenue (as well as other local government revenue) by making it unconstitutional for the state to shift those funds away from redevelopment agencies "directly or indirectly." The cities didn't think the state could balance the budget without taking more redevelopment money. After all, redevelopment funds have doubled in less than a decade, while state general fund revenues have declined. But at least Proposition 22 gave them more power in the eternal struggle over what money remained. It was clear that the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association expected to deal with this latest situation the same way they had dealt with every other attack on redevelopment over the past 35 years: They were prepared to up yardage in order to maintain possession of the ball. For the first half of that time � from the late '70s to the early '90s � they gave up power: on the definition of blight, the requirement to set aside money for affordable housing, and the like. For the second half � a time of chronic budget problems for the state � they gave up money. The League and the CRA were clearly prepared to do this again, except the governor surprised them. He didn't want yardage. He wanted to call the game. To him, it was the only way around Proposition 22. Can you imagine what it's like to carry all this conflict around inside you for 33 years? And then think you've finally won with Proposition 22? And then you get outfoxed by the governor--who, by the way, used to be a mayor and used redevelopment very effectively? And then discover that no one else cares and no one else comes to your defense? No wonder there's been so much yelling and bleeding on the floor since January. And no wonder the League and the CRA decided that the best strategy was simply to stonewall � to insist that they were going to hold their ground and not make a deal, until it was almost too late. It's an emotionally satisfying approach. But it hasn't worked. Redevelopment isn't gone yet � at least not as of this writing � but it's doubtful that it will survive in anything like its current form. It may go away completely, or it be cut far more deeply than anyone previously imagined, or it may morph into something very different.   So as California assesses what redevelopment might be in the future, it's probably a good idea to step back and remember what it is and what it is not. First, it is not a job creation or economic development program, as the League and the CRA have insisted all year. In fact, whenever they have fallen back on the jobs/economic development argument � which is every time redevelopment is under attack � I've worried that it's just opening the whole system up for attack. Surely, sooner or later somebody in this town is going to say, "If we are going to spend $6 billion on economic development, would we do it this way?" (Meanwhile,  the governor seems to have embraced the agenda of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which named education as an important economic development tool.) What redevelopment is designed to do--and what it does well--is facilitate public infrastructure investment and private real estate development in particular geographical locations. The need for that job has not gone away. In fact, with AB 32 and SB 375 in place, that job is probably more important than ever. But one of the oldest lessons in construction is, don't confuse the job you are doing with the tool you are using. And that's what cities are doing right now. Cities have used redevelopment so long for so many things--understandably, because what other options have they had? � that they have confused the job with the tool. Yes, infill development needs to proceed. Yes, tax-increment financing helps do that. But other cities around the country and around the world somehow get this done every day without TIF � or with limited access to it. In California, we are about to remember--for the first time in a long time--what it's like to bring an entire toolbox to the job of repairing our cities.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a District Court's grant of summary judgment to two adult bookstores. The stores had claimed that a Los Angeles ordinance requiring the dispersal of adult businesses violated the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit found that the declarations upon which the summary judgment was based were biased did not amount to "actual and convincing" evidence sufficient to cast doubt on the rationale for the ordinance. The ruling is the latest in a 15-year-old case that the court called "resilient." Yet the ruling settled nothing. All the Ninth Circuit did was return the case, known as Alameda Books, to District Court for trial. First, some background. In the mid-1970s, the City of Los Angeles conducted a study from which city officials concluded that incidences of crime are higher in areas with concentrations of adult businesses. In 1978, the city enacted an ordinance requiring, among other things, that an adult arcade not be located within 1,000 feet of an adult bookstore. Five years later, the city amended the ordinance to clarify that an adult arcade and adult bookstore also could not operate in the same establishment. Alameda Books and Highland Books opened during the early 1990s as combination adult bookstore and arcade. In 1995, a city inspector informed Alameda Books and Highland Books that they were in violation of the ordinance. They brought suit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that provides a remedy for persons who, under color of state law, are deprived of rights, privileges or immunities granted under federal law or the U.S. constitution. The bookstores won at the trial court and appellate court levels, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed those decisions in City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., (2002) 535 U.S. 425 (see C P&DR Legal Digest, June 2002 ). In a 5-4 decision, the high court created a new framework, based on Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc, (1986) 475 U.S. 41, for reviewing ordinances aimed at reducing the secondary effects of adult businesses. The case then hung in limbo for several years while the Ninth Circuit decided other cases based on the Supreme Court's ruling. Finally, District Court Judge Dean Pregerson granted summary judgment against the City of Los Angeles, finding the bookstores' evidence was actual and convincing enough to cast doubt on the city's purpose in enacting the ordinance. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the declarations were facially biased and insufficient to call into question the municipality's justification of the ordinance. The Ninth Circuit Court, citing Renton, articulated the applicable legal test to determine whether an ordinance violates the First Amendment: 1) Does the regulation completely ban protected expression? 2) Was the city's purpose in enacting the provision to ameliorate secondary effects? 3) If so, the regulation is subject to "intermediate scrutiny" and the court "must ask whether the provision is designed to serve a substantial government interest, and whether reasonable alternative avenues of communication remain available." For a plaintiff to show no substantial government interest exists, the plaintiff must either demonstrate that the municipality's evidence does not support its rationale or furnish evidence that disputes the municipality's factual findings. If the plaintiff fails to do either, then the regulation stands. If the plaintiff succeeds in casting doubt on the city's rationale, the burden shifts back to the city to supplement the record with new evidence justifying the ordinance. To successfully cast doubt, the plaintiff must offer "actual and convincing" evidence that does "more than challenge the government's rationale; it must convincingly discredit the foundation upon which the government's justification rests." (Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans (4th Cir. 2010) 612 F.3d 736, 747 (citing Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason (4th Cir. 2002)303 F.3d 507, 516).) Under the Supreme Court's Alameda Books ruling, a municipality's justification cannot be that its regulation will reduce secondary effects simply by reducing speech proportionately. In this case, the issue is whether the ordinance was designed to serve a substantial government interest. The specific question for the Ninth Circuit was whether the evidence provided by Alameda Books and Highland Books (which now operate a single corporation, Beverly Books, Inc.) was sufficient to cast doubt on the city's rationale. The Ninth Circuit explained that a plaintiff must do more than point at a municipality's lack of empirical evidence or challenge a city's methodology. The court cited a Sixth Circuit decision, Richland Bookmart v. Knox County, (6th Cir. 2009) 555 F.3d 512, 527-28, in explaining that a plaintiff bears a heavier evidentiary burden in attempting to cast doubt than the municipality does in justifying the ordinance. Providing the bookstores' evidence were declarations from the vice president of Beverly Books and from an individual who installs adult arcade systems, including the systems in the plaintiffs' establishments. Both men said that the adult bookstore and adult arcade could not be separated because a stand-alone adult arcade would not attract a significant number of customers and would be perceived as "seedy." The ordinance would thus reduce secondary effects simply by reducing speech proportionately, in violation of the First Amendment, they sad. The declarations contained lengthy passages of identical text. Despite the city's objection to the bias of the evidence, Judge Pregerson found the declarations to be actual and convincing enough to justify summary judgment in favor of the bookstores. The Ninth Circuit, however, found that the failure of the District Court to take into account the bias of plaintiffs' witnesses was a significant issue. "The content of the declaration strike us a plausible, but the sources are necessarily suspect." District Court Judge Richard Cudahy, sitting by assignment to the Ninth Circuit, wrote for the court, noting the men's self-interest in the matter. Because the credibility of a witness is almost categorically a trial issue, summary judgment was inappropriate, the unanimous three-judge appellate panel ruled. The court remanded the case for further proceedings in District Court. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Alameda Books, the Ninth Circuit has yet to find that a plaintiff has successfully cast doubt on a city's evidence or rational for adult business regulation. This case articulates an important presumption in favor of a city's reasoning. The Case: Alameda Books et al. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 09-55367, 2011 DJDAR 1672, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1769. Filed January 28, 2011. The Lawyers: For Alameda Books: Clyde DeWitt, (702) 386-1756. For the city: Steven Blau, city attorney's office, (213) 978-8244.

Unpermitted dispensaries fails to get ordinance invalidated By Cori Badgley A medical marijuana dispensary has lost its fight to invalidate a Los Angeles County ordinance regulating dispensaries and to overturn an injunction shutting down the operation. This is just the latest skirmish in the battle over medical marijuana dispensaries that has raged throughout much of California. The Legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Act in 2003 as a follow-up to the Compassionate Use Act, which was approved by voters seven years earlier. The 2003 law permits marijuana collectives and cooperative cultivating projects. In light of this law, medical marijuana dispensaries began cropping up throughout counties and cities, often taking advantage of jurisdictions that had no zoning or permit scheme in place for such establishments (which previously had been illegal). In reaction to these dispensaries and the 2003 law, many counties and cities, including Los Angeles County, began establishing medical marijuana dispensary ordinances. Adopted in 2006, the Los Angeles County ordinance required that dispensaries in the unincorporated territory obtain a conditional use permit and business license. The ordinance prohibited dispensaries within 1,000 feet of "schools, playgrounds, parks, libraries, places of religious worship, child care facilities, and youth facilities." Dispensaries were permitted in the C-1 commercial zone as long as they met the above requirements. Based on its ordinance, the county brought a nuisance action in Superior Court against an the Alternative Medicinal Collective of Covina, and its owner/operator, Martin Hill, who failed to apply for, or receive, the necessary permit. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the dispensary for operating unless it complied with the ordinance. The dispensary appealed. In an attempt to overcome the preliminary injunction, the dispensary launched a barrage of arguments against the ordinance and the county's actions in enforcing the ordinance. The dispensary argued: (1) The ordinance was preempted by state law; (2) The ordinance was inconsistent with state law both on its face and as applied to Alternative Medicinal Collective; and (3) The ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause. As to the first two arguments, the dispensary faced an uphill battle because of prior case law and the recent enactment of Health and Safety Code § 11362.768. In 2009, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, decided that the Medical Marijuana Program Act did not preempt local government from regulating medical marijuana dispensaries. ( City of Claremont v. Kruse , (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153; see  CP&DR Legal Digest , October 1, 2009 < http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2445 =">http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2445"> ). In 2010, the Legislature approved Health and Safety Code § 11362.768, which states, "Nothing in this section shall prohibit a from adopting ordinances or policies that further restrict the location or establishment of a medical marijuana … dispensary … ." Based on the  Claremont  decision, the new law and the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act, the appellate court found that the act in no way preempted the ordinance, and that the county properly regulated the dispensaries within its jurisdiction. The appellate court also found that the dispensary's equal protection argument had no merit. Alternative Medicinal Collective argued that because the dispensaries were not allowed to operate in the same zones as pharmacies, the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, the court ruled the county had a rational basis for finding that dispensaries pose different risks from pharmacies and should therefore be regulated differently. Finding in favor of the county on all arguments, the appellate court upheld the preliminary injunction. It is likely that the county will go on to win its nuisance action, resulting in the dispensary's closure. That closure could be permanent, as the county in December 2010 banned medical marijuana dispensaries in all of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The court did not rule on the new ordinance, which is under separate legal attack. The Case: County of Los Angeles v. Hill , No. B216532, 2011 DJDAR 2345. Fled February 10, 2011. The Lawyers: For the county: Sari J. Steel, county counsel's office,  (213) 974-1853 . For Hill: J. David Nick,  (415) 552-4444 .

With different aspects of City of Bell scandal continuing to come to light, "Bell" is starting to become short-hand for government corruption. Still, this one scandal can't displace San Bernardino County from its longtime position at the top of the corruption charts. The mess in Bell is easily summarized: At least two 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 excess salaries. Meanwhile, the corruption allegations, indictments and convictions in San Bernardino County are so numerous they are nearly impossible to track. Last week, former San Bernardino County Assessor and Supervisor Bill Postmus agreed to plead guilty to three felonies for conspiracy to accept a bribe, conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds. Three days later, a San Bernardino County criminal grand jury subpoenaed four current county supervisors. The plea deal, which comes with Postmus's agreement to testify in future criminal trials, and the latest round of subpoenas strongly suggest that things are about to get ugly. However, things have been ugly in San Bernardino County for so long it's hard to remember otherwise. Back in the 1990s, consecutive county administrations, 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 money. 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 council 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: Three appointed government officials and seven elected officials in three jurisdictions were guilty of various corruption schemes. It appears that few lessons were learned. In 2006, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to settle a lawsuit filed by 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. 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. The settlement now reeks more profusely than ever. Two of the felonies to which Postmus is copping stem 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. Still, former Supervisor Paul Biane (who voted for the settlement and lost re-election last year), Mark Kirk, a former chief aide to Supervisor Gary Ovitt (who voted for the settlement), Colonies managing partners Jeff Burum and Dan Richards, and Colonies PR consultant Patrick O'Reilly were easily identified as the five. All five have vigorously denied wrongdoing. But it's difficult to believe they are not nervous about Postmus turning state's evidence. It's not clear that the latest round of supervisor subpoenas is related to the settlement. They might be. They might also concern negotiations the county had with a potential developer of 1,200 acres of surplus county land in Rancho Cucamonga. Those negotiations halted two years ago, when District Attorney Michael Ramos and possibly others began asking questions. Did I mention that 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. Did I mention that Jim Erwin, a former top assistant to Postmus and Supervisor Neil Derry, is awaiting trial on corruption charges for arranging the $102 million settlement? Did I mention that 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. Did I mention that 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. They have not been tied to Burum or the Colonies Crossroads project. Pomierski was on the City Council when Upland approved the project. Did I mention that 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. The City of Bell? One simple scheme to take tax money. That's the minor leagues compared with San Bernardino County. – Paul Shigley

Lots going on in Sacramento these days. Basketball fans around the country know that the NBA's Kings desperately want to flee to Anaheim. The capital's aging arena and small market won't cut it for the financially strapped owners, the Maloof brothers. The City of Sacramento has been trying to build a new arena for years -- most likely as the centerpiece of a massive redevelopment of downtown rail yards. That project appears to be falling through, so for the past few months the city, led by former NBA star-turned-mayor Kevin Johnson, has been trying to convince the team to stay.  These attempts are appearing increasingly fruitless. Last week officials in Anaheim announced plans to raise $75 million to renovate the Honda Center and give the Kings some seed money. The Maloofs have also, reportedly, staked a claim to the name "Anaheim Royals." So there's that. Meanwhile, followers of California politics may be aware that state lawmakers have been musing over a budget. No big deal there.  Oddly, these two negotiations have something in common. No, Dems and GOP lawmakers are not going to settle the budget over a game of shirts-and-skins at the vacant Power Balance Pavilion (nee Arco Arena). Instead, among other tactics, the City of Sacramento is invoking the California Environmental Quality Act as grounds to block the team's move.  As it happens, CEQA reform is included a (nearly unintelligible) list of demands that GOP lawmakers want the Dems to concede to in exchange for approval of Gov. Jerry Brown's tax plan. Presumably, Republicans want to loosen CEQA's rules. The City of Sacramento wants to do just the opposite, at least as far as the Kings are concerned.  According to an  article  in this morning's Sacramento Bee, Assistant City Manager John Dangberg is arguing that the departure of the Kings would harm Sacramento's economy and therefore lead to blight. Not only would Power Balance Pavilion go largely dark but, presumably, so would many local businesses that depend on the spillover effects that come from an NBA team. The Bee article notes that this line of argument has been used to oppose big-box stores like Walmart, on the grounds that they drive out local businesses.  I find the Walmart argument appealing, at least aesthetically if not legally. I'm no so convinced that it applies to a basketball team. As much as I'd like the Kings to stay right where they are -- I don't think that the Los Angeles area needs two NBA teams (three, if you count the Clippers) -- I have to call Dangberg's bluff. Holding a team responsible for the physical health of a city is a bit beyond the pale. On those grounds, Sacramento cigar stores might as well sue Arnold Schwarzenegger for moving back to Los Angeles.  Certainly cities have reason to promote local businesses and reap the external benefits. But accommodating a team is a voluntary exercise. CEQA surely cannot obligate the Kings to spread their largesse to any particular city, no matter how integral to the community they have become. Moreover, cities have countless ways to combat blight. The success of a bar or sporting goods store cannot rest solely on the shoulders of the Kings.  The row over the Kings stems from the outrageous emphasis that cities have placed on major-league teams and the even more outrageous sums of money that cities have spent to attract and keep them. Sacramento probably considers the Kings an investment. But here's a newsflash to Sacramento and every other city that has built a stadium or agreed to sweetheart deals: sometimes investments go sour (especially when they involve sports francises). You win some, you lose some.  While it's easy to look at a scorecard and see which team wins, analyzing urban development strategies isn't so straightforward, as we've found in another recent, and related,  debate . In fact, one of the Sacramento's more outlandish arguments perfectly underscores the ambiguities surrounding Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to eliminate redevelopment.  The city claims that moving the team to Anaheim will create blight in Sacramento. Fine. But what about blight in Anaheim? It stands to reason that Anaheim's built environment will benefit from the Kings' presence. Therefore, we're looking at a zero-sum game. It's the very same zero-sum game that skeptics of redevelopment have been crowing about the past few weeks. There's simply no way to prove that a benefit in one local area is not offset by a detriment in another local area -- or vice-versa. For Sacramento officials to overlook Anaheim's windfall is just as diningenuous as it is for supporters of redevelopment to overlook the possibility that development would still occur in the absence of RDA support.  Maybe, though, Sacramento is on to something. Regardless of whether the Kings should be shackled by CEQA, if pro basketball is so good at fighting blight, then California might not need redevelopment agencies at all. It just needs a 400-team basketball league.  --Josh Stephens

California is on the verge of "five major, protracted water crises" and must change its system of governance to address the urgent situation, according to "Managing California's Water," a comprehensive examination of the subject recently produced by the Public Policy Institute of California. The report recommends creating a Department of Water Management that is headed by an appointed director whose term overlaps different governors' administrations. This department, which could have cabinet-level status, would house a "public trust advocate" to ensure water is put toward reasonable uses and, for the first time, would have significant groundwater oversight. The report also recommends: • Establishing a water independent system operator (like the state's ISO for electricity) to serve as a clearinghouse for water transfers • Assigning control of the State Water Project to a new public utility, which would be run by the ISO board of directors • Creating nine "regional stewardship authorities" that would be like the existing regional water quality control boards but with new responsibilities for water supply, flood management and ecosystem management • Expanding the role of the Department of Fish and Game  "Our starting point on this is that we have not been successful in aquatic ecosystem management," said Ellen Hanak, a senior fellow at PPIC and one of eight report co-authors. "So much of this is done at the local level. Our suggestion is to scale up and be more comprehensive." California's current system for managing water is anything but systematic. It's an extraordinarily decentralized system that, according to PPIC, "has often resulted in uncoordinated, fragmented water and land use decisions that contribute to chronic groundwater overdraft, impairment of watersheds by a wide range of pollutants, ineffective ecosystem management, and rapid development in poorly protected floodplains. Similar coordination failures among state and federal agencies have led to inefficiencies in reservoir operations, ecosystem management and water marketing, among others." (The full report is available on the PPIC website .) Although the report does not get into details, the authors clearly see a need to better link land use planning decisions and water decisions, especially with regard to floodplain management. The five crises that the PPIC sees as "virtually guaranteed" unless reform is implemented are: • Extinction and decline of native species. • Catastrophic floods • Water scarcity • Deteriorating water quality • Decline of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The PPIC authors would beef up the Department of Fish and Game, which they say does not exercise all of its legal authority. The recommendation is to return the appointed Fish and Game Commission to its original role of overseeing fish and hunting, and making the department a more vigorous research and management entity. The agency would work closely with the new Department of Water Management and federal agencies to establish flow standards for the environment. The regional authorities and local entities would then figure out how to meet those standards, Hanak said. If a region did not perform adequately, state agencies would swing their regulatory hammer. The recommendation to give the new Department of Water Management some control of groundwater is potentially the most controversial recommendation. However, the move would help get California past the legally established – but scientifically fictitious – notion that groundwater and surface water are separate things. The report urges better use of markets to improve water efficiency. As Hanak explained, "If you accept that we're not going to be increasing water supplies, and that supplies might actually decrease because of changing climate conditions, and you consider population growth and environmental demands, there's going to be less slush in the system. There has got to be more efficiency." This is where the new water ISO would come in, serving as a clearinghouse to arrange arm's-length transactions between sellers and buyers. "Our water market has really stagnated," Hanak observed. Creating a new public utility to manage the State Water Project (SWP) is not an entirely new concept. As Hanak said, "There's an emerging consensus that something has to happen with the State Water Project." Currently, the Department of Water Resources runs the SWP. During most years, the SWP diverts 2 million to 3 million acre-feet of water from the Delta to Southern California cities and Central Valley farmers. However, a lack of resources has harmed the existing department's ability to manage the system. In addition, the PPIC identified a conflict between the department's role as a major holder of water rights, and its role for statewide water management. Some SWP contractors have said they should take over the system, but neither the PPIC nor the Little Hoover Commission – which reached many similar conclusions last year – endorse that approach.  The PPIC recommendation is based on the idea of managing water as a public commodity, which the PPIC describes as "balancing the public benefits of water and its value as an economic input." Only a disinterested entity could strike that balance. Reaction to the 450-page report has mostly centered on resource management recommendations (such as managing species at the ecosystem level rather than species-by-species) proposals for new fees, and on whether the PPIC was too hard or too soft on agriculture. The Association of California Water Agencies issued an entirely noncommittal response. There's been little comment on the governance proposals, although former Natural Resources Secretary Lester Snow noted that the difficulty of a reorganization is often inverse to its effectiveness. That's a fair enough point. Still, the reorganization strikes me as crucial. I don't know whether PPIC's proposal is the right one. I do know that, like most aspects of California government, our current water management system evolved piecemeal over a long time period and often based on court rulings No one starting from scratch would recommend our fragmented system, which frequently works against itself and is ill-suited to a state where water demand is rapidly outstripping supply. – Paul Shigley