Legislators in Sacramento are currently considering an assembly bill that, though it originated with the City of Los Angeles in mind, proposes some significant changes in California Redevelopment Law (CRL).  AB 2531 , sponsored by Felipe Fuentes (D-Los Angeles) is an important step forward for the state economy for a variety of reasons. The bill's language would alter current law by allowing redevelopment agencies to focus their interest on both the physical removal of blight – through traditional brick-and-mortar redevelopment projects (already allowed in current redevelopment law) – and the more intangible economic development aspects of job creation and development. In other words, RDAs would be free not just to facilitate development but also to support businesses that would operate in redevelopment areas. Furthermore, RDAs could once again assist in economic development through the creation and facilitation of small business incubators. This bill has received support from a broad range of interest groups, from the Los Angeles County Business Federation to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Its passage looks promising. However, opposing arguments should be properly addressed and placated. The primary argument against AB 2531 is that of mission drift. Some bureaucrats believe that expanding the scope of RDAs beyond physical construction projects will amount to a fundamental change in the purpose of redevelopment law. But remember, RDAs were established to eliminate blight and all its effects. Some of the most apparent manifestations of blight are vacant, unused, or underutilized buildings. Neighborhoods with these types of characteristics often lack jobs or employment centers. Any economic development that improves these elements and fills these buildings also helps remove blight. The second main concern about AB 2531 has been voiced by the Statewide Federation of Counties, who view this extended scope as a threat to county tax revenues. However, the California Legislature has deemed this a "nonfiscal" bill because it does not expand any agency's traditional fiscal toolbox (tax increment financing, debt extension, etc…). AB 2531 will simply broaden the scope of activities that RDAs can fund from their existing revenue sources – it would not increase those resources and it would not decrease counties' receipts. Even if these explanations do not convince opponents of the bill, they should rest easy in knowing that AB 2531 has a built-in sunset clause. If the proposed amendments prove unsatisfactory to legislators and their constituents, the bill will repeal itself in 2018. Of course, Sacramento can always pass legislation to extend the bill if it is successful. AB 2531 also includes a promising amendment for the City of Los Angeles. Currently, the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) is limited in its reach to  redevelopment districts  that are both non-contiguous – the city has over two dozen of them – and that of course do not encompass all areas that might be considered blighted or under-developed in the city. By contrast, most redevelopment authorities are part of the city government, and they can nimbly split their time between redevelopment areas and citywide projects (using tools other than those reserved for redevelopment areas). Because CRA/LA is an independent agency, it cannot focus any attention outside of project areas. The proposed amendments would allow CRA/LA, when directed by City Council, to apply for state or federal economic development grants and apply these monies to projects anywhere within city boundaries. Obviously tax increments must and should remain within redevelopment project area boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the expertise of an organization like LA/CRA must as well. While AB 2531 is an attempt at fixing this acute problem in the City of Los Angeles, the bill will allow other RDAs across the state to focus their efforts on projects that may or may not need new construction. Currently, if Business Owner X is located in an economically disadvantaged redevelopment area and needs to purchase new equipment, a RDA cannot provide funds because X isn't proposing any new construction. If AB 2531 passes, Business Owner X (along with owners A through Z) can turn to RDAs for a variety of project assistance, as long as it helps the economy through job creation and increased tax revenue. If the economy improves by 2018 (fingers crossed), and this expansion of an RDA's scope is no longer viewed as necessary, AB 2531 will fade into the sunset. Until then, given the current economic climate, legislators should be applauded for expanding these definitions. CP&DR contributor Nat Gale is a planner in the Los Angeles Mayor's Office of Economic and Business Policy. The foregoing opinions are his alone.

An agreement between the County of San Diego and the state Department of Corrections to site a state prison reentry facility does not require the county to conduct environmental review prior to entering into the agreement because it did not constitute a commitment to a definite course of action, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. In the agreement, the county identified potential locations for the reentry facility in exchange for preference in the award of state financing for county jails. San Diego County entered into the agreement with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in September 2008. Under the agreement, the county identified two potential sites for placement of a reentry facility for state prisoners: county-owned land in Otay Mesa and state-owned land at the state's Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. If the Department of Corrections were to select one of the sites, the county would be given preferential access to $100 million in assistance to finance the construction of County jail facilities.  Before either location was chosen, the City of Santee sued San Diego County, arguing the agreement constituted a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it committed the county to a particular site for the reentry facility, and committed the county to expanding the Los Colinas Detention Facility, a county jail for women that is located within Santee's city limits. The county demurred. The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the demurrer, and the appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling. Writing for the unanimous three-judge appellate panel, Justice Patricia Benke explained that CEQA requires an environmental impact report (EIR) when a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. "Approval" means a decision by a public agency that commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to the project. Citing extensively to the state Supreme Court's decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood , (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 (See CP&DR Legal Digest, December 2008 ), Benke discussed the "balancing of competing factors" involved in determining when in the process an EIR or negative declaration should be prepared. An agency "must not ‘take any action' that significantly furthers a project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public project'" before conducting CEQA review, Benke wrote, citing Save Tara. An agency, however, is not deemed to have approved a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, § 21100 and § 21151 unless the proposal before the agency is well enough defined to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment. In Save Tara, the state Supreme Court found that the development agreement at issue constituted a project because (1) the city had announced that it was determined to proceed with the development at issue, (2) the city had acted in accordance with that determination, (3) the city had substantially contributed to the project, and (4) the city was willing to bind itself, by a draft agreement, to convey the property. The Fourth District compared Save Tara with Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Assn. , (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 113 (See CP&DR Legal Digest, November 2009 ). In the latter case, the court determined that the adoption of a transportation financing plan did not constitute a commitment to any of the transportation projects listed in the plan. The Sustainable Transportation Advocates court found the financing plan was not a commitment, because the construction of the projects was dependent on obtaining further financing from other agencies, the projects themselves were only described in general terms, the list itself was subject to later amendment, and the projects were subject to CEQA review prior to construction. The Fourth District considered both the face of the agreement between San Diego County and the Department of Corrections for siting a reentry facility as well as the surrounding circumstances before determining the agreement did not represent a commitment that triggered CEQA review. On its face, the siting agreement did not select a particular location for the reentry facility, nor did it make any reference to the LCDF. Citing Save Tara, Benke wrote that because the face of the agreement does not identify a site for the reentry facility and has no unconditional or certain impact on the LCDF expansion, the agreement "does not describe any project which would be subject to any meaningful CEQA analysis. Rather, the face of the agreement places it squarely in the realm of preliminary agreements needed to explore and formulate project for which CEQA review would be entirely premature." Looking at the circumstances surrounding the siting agreement, the court considered the fact that the Department of Corrections had identified water and infrastructure improvements that would be necessary for the Otay Mesa site, had determined the cost of the site, and had prepared a grading plan and vicinity map for the project. The court found these actions were only preliminary, exploratory steps for which environmental review cannot be required. Because nothing in the record "suggests the signing agreement has from a practical perspective foreclosed consideration of alternatives to any project or mitigation measures for those projects, the trial court properly sustained the county's demurrer," Benke wrote. The court further denied the City of Santee's request to amend its lawsuit to allege that, if the Department of Corrections chooses the Otay Mesa site, the state will proceed with the project notwithstanding any environmental review. Such "double-barreled speculation" does not require environmental review, the court concluded. The Case: City of Santee v. County of San Diego , No. D055310, 2010 DJDAR 10129. Filed June 7, 2010. Certified for publication June 29, 2010.  The Lawyers: For City of Santee: Michelle Ouellette, Best, Best & Krieger, (951) 686-1450. For San Diego County: C. Ellen Pilsecker, deputy county counsel, (619) 531-6229. For California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: David R. E. Aladjem, Downey Brand, (916) 444-1000.

(Editor's Note, in regard to the following blog post: The California Planning & Development Report disclaims any belief, credence or even any wish-it-were-true feelings in regard to spiritualims, ghosts, spooks, spectres, poltergeists and similar phenomena—even if one of our correspondents of longest standing, Morris Newman, seems to be crediting his most recent work products to the honored dead. If he's just in a temporary funk, we can try to overlook it. If this line of supernatural thinking continues however, an exchange of memos may be in order, if you know what we mean.) Dear readers, I understand, and even anticipate your skepticism when I try to tell you, as gently as I can, that I was driving my daughter's 1999 olive green Dodge Neon southward from Berkeley on the Monday of the July 4th weekend, after fetching my oldest boy from school. It was about that point in the afternoon that I began to feel even more fuzzy headed than usual. As if instructed by a Sixth Sense, I glanced sidelong at the passenger side, where No. 1 Son had been sitting, and there was an old man with a flowing, snowy white beard, who bore a striking resemblance to the immortal Bard of Camden, N.J. After exchanging a few pleasantries about the weather and the extraordinary mileage on the Neon, the gentleman recited the following poem to me, as we drove down the length of Interstate 5. I enjoyed his company, because the ride is usually so monotonous. He recited the following to me; I took careful notes.  You have taken me by storm, O Interstate! Tho' I didn't want to yield myself so easily to the blandishments of the vile road, O the crassness, the money grubbing! The naïve wonder of urbanites for the commonplace: Grape vines, cattle, stone fruit orchards, McDonalds! We will someday stop at every McDonalds Between Stockton and San Diego, if it kills us,  That's one Youtube video that'll go viral, for sure! Yes, I love Interstate 5. The snob in me dies. This is the Main Street of California. This is small business and farmers repositioning, Fruitstands side by side the shrieking corporate signs: "We're from Nowhere's-ville, baby, and You're coming with Us." Interstate 5 is all about travel, So interesting, so energetic, so American.   Little travel villages popping up everywhere!  We stopped at Petro just north of the Grapevine,  There are actually two (!) Petros in the same roadside location,  Each with its own gas station! I love America, land of invention!  The Petro itself is a work of art, Tho' I suspect it is a corporate product To be cloned mercilessly across the heartland: A general store with sundries, liniments, Christian hoodies,   A Subway sandwich shop, a mini-cinema With movies to watch while you launder your duds. O wondrous hybrid of Little America and 7-11,  O Petro, thou fostereth the love of trucker culture and the road, For millions of Californians motoring through  – zip, zip, zip! Who on the whole are well behaved, diverse, fascinating,  The millionaire in a sleeveless tee from Banana Republic Standing in line with the farm worker at the In N Out.  O the 5 is the great equalizer in an unequal state. Interstate 5 is the Great Strip, the Back Road of California, The 5 is not the 101, with its coastlines, hillsides, picturesque towns,  Interstate 5 is good, old-style California hucksterism, Fruit stands, corn mazes, antiques, trucks full of garlic, Merle Haggard, Tom Joad, Indian food, last gas for 25 miles, All of which we feel a grudging affection for, And which the corporate Nothingness, Heaven forbid, threatens to blot out. Vulgar, plebe California – You are us, and we are you.  (At this point, we dropped off the ghost of the venerable poet at the Beyond Baroque building in Venice, and the recitation went no further. Scholars wishing to anthologize this piece will have to take our word for it.)  -Morris Newman

An appellate court has struck down a Riverside County assessment for park maintenance because the county failed to distinguish between general benefits and parcel-specific benefits provided in return for the assessments, as required by Proposition 218. "The County failed to meet its constitutional burden of demonstrating that the assessment was proportional to, and did not exceed, the value of the special benefits that the use and enjoyment of the parks would confer on assessed parcels," the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded. One of the elements of a Proposition 218 election is the engineer's report in support of the range of assessments. The engineer's report must segregate general and special benefits, and it must be based upon credible, substantial evidence. Because Proposition 218 places the burden on the agency adopting the assessment to justify the assessment, every agency must make its own judgment about much information it must include in the engineer's report. The Fourth District's decision Beutz v. County of Riverside sheds light on the subject. In 1999, a local park and recreation district in the community of Wildomar failed and Riverside County subsequently took over the district's assets and liabilities. The county adopted a parks master plan, and, to help fund the parks, it adopted a development impact fee. In addition, the county proposed using assessments, as authorized by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code, § 22500 et seq.), to maintain the landscaping for the three parks inherited from the district and to help fund a proposed new park. Upon return of the engineer's report, the county authorized the assessments, conducted a protest proceeding, and called an election. According to the engineer's report, there were more than 6,000 assessable parcels in the district, all residential in character. A senior citizen development and non-residential properties were not included because the engineer concluded those properties would not receive any special benefits. The assessment was set at $28 per residential unit, with a maximum assessment of $45. The higher amount was to be triggered by improvements for the then-unbuilt park. In addressing the allocation of general and special benefits, the engineer's report recognized that there would be general benefits to people in the greater community but found that these benefits would be offset by three factors: 1) the county's absorption of the former district's debt; 2) by anticipated county expenditures of $6 million on park rehabilitation and improvements; and 3) by contributions to annual operating costs. Steven Beutz, a residential property owner, filed suit challenging the assessment. Beutz argued that the assessment was invalid because all of the costs were assigned to residential properties without deduction for the general benefits to non-residential properties. The county's decision to exempt 150 publicly owned parcels from the assessment also violated Proposition 218, he argued, because the county failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the parcels would not receive a special benefit from the landscaping. The trial court ruled for the county. The appellate court reversed. With respect to the standard of review, Proposition 218 requires the agency imposing the assessment to justify the special benefits and allocation of financial burden. The appellate court said that a reviewing court applies a de novo or independent judgment review, not the more deferential approach typically applied to review of agency decisions. The first issue addressed by the court in Beutz was whether the allocation of benefits – special versus general – was based on the landscaping maintenance component only, or on the master plan, of which landscape maintenance was a part. On this issue, the appellate court ruled for the county, saying that Proposition 218 allowed for the broader inquiry on the master plan. However, the appellate court ruled for Beutz on the issues pertaining to the assessment calculations. Missing from the engineer's report was an analysis of the relative use/benefit of the parks to the public generally compared with use/benefit by the residents in Wildomar. The court also faulted the analysis for ignoring whether Wildomar residents who lived closer to the parks would use the facilities more than Wildomar residents who lived farther away. "Notably, had the report separated and quantified the general and special benefits of the master plan, based upon solid, credible evidence and purported to base the assessment solely on the special benefits, the substantial evidence standard of review may have applied to the report's implicit conclusions that all Wildomar properties would specially benefit from the parks in equal measure, and that the assessment on each parcel was proportional to and no greater than those special benefits." Justice Jeffrey King wrote for the court. Thus, for assessing agency, the bar is set high. When read with Town of Tiburon v. Bonander , (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1057 (see CP&DR L egal Digest, January 15, 2010 ), which held that an assessment has to be based upon relative benefits, not relative costs, the Beutz decision reaffirms that assessment proceedings require an additional degree of documentation and care by the enacting agency. It also makes clear that across-the-board uniformity of assessments is more difficult to defend. The Case: Beutz v. County of Riverside, No. E046318, (2010) 184 Cal.App. 4th 1516, 2010 DJDAR 7833. Filed May 26, 2010. The Lawyers:  For Beutz; Robert A. Pool, Gangloff, Gangloff & Pool, (562) 920-5853. For the County; Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono & Levin, (530) 432-7359.

The Associated Press  reports  that a Russian billionaire is coming to the rescue of a state park in Sonoma County affected by budget cuts. Viktor Vekselberg, head of Russian-based Renova Group, signed an agreement last Tuesday with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to provide "substantial financial support" to keep Fort Ross open. Fort Ross was the site of a Russian settlement in the 19th century. The foregoing is all true.  \t (FADE IN. AN IMAGINARY BUT ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE SCENE IN THE STATE CAPITOL.) \t OLIGARCH (shuffling through state financial reports. Please supply with thick Russian accent): "Oy! These numbers look terrible. How'd you ever get in such straits?" \t GOVERNOR (with stubborn Austrian accent): "Too much spedding. Not eduff rebennu." \t OLIGARCH: "What you need, baby, is some free enterprise! Ever heard of that?" \t GOVERNOR (exercising supreme restraint): "I think I'm fabbiliar wittit…Wot d'you s'chest?" \t OLIGARCH: "A complete takeover by the private sector. Run this place like a business!" (He pounds his fist on the table for Pan-Slavic emphasis.) \t GOVERNOR (joyful): "Oh, bry-vittle-zation! My fontest treem!" (He dabs away tears with his handkerchief.) \t OLIGARCH: "I'll give you $30 billion for the whole shooting match." \t GOVERNOR: "For the entire state park system? Led be dink about that for a middit." \t OLIGARCH: "Not just the parks, tovarich. The state. You know, Hollywood. Golden Gate bridge. Bikini girls in Orange County. All the casinos in Lake Tahoe…" \t GOVERNOR: "Those are in Ne-badda, my friend, ur, my droog." \t OLIGARCH: "Damn! We'll have to buy that too." \t GOVERNOR: "While we're drawing up the papers for the sale, pleeds tell me, just out of koodiosity, what you blan to do with Califowddia?" \t OLIGARCH: "To run it oligarch way! Take out all cash and buy villa in south of France!"  \t GOVERNOR: "Not to upset the provebbial epple cart, bodd… there is no katch. The katch is in a kronch."  \t OLIGARCH: (in disbelief) "No cash?" \t GOVERNOR shakes his head sadly. \t OLIGARCH: (scarching his chin in deep thought.) "Well, we just have big sell off! Everybody love California! Now they can own!"  \t GOVERNOR (rallying) "That's right, privatize it!" \t OLIGARCH: "Now you whistle Dixie! Yosemite Valley, complete with Capitan and Half Dome, yours for $500 million. For free, we throw in kit fox and bear!" \t GOVERNOR (joining in) "That's right! Sell the ports of Long Beach and Oakland to the Chinese for $200 million!" \t OLIGARCH: "Ah, you learn quickly! All the growing lands in San Joaquin Valley! Snow-covered Sierras! Perfect for home building! All yours for $100 million. We throw in Bakersfield and Fresno for free. These cities are easily converted to migrant farmworker housing. We pass the savings on to you, the buyer!" \t GOVERNOR (caught up in the enthusiasm) "Buy the state capitol – the dome is covered in real California gold! – for $5 million, and we'll throw in the Governor's Mansion, as well. Great for parties!" \t OLIGARCH: "And we'll throw in the Arnold Schwarzeneggar car collection too!" \t GOVERNOR (aghast): "Not my Hubbers!" \t OLIGARCH: "Yes, the Hummers too." \t GOVERNOR (breaking down): "In that case, I guess there's nutting leff for bee…" \t OLIGARCH: "Not true, Tovarich, no true! You are celebrity! Action hero! You can be greeter."  \t GOVERNOR (Astonished): "Greeter….? \t OLIGARCH: "Sure, repeat after me. ‘Welcome to Sebastopol South! Formerly known as California. Hope you en-choy your stay!'" \t GOVERNOR (indignant): "But I'm not doing any pictures!" \t OLIGARCH: "Oh no, not for free! There is value in such things. Make big sign: Take picture with former California governor Arnold Schwartzeneggar, famous state budget tamer! Five bucks." (FADE OUT) -Morris "Chekov" Newman

As national debates about climate change have raged and federal action has grown ever more unlikely in the shadow of -- take your pick -- economic woes, mid-term election jitters, and the blackening of the Gulf of Mexico, the State of California last week edged closer to implementing its own land use based program to curtail climate change. Per a June 30 deadline stipulated in Senate Bill 375, the staff of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released its draft regional targets for carbon emissions reductions.  The targets are based on what participants have said is an extraordinarily sophisticated scenario planning and modeling.  "This body of work...is the most comprehensive, sophisticated regional planning work...for global warming that has happened anywhere in this country and possibly anywhere in the world," said Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and member of ARB's Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). The state's four largest metropolitan planning organizations will have to aim for per capita emissions reductions between 5 percent and 10 percent of 2005 levels by 2020. Because of unique challenges in the Central Valley, the eight largest MPOs there have been assigned "placeholder" targets of 1 - 7 percent per capita for both 2020 and 2035.  For the target date of 2035, ARB staff referred to the ranges devised by each of the so-called "big four" MPOs: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of San Francisco, SACOG, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). MTC and SCAG were assigned placeholders of 3-12 percent while SANDAG and SACOG received placeholder targets of 5-19 percent and 12-17 percent, respectively. Executives of all four MPOs have informed ARB staff that more analysis and scenario planning is necessary before settling on specific targets for 2035.  The targets outlined by ARB to comply with SB 375 are independent of the goals set by the state's other major climate change law, Assembly Bill 32.  While Jim Wunderman, executive director of the Bay Area Council and RTAC member, said that the targets were in line with expectations and that they could "probably be a little more ambitious," the high-end targets for the Central Valley -- even as placeholders -- appear daunting to officials there.  "I think for most of us the belief is that the 7 percent qualifies as ambitious and probably not achievable," said Andrew Chesley, executive director of the San Joaquin Council of Governments and RTAC member . "We want to work with ARB staff to identify and demonstrate targets that are achievable and are ambitious." The state's six remaining MPOs, covering largely rural areas, were exempted from the target-setting process because of their small populations and limited planning resources.  Once finalized, the targets will guide the MPOs' Sustainable Communities Strategies, which are designed to link land use planning with transportation planning in order to foster development that ultimately reduces vehicle miles traveled. In the report that accompanied the draft targets, ARB staff acknowledged that the long-term nature of land use changes and the duration of the current economic recession will affect regions' ability to implement new polices and realize SB 375's intended benefits. The report indicated that "it will take several four-year RTP planning cycles for the land use forecasts and transportation investments to fully reflect the changes envisioned by SB 375."  Participants have roundly praised the target-setting process with rhetoric not typically associated with public bureaucracies.  "The assistance they have offered, the partnerships (ARB) have developed with the regional agencies...has been nothing but positive," said Chesley. "Hopefully we'll be able to carry that through the implementation of SB 375."  This ebullience nonetheless is set against concern from both sides of the climate change argument. On the one hand, many public officials worry that the economy -- and lack of support from the state for crucial pieces such as redevelopment funding and transit funding -- will make targets unattainable or that the targets will make local economies even worse. Others say that this is an ideal moment to raise the state's planning standards.  "The MPOs have done some ambitious policies but we know they can do more," said Amanda Eaken, policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council and RTAC member. "We still fail to see a real substantive shift of transportation funding to support improved land use patterns that the MPOs are calling for." Some even see these austere economic times as a mandate for, and not against, aggressive action.  "We don't have the luxury of doing C or B quality work," said McKeever. "We owe the public A and A-plus quality work." Over the next month ARB is holding seven workshops across the state to receive feedback from stakeholders and agencies in advance of announcing final targets at the end of September. Those numbers will be expressed not as a range but rather as specific percentages that each MPO will be expected to achieve. To have assigned a more narrow range or even tried to hone in on specific draft targets may have been premature and in contradiction with the collaborative nature of the target-setting process thus far.  "If they jumped in...and said here's a precise number for 2020 and 2035 for each of you, it really wouldn't have been as respectful of that process," said McKeever.  Final targets are expected to be different for the so-called "Big Four" and among the eight Central Valley MPOs, but they are expected to be uniform among members of both respective groups.  The release of the draft targets culminates a yearlong process of scoping, research, and discussion among the affected MPOs and the Regional Targets Advisory Committee, a diverse group of public, private, and nonprofit officials who made recommendations to ARB staff in a September 2009 report. The final draft targets come from a technical advisory committee that convened after the RTAC submitted its recommendations.  The mandate to focus on regional carbon emissions forced MPOs not only to develop more complex and sophisticated models than ever before, but also to share information and collaborate in previously unheard-of ways.  "The good news...is that there's a good deal of true learning right now around the question of what a reasonable target is," said McKeever. "We're all pushing ourselves in harder and in different ways than we ever have in the past." ARB's goal has been to produce "ambitious but achievable" targets that the respective regions can strive for through planning for and promotion more compact land uses, mixed uses, efficient allocation of housing, and coordination with regional transportation plans. For all the research that has gone into these strategies, a debate is likely to ensue over which end of the 5-10 percent range the ARB should settle on and whether that final number will hew too much towards ambition or not.  "What does all that mean? That's a little bit mushier," said McKeever. "In September they're going to have to have a board action....they're going to have to have some pretty clear idea on the staff side of much more precise recommendations." Even if the targets land on the high end -- and even if metro areas can foster the intended land use changes by 2020 -- one thing they are not expected to do is reduce overall carbon emissions. By striving for per capita changes in emissions, the targets allow for population growth, which, even with lower per-person vehicle miles traveled, may yet cause a rise in absolute amounts of CO2 released.  That problem will be particularly acute in the Central Valley regions, where a particularly bleak economy and a relatively high growth rate portend significant increases in absolute emissions.  "High-growth areas still tend have a greater propensity for creating (more) trips and creating longer trips," said Chesley. "Our ability to make those reductions is somewhat hampered." This reason gave rise to the separate category for the Central Valley, which, according to Chesley, has such a backlog of entitled developments and such starkly different commuting patterns from the state's more heavily urbanized areas that the region's more modest placeholder targets are appropriate.   Whether SB 375 ultimately spurs emissions reductions in the Central Valley or in any of the other MPOs, participants in the target-setting process have roundly praised the ARB and its approach. The advisory process was designed to be bottom-up and based on each regions' capabilities and expectations rather than on a draft target originating in Sacramento.  "At times you think that people are pursuing the Holy Grail," said ARB Member and Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge. "But SB 375 is a process. A process of regions looking at themselves and stakeholders and asking how best to direct incentives and resources for the future."  ARB Board Member and San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts noted that the reduction of a global pollutant represents a new challenge for a board that has heretofore focused on localized air pollution.  "What we're chasing is greenhouse gases...this is very different from what the Air Board has historically done with air pollution," said Roberts. "If you did something with air pollution, benefit accrued to your area. You may incrementally do something that's good for the planet, but it doesn't accrue to your area or to the state of California per se."  "We really haven't looked at regions as sustainable areas before," said Loveridge.  In part because the ARB is entering such uncharted waters, participants in the target-setting process say they welcome the public discussion that will continue through July 23, when the seven regional workshops will wrap up. And yet, the ARB may find itself lobbied in all directions at once.  "You'll have some folks that say that CARB didn't go far enough, some folks that will say that this is going to be very difficult to achieve," said Wunderman. "And you'll probably have very few people who say they got it right."  Even so, McKeever said that when SB 375 was being drafted in 2007 and 2008, the best ideas, and more aggressive standards, rose to the top through successive rounds of debate and discussion. He hopes the trend will continue in the workshops.  "The bill kept getting better as it got amended and negotiated out; it didn't keep getting compromised and watered down," said McKeever. "That's what's happening right now too." Contacts & Resources:  ARB Draft Targets Staff Report , June 30, 2010  ARB SB 375 Workshop Schedule & Agenda Andrew Chesley, Executive Director, San Joaquin Council of Governments , (209) 235-0600 Amanda Eaken, Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council , (212) 727-2700 Mike McKeever, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Council of Governments , (916) 321-9000 Ron Loveridge, Mayor, City of Riverside; Board Member, Air Resources Board, (951) 826-5551 Ron Roberts, San Diego County Supervisor ; Board Member, Air Resources Board, (619) 531-5544 Jim Wunderman, Executive Director, Bay Area Council , (415) 981-6600

When the San Fernando Valley portion of the City of Los Angeles attempted to form its own city in 2002, one of five names nominated for what would have been the nation's sixth-largest city was "Camelot." This for a region most famous for being the vapid home of Valley girls.   Although Measure F ( CP&DR Insight Vol. 16 No. 10 Oct 2001 ) failed on both sides of the hills that separate the Valley from the rest of Los Angeles, nearly a decade later a far less grandiose, but perhaps more pragmatic, solution has emerged to give a unified voice to the Valley and some of its neighboring cities.  Representing the nearly 2 million residents of Burbank, Santa Clarita, Calabasas, Glendale, the City of San Fernando, as well as the City of L.A.'s portion of the San Fernando Valley, the San Fernando Valley Council of Governments was officially approved as a joint powers authority by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in May.  The approval follows nearly three years of preparations and negotiations, and supporters say that formal recognition of the Valley was long overdue.  "Many times I think people forget the Valley is here," said Robert Scott, project director of Valley think tank Mulholland Institute and longtime COG backer. "It's not their fault. The county of Los Angeles has a huge population, the city has a huge population, and the Valley isn't always at the top of the line. We feel we can perhaps do a better job." Though the COG has no budgetary or regulatory power, its most tangible function will be to represent the Valley as a distinct subregion under the purview of the Southern California Association of Governments, the metropolitan planning organization that encompasses the five-county Los Angeles area.  SCAG designated the Valley as a sub-subregion -- within the still-larger subregion of Los Angeles County – several years ago, thus enabling the agency to better treat it as a distinct unit for the purposes of regional planning. The COG takes that designation a step further by becoming, essentially, a forum for regional planning and for the region to develop local strategies.  "Because a JPA is a public agency…it doesn't require another level of bureaucracy," said Scott. "It's just our same elected officials who are meeting in a different format, and that allows the folks from the San Fernando Valley...to get together and talk about Valley concerns." COG participants have alluded to a range of issues related to planning and economic development that, they believe are crying out for coordinated regional strategies.  "The idea here would be to have cross-jurisdictional planning and then have…some agreement as to what the planning strategies might be so that we don't end up with incompatible uses right too close to one another, among other things," said Scott. "And maybe more continuity between jurisdictions in terms of even such things as themes and specific plans and the placement of certain types of uses." Scott said that regional planning strategies to comply with climate change measures AB 32 and SB 375 will likely occupy some of the COG's agenda. SCAG Deputy Director Sylvia Patsaouras said that the new COG can elect to serve as a formal delegate to the agency's Sustainable Communities Strategies planning process. However, she said "there is not much time left" for the COG to make those intentions known and that there will still be informal ways to participate. Scott said that the COG does intend to serve as a formal delegate.  Otherwise, many COG supporters speak only in general terms about what initiatives a unified Valley might pursue.  "Planning and transportation are key issues that we need to address," said Los Angeles City Council Member Dennis Zine, whose 3rd District covers the Valley's southwest portion.  "The COG can work with SCAG and other entities to help bring about the research projects, the EIRs, and bring together how we can connect."  What the COG does not intend to do, however, is to turn the Valley into a mirror of the Los Angeles Basin. Though the region is not as suburban as some stereotypes suggest, Valley leaders say it will continue to cultivate different centers – such as the edge city of Warner Center and the respective downtowns of the smaller cities – rather than strive for a second downtown or become radically more urbanized.  "I think by design it wouldn't have a center to it; it has a very egalitarian structure," said Scott. "The idea is for each of the cities of course to maintain their identities and at the same time work together."  The independence of the COG's member cities is evident in its governing structure. The COG's board will include 13 representatives: one from each member city, one from each Los Angeles council district in the Valley, and one from the two supervisorial districts that include the Valley. According to the COG's JPA agreement, each representative has veto power over all official actions.  While this may be a recipe for futility, supporters say that the cities' common interests make gridlock unlikely. Michael Murphy, intergovernmental relations officer for the City of Santa Clarita, said that the structure provides an "opportunity to concentrate on those areas where there's mutual interest and hopefully mutual agreement."  One ribbon in particular ties together these disparate cities, which range from industrial Burbank to the gleaming outer suburb of Santa Clarita: Interstate 5. Valley boosters say that the combination of industrially zoned land plus rail and highway connections could make the Valley one of the next great hubs industry in the region.  "We see a lot of economic development opportunities in the sense that in this particular region there's a lot of overall economic development activity, particularly in aerospace, biotech and entertainment," said Murphy. "The Valley has a lot of underutilized land for manufacturing," said Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association. "To add distribution centers, to add manufacturers, large warehouses and other businesses will be beneficial to all of us." Valley leaders also hope to use the COG as a forum to plan for circulation within the Valley region and to, for the first time, coordinate transportation and land use planning among the cities. L.A. Metro's Orange Line busway already runs east-west through the Los Angeles portion of the Valley; north-south lines have been proposed for several major corridors, as has an extension to Bob Hope Airport in Burbank.  COG supporters said that they were inspired to organize in part by the success of the powerful San Gabriel Valley COG, which has successfully lobbied for light rail and other transit projects.  "This is really an appropriate time for SFV to get involved in the discussion of the projects that are going to be included in that 2012 Regional Transportation Plan," said Patsaouras. In these efforts, the COG will be looking to SCAG for research and technical assistance, and it will be looking to Sacramento for money. It will, in that sense, strengthen efforts that have long been underway by the region's powerful business groups, the Valley Economic Alliance and the Valley Industry and Commerce Association.  "The Valley has taken a different attitude when it comes to being recognized and getting our fair share of the resources we're all paying for," said Zine. "This will help in that arena." Following the defeat of the secession movement, those two organizations launched aggressive campaigns to bolster the subregion's economic base and to see that, in the absence of secession, Los Angeles city government gave the Valley its fair share. Since then, tensions have eased, and COG backers say that its formation may be a final, and relatively harmonious, chapter in an often tense relationship. "It's a positive outcome of a lengthy process that probably started as far back as 1920, where the Valley was seeking to have some sort of identity and not be lost in the shadow of a larger city," said Scott. "The relationship is ten times better than what it was twenty years ago."  Contacts & Resources:  San Fernando Valley COG Joint Powers Authority Agreement (pdf) Michael Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, City of Santa Clarita, (661) 259-2489 Sylvia Patsaouras, Deputy Director, Southern California Association of Governments (213) 236-1806  Robert Scott, Project Director, Mulholland Institute , (818) 712-9500 Stuart Waldman, President, Valley Industry and Commerce Association , (818) 817-0545 Dennis Zine, Council Member, Los Angeles City Council 3rd District , (213) 473-7003

Before we pay our last respects to the latest statewide water bond, could we at least let the voters put the nail in its coffin? Gov. Schwarzenegger recently announced he would work with the Legislature to pull Proposition 18 – the $11.1 billion water bond – from the November ballot and instead place the measure on a 2012 ballot. State Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said he would cooperate. Schwarzenegger and Steinberg have seen the polling numbers that say the bond has very soft support among voters. And they both know that the campaign over Proposition 23 – which would suspend the AB 32 greenhouse gas emissions reduction law, which Schwarzenegger and Steinberg strongly support – will consume money and political capital that the water bond campaign could otherwise use. All of which is to say that Proposition 18 is doomed and the water bond's only chance is a temporary reprieve. But I question whether it's worth keeping this water bond on life support. I'm not saying California doesn't need significant investment in water infrastructure and aquatic environments. The needs are huge and the state's water system is ill-prepared for the shrinking Sierra snow pack that scientists predict as a result of climate change. But Proposition 18 does not appear to be the right approach. It's not even the approach the state itself recommends. Lawmakers and the Schwarzenegger administration put together the water bond as part of last fall's momentous package of water legislation , which, among other things, created a new council to manage the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, established a groundwater monitoring program and mandated reduced per capita water consumption. The water bond was primarily a sop to agricultural interests and water districts for not opposing the rest of the legislation. Many environmentalists opposed the bond measure because they said it contained pork barrel projects. Many conservatives raised opposition because the bond would add to the state general fund burden. The second argument resonates, as it would take about $22 billion worth of principle and interest payments to retire the bonds. In addition, as the Pacific Institute points out in a new overview , this would be the first water bond that does not require users of major storage infrastructure to pay back the capital expense over time.   I'm not so sure about environmentalists' argument because, in fact, the legislation behind the water bond offers only broad language about the types of projects that would be funded: $3 billion for surface water storage, $1 billion for groundwater projects, $1.4 billion for regional water supplies. A better argument might be that we don't know which projects the $11.1 billion would fund. What we do know is that the water bond would not invest money based on the state's own plan. According to the 2009 California Water Plan , the primary way we will meet increased water demands in the future is by making better use of the water we already have. Urban efficiency measures and increased water recycling are at the top of the water plan's list, as they could provide somewhere between 3 million and 5.5 million acre-feet per year. Groundwater storage might provide an additional 2 million acre-feet, or, because of many uncertainties, it might provide only one-quarter of that amount. Surface storage, at best, would give us an additional 1 million acre-feet. But the $11.1 billion water bond appears to designate only about 10% of the money for water recycling, and nothing specifically for water efficiency. Shouldn't the largest water bond in state history be very clearly compatible with the state's own water plan? The water plan reinforces what state and federal water managers have said for years: California needs to pursue every measure to ensure its cities and farms have adequate water in coming decades. We need to be creative and resourceful and – most of all – we need to stop wasting the water the system already delivers. Proposition 18, though, is stuck in the past. Essentially, the bond would build a couple new reservoirs and implement some Delta ecosystem upgrades so that the State Water Project and Central Valley Project may continue extracting water from the Delta at record levels. How about if we give Proposition 18 a proper burial this November and then start work on the water bond the state really needs? – Paul Shigley

In approving a redevelopment project that relies on a 20-year-old environmental impact report, the City of San Diego was not required to conduct supplemental environmental review on the issue of climate change, where the only discretionary action for a project was limited to project aesthetics, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. One of the threshold questions in any review under the California Environmental Quality Act is whether the project requires discretionary action or approval by the prevailing governmental entity. If not, then CEQA does not apply and no environmental review is required. In this case – involving Manchester Pacific Gateway's plan to develop 3 million square feet of office, hotel, retail and museum space on former Navy property along the downtown San Diego waterfront – the Fourth District addressed this threshold question in the context of supplemental environmental review of climate change impacts under Public Resources Code § 21166. The court held that because any discretion on the part of the City of San Diego was limited to aesthetics only, there was no discretionary action to trigger supplemental environmental review of climate change impacts. The genesis of this case goes back to a time before hardly anyone had even heard of climate change. In 1990, the city entered into a development agreement with the United States regarding a redevelopment project in downtown San Diego for which an EIR was subsequently certified. One of the requirements of the development agreement was that the developer submits its construction documents to the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), an arm of the city government charged with implementing downtown redevelopment projects. This case involved the CCDC's review of construction documents in 2006 and 2007 – created more than15 years after the development agreement was executed. The CCDC, and subsequently the City Council, determined that no supplemental environmental review was required, even though the original EIR makes no mention of climate change impacts. A group called the San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition brought a lawsuit challenging the city's determination. After the trial court dismissed the coalition's petition on several grounds, the group appealed on one issue: whether a supplemental EIR was necessary to evaluate the project's impacts on climate change. Instead of focusing on the "new circumstances" test under Public Resources Code § 21166, the appellate court focused on the issue of whether the CCDC's review of the construction documents constituted discretionary action. A discretionary action would trigger the need for supplemental environmental review. The court assumed, and the parties acknowledged, that the CCDC's review required some amount of discretion, limited only to the subject of aesthetics. Relying on Friends of Westwood v. City of Los Angeles, (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, and Leach v. City of San Diego, (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 389, the court held that supplemental environmental review of climate change impacts was not required because the city and CCDC's discretion only extended to aesthetics. The court rejected the coalition's argument that aesthetics are part of CEQA's definition of the environment, and that it was of no consequence that the CCDC's consistency reviews centered on aesthetic issues. The court cited Friends of Westwood and Leach for the proposition that environmental review is not required when the governmental entity has no authority to shape the project in a way to mitigate for environmental damage. Without the authority to modify the project, environmental review is meaningless.  "The fact that the CCDC could arguably exercise discretionary authority to alter the aesthetics of the Project so as to make the Project consistent with the development agreement does not demonstrate that the CCDC had the authority to modify the Project in accordance with a proposed updated EIR so as to reduce the impact of the Project on global climate change," Justice Cynthia Aaron wrote for the court. This case seems to extend the reasoning in Friends of Westwood and Leach to the next level. Under the court's analysis, it appears that when it comes to supplemental environmental review, the threshold issue is whether the governmental entity retains any discretion in relation to those impacts that would be evaluated in a supplemental EIR. In this case, the coalition appealed only on the issue of climate change impacts. Perhaps, if the coalition's arguments had centered on aesthetics, the court's analysis of discretionary action would have differed.  The Case: San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego, No. D055699, 2010 DJDAR 9096. Filed June 17, 2010. The Lawyers: For the coalition: Cory Briggs, (909) 949-7115. For the city: Heather Stroud, deputy city attorney, (619) 533-5872 For Manchester Pacific Gateway: Steven Strauss, Cooley, Godward, Kronish, (858) 550-6006.

A unanimous California Supreme Court has upheld a trial court's decision to reject a challenge to a Proposition 218 election for a storm drainage fee, thus reversing a decision by First District Court of Appeal.  The state high court ruled the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District maintained the requisite level of voting secrecy in accordance with the 1996 "Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative," which requires voter approval for certain local fees. The ruling was the first for the government in a string of three Proposition 218 cases the court has decided in the past two years. In Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431 ( Legal Digest Vol. 23 No. 11 Nov 2008 ), the state Supreme Court threw out an open space assessment because it provided only general, rather than parcel-specific, benefits. Bonander v. Town of Tiburon, 46 Cal.4th 646 ( Legal Digest Vol. 22 No. 04 Apr 2007 ) did not directly implicate Proposition 218, but the decision appeared to make Proposition 218 challenges easier to pursue. The latest decision upholds procedures similar to those that other local government agencies employ when conducting Proposition 218 elections in which votes are weighted according to the assessment amounts for individual parcel owners.  In 2007, the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District considered levying a storm drain assessment – averaging $125 per parcel – to fund flood control improvements in the Ross Valley. In compliance with Proposition 218 (Article XIII D of the California Constitution), the district board adopted protest provisions, conducted a public hearing, and directed mailing of notices to property owners.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board determined that there was not a majority protest, and called for a special election. The Board decided to conduct a mail-only election. The materials sent to the voters consisted of a single piece of cardstock, with instructions on one side and the ballot on the other. The ballot side displayed name and address of the voter, the amount of the annual fee, the statement of the question to be voted on, and designated spaces for the voter's printed name, signature and the date. The election procedures adopted by the board provided that upon receipt, ballots would be put in a lock box, with access permitted only by the clerk and deputy clerk. The instructions provided that the clerks would not disclose how particular voters voted except by court order.  With this procedure in place, the voters narrowly passed the measure, 3,208 to 3,143. Over 1,700 ballots were invalidated for lack of signatures.  Ford Greene, a property owner within the district, filed suit, and other interested parties intervened in the litigation. One of Greene's contentions was that the requirement that the voter sign the ballot violated Article II, Section 7 of the California Constitution providing for secret balloting. The trial court rejected the argument, but was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve the potential conflict between the secret balloting provisions and the elements of Proposition 218 calling for voter-specific information as part of the voting process. To resolve the potential conflict, the Supreme Court reviewed the history of Proposition 218,  as well as follow-up legislation adopted in 1997 and 2000. Notably, the 2000 legislation addressed the secrecy question in part, but it did not require the full secrecy associated with general elections. Recognizing that Proposition 218 elections for assessments call for weighted voting based upon the liability to the voter, review of the specific ballot information particular to each voter was necessary. Although the appellate court ruled that the Marin district could have maintained a higher level of secrecy for the storm drainage fee election, the Supreme Court concluded that actions taken by the district were consistent with both Proposition 218 and the implementing legislation.  The full voter secrecy mandated by Article II, Section 7, do not apply to the facts involving a Proposition 218 election, the court concluded.  The Case: Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, No. S172199, 49 Cal.4th 277, 2010 DJDAR 8390. Filed June 7, 2010. The Lawyers: For Greene: Ford Greene, in pro per; (415) 258-0360.  For the district: Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono & Levin, (530) 432-7359.

Now that the California Air Resources Board has released its draft targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction under SB 375, it's time to do some math. What follows is nerdy and a little dense, but it's important – and planners need to be able to follow the bouncing ball on 375.  The bottom line is that the math doesn't yet add up – and that's because what AB 32 calls for and what California's regional planning agencies think is realistic don't line up with each other. In the so-called "Scoping Plan" ( CP&DR Blog Oct. 2008 ) – the master plan for reducing emissions under AB 32 – released at the end of 2008, ARB concluded that the state would have to reduce emissions by 100 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent between 2010 and 2020 – from about 520 million metric tons to 420 million, or about a 20 percent cut. That would bring the state down to the same level of GHG emissions as 1990, which is the target set in AB 32 for the year 2020. But ARB also concluded that, if no action were taken, GHG emissions would increase by 2020 to 590 million metric tons – meaning the state must cut 170 million metric tons from what otherwise would be emitted, given population and economic growth during that period. Thus, ARB concluded, to meet AB 32, the state would have to cut emissions by almost 30 percent from the "business as usual" scenario. In the Scoping Plan, ARB also set a goal for the implementation of SB 375's probable land use and transportation reforms. Recognizing that these will create mostly long-term benefits, ARB said SB 375 should deliver about 5 million metric tons of savings from the "business as usual scenario". That's only about 3 percent of the overall savings. And it's a lot less than the reductions required by other key moves in the transportation sector, including the low-carbon fuel standards (16 million metric tons) and the increased gas efficiency standards (28 million metric tons). To put it another way, ARB is expecting to get almost 15 metric tons of savings out of technological improvements for every 1 metric ton of savings that comes out of a different land use pattern. So, despite considerable carping on the part of local officials who are fearful that they can't meet the standard, that would seem to be a pretty modest goal – "aggressive but achievable," ( CP&DR Blog May 2010 ) as the SB 375 wonks keep saying. (Environmentalists wanted a target that would be double or triple that amount.) But will the targets released the other day hit the goal? Let's do more math. After an enormous amount of wrangling at the Regional Targets Advisory Committee – and endless input by the regional planning agencies – the ARB staff has proposed a per-capita target of 5-10  percent by 2020 for the "Big 4" regional planning agencies – Sacramento, the Bay Area, Southern California, and San Diego. That means that emissions attributable to land use changes should go down 5-10 percent per person – not 5-10 percent overall. The targets for the Central Valley regional planning agencies were even smaller – between 1-7 percent. Remember, under SB 375, emissions reductions pretty much equals reductions in vehicle miles traveled. So think about what this means: a 5-10 percent reduction in per-capita VMT over the next decade – in a state where per-capita VMT is already among the lowest in the nation. Hard enough on its own terms. But don't forget that California's population keeps growing. The Department of Finance Demographics Research Unit projects that our state's population will grow from 39 million today to 44 million by 2020 – an increase of about 13 percent. So, summing things up … SB 375 is supposed to cut emissions by 5 million metric tons. ARB is saying the per-capita target for the vast majority of the state should be 5-10 percent. But the population is going up 13 percent.  If you're wondering how the heck that works out to a net reduction in emissions, you're not alone. It doesn't. But it does reflect what the regional planning agencies in California think is realistic.  Here's how Steve Heminger, the widely respected head of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area, summarized his agency's situation in a communication to ARB: "Given that our RTP financially constrained expenditures for maintenance and operations will likely continue in the 80 percent range, the region will likely not be able to depend on massive infrastructure improvements to support GHG emission reductions. We can expect some modest reductions as a result of strategic expansion through priced Express Lanes and select transit corridors, and operational improvements that squeeze more capacity out of our existing transportation system." Most of the other major regional planning agencies had similar conclusions based on a variety of model runs and scenarios. Indeed, the lower targets for the Central Valley communities – where a lot of the car-oriented growth is likely to occur – will put more pressure on the coastal metros (plus Sacramento and the Inland Empire) – to reduce emissions. And the current recession has actually made it more difficult to reduce GHG emissions, even though growth has slowed considerably. That may sound counterintuitive, but there's a difference between slower emissions growth and actually reversing the trend so that emissions go down. A recession will slow emissions growth, because recessions always slow VMT growth. But recessions also reduce the overall amount of change in the built environment. New TOD projects won't get built. New transit lines won't get built. And so there will be fewer changes that can give people alternatives to driving – or shorten trips. So the bottom line is this: There's no way California's getting anything like 5 million metric tons of savings out of these targets.  But does this mean we should give up? Probably not, for two reasons. First, it should be obvious to everyone that emissions reduction under AB 32 is a zero-sum game. Every metric ton that you can't get out of land use is a metric ton that has to come from somewhere else – most likely from somewhere else in the economy where powerful lobbyists ( Insight Vol. 22 No. 09 Sep 2007 ) are at work. And second, as Hasan Ikhrata of the Southern California Association of Governments often says, SB 375 isn't really a GHG reduction bill. It's a land use planning bill – a way to force us to think more aggressively and comprehensively about how to address longstanding problems in the way our built environment is organized.  Ikhrata often makes this statement kind of ruefully – fearing, I think, that this reality gives the pavement crowd an excuse to push back against the planners. But he's right. Reducing GHG emissions isn't the only reason we should alter our built environment. But GHG emissions are a pretty good proxy for all kind of things. Fewer emissions means less energy consumed, which means less energy produced in environmentally destructive ways and less money going to purchase energy. It means less need for new highways, which are – again – not only environmentally destructive but also awfully blasted expensive for a state that's bankrupt. And so forth. All this may be moot in November, if Proposition 23 passes and AB 32 is suspended ( CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 7, April 1, 2010 ) – and/or if Meg Whitman is elected governor and decides to suspend AB 32 all on her own, as she's threatening to do. In the meantime, however, California's planners should keep trying to make the numbers add up – and figure out the "co-benefits" of SB 375.

A bill that would permit a lawsuit challenging a housing element to be filed at almost any time advanced through a state Senate committee earlier this week and is headed to the Senate floor. Assembly Bill 602 passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on a party-line vote of 6-3 vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. The partisan vote may have surprised some people, but it should not have. The politics of AB 602 are linked to crusading lawyers, state-directed planning of high-density housing and climate change mandates. No Republican wants to be associated with those things. But it's also true that the emergence of AB 602 during the last two weeks has created some odd alliances. The California Association of Realtors, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Sierra Club support the measure; the California Building Industry Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and local government organizations oppose it. The politics are not simple. Bill author Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) told the Senate committee the legislation would "return affordable housing law in California to what it was for the last 25 years." As I reported last week , Feuer and affordable housing advocates argue that an erroneous 2008 Court of Appeal decision changed the statute of limitations for lawsuits over a housing element from, essentially, anytime to 90 days after the element is adopted. Housing elements are intended to contain the land inventories and policies needed for a city or county to provide its fair share of new units for households of all income levels. The Department of Housing and Community Development reviews local housing elements, but there are few penalties for not having a housing element that HCD certifies as being in compliance. The open-ended statute of limitations is necessary because not until a developer proposes an actual project – which may occur months or years after housing element adoption – can people determine the precise impacts of housing element land inventories and policies, explained Julie Snyder, policy director for the organization Housing California.  Maybe more importantly, said Snyder, is the threat of litigation that affordable housing advocates use to get local government officials to the negotiating table. That's a far more common approach than actual litigation, she said. Snyder said fewer than 20 housing element lawsuits have been filed during the past 25 years. But League of California Cities lobbyist Bill Higgins complained to the Senate committee that the bill does not distinguish between jurisdictions with HCD-certified housing elements, and those without. Under AB 602, a city could have adopted a certified housing element seven years earlier and still get sued over the adequacy of the element by a developer demanding a greater density bonus or waiver of development standards. Building Industry Association lobbyist Allison Barnett pointed out that a housing element lawsuit may result in a moratorium on all housing construction, which does nothing to improve the housing stock and punishes innocent parties. Still, committee Chairman Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) made clear his support for the bill. "I've always felt we needed effective judicial enforcement of the law," he said of the housing element statute. "Access (to the courts) must be restored." Negotiations among housing advocates, builders and local government representatives are ongoing, but I find it hard to believe everyone will reach agreement. The differences are too fundamental and, frankly, I think everyone has a fairly strong argument. Planners have a deep interest in this one because they are the ones who actually prepare and implement housing elements – and because of the SB 375 aspect. As you probably know, SB 375 is the 2008 legislation that requires metropolitan planning organizations to prepare sustainable communities strategies (SCSs) which include regional land use plans, with the intent of reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions. However, SB 375 does not require city and county general plans to comply with SCSs. Thus, the housing element is seen as an essential tool (a stick, really) to ensure local governments actually implement SCS policies. Here's how a Senate Transportation and Housing Committee analysis of AB 602 puts it: " ousing element law is currently the only tool to get cities and counties to increase affordable housing densities needed to achieve the SB 375 regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Without an effective way to enforce housing element law, the only tool to effectively ensure implementation of SB 375 at the local level is lost." – Paul Shigley