Supporters and opponents alike are touting SB 375 as the most significant land use reform bill in recent California history. When he signed it in September, Gov. Schwarzenegger called it the biggest bill since passage of the California Environmental Quality Act 38 years ago. Meanwhile, the hilariously over-the-top Orange County Register has called the bill "one of the most authoritarian, far-reaching and elitist bills that has ever made it to the governor's desk." In fact, it is neither. Senate Bill 375 is not a revolution. Rather, it is a step – admittedly a very big step – in California's gradual transformation from suburban planning to urban and metropolitan planning. This transformation does not begin with SB 375 – nor will it end with SB 375. At bottom, this highly publicized bill – pushed through the Legislature for two years by the Senate's now-leader, Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – is an air-pollution bill. The goal is to promote growth patterns that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide) by reducing driving. It's also a regionally based bill, not one that places all the power in Sacramento. The California Air Resources Board will set targets for greenhouse gas reduction via land use in each region. Then each region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – such as the San Diego and Sacramento associations of governments – must create a "sustainable communities strategy" as part of the Regional Transportation Plan that will meet the target. The bill is incentive-based, not regulatory. Transportation projects that go through the MPOs must conform to the sustainable communities strategy – but those judgments are made by the MPOs themselves. There are CEQA exemptions and breaks for projects that conform to the sustainable communities strategy – but nothing mandatory. And, at the behest of local government lobbyists, the law specifically states that local land use authority is not usurped or overridden by SB 375. All this is not really revolutionary land use reform – especially compared with the pathbreaking growth management bills passed in Oregon during the 1970s, Florida during the 1980s, and Washington during the 1990s. In Oregon, the most top-down system in the country, the state required the creation of urban growth boundaries around each metropolitan area and established a state department to oversee implementation of the law. In Washington, there was more power-sharing with the locals and the system is more incentive-based, but the locals must meet state growth goals and local decisions may be appealed to regional land use boards. In Florida, all local plans must be approved by the state government, and all plans within the same county must be submitted for state review at the same time. All three of these laws had two things that California still does not have: a strong and direct role for the state government and an overt focus on the actual use of land. Senate Bill 375 is clearly intended to alter land use patterns, but most of the language that overtly tied the bill to things like urban growth boundaries and protection of resource lands got removed or heavily watered down. In other words, SB 375 is by no means a comprehensive growth management or land use reform law. It's a law designed to alter land use patterns as a means of achieving a small part of a much bigger goal – reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As such, however, it is a pretty big step in the very gradual shift in California planning policy from a suburban orientation to an urban orientation. This shift is reflective of changes in the state as a whole. When I first started writing Guide to California Planning in 1989, it quickly became clear to me that California had a land use system that was focused around an organizing concept that even then seemed a bit outdated – "the suburban growth model." The assumption embedded in both general plan law and the California Environmental Quality Act – both of which have not been comprehensively reformed since the early 1970s – is that the context of planning in California is the building out of individual suburban communities. This is part of the reason the general plan law does not require city and counties to acknowledge the plans being created by their neighbors. And it is the biggest reason why CEQA works so much better when applied to an individual greenfield development project than to a small infill project. By the time Paul Shigley and I finished the Third Edition of the Guide in 2005, the disconnect between the suburban growth model assumed in the laws and the built-out communities that represented California's reality was more obvious than ever. And for almost 20 years – dating back to the real estate boom of the late '80s – planners and environmentalists had been clamoring for comprehensive reform that would bring California into the infill age. In the meantime, however, California had taken a number of steps – some strong, some weak – to change the old system. For the most part, these steps did not take on general plans and CEQA directly. But the reforms did gradually change both the reality of the system and its underlying assumptions. For example: • The MPOs now have far more power than ever before to make transportation spending decisions in their regions, while the state has less. As a result, in both the Bay Area and Los Angeles, most transportation capital spending goes to transit, not highways. • Partly encouraged by a series of state grants, these same regional planning agencies have already devised regional strategies – often called "blueprints" – designed to accomplish more or less the same goal as the "sustainable communities strategy" in SB 375. Implementation is spotty, but everybody has gotten used to the idea of regional agencies doing this kind of planning during the last few years. • The state has become more aggressive in doling out money to support more urban models of development. Only a few months ago, the Department of Housing & Community Development gave away a half-billion dollars in Proposition 1C money for transit-oriented and infill projects (see CP&DR Insight , August 2008 ). This is a long way from Maryland's practice of directing most state money to support a particular development pattern, but in a real estate downturn, California's grants will have a significant impact. • The state has taken sweeping policy steps to embed a more urban development model in the state's own practices – if any governor cared to make use of those policies. Most important is AB 857, the 2002 law that requires that all state actions support infill development, protection of open land, and compact greenfield development. The law has never really been implemented, but it does at least theoretically provide a strong policy foundation for a more urban development pattern. Senate Bill 375 should not be viewed in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of all these other steps. California has not yet completed the revolution in land use policy that SB 375 seems to promise, and the suburban growth model will clearly die hard. But all these steps put together would seem to suggest that California's land use policy landscape really is headed down a more urban path.

A property owner's challenge of a Sierra Madre City Council resolution directing a committee to consider stricter regulation of hillside development has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court judge who had ruled that the situation was not "ripe" for judicial review. Although the resolution might lead to less potential development, the resolution itself had no binding implications for the property owner's land, the Second District determined. "Courts may not render advisory opinions on disputes which the parties anticipate might arise but which do not presently exist," Justice Madeleine Flier wrote for the court. Sierra Madre is a small city on the edge of the San Gabriel Valley. Development in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains within the city has long been controversial. In August 2005, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance, extended the following month, that essentially requires developers within a moratorium area to comply with provisions of the city's hillside management zone (HMZ). Among other things, it bases minimum lot sizes on the severity of the slope. In November 2005, the City Council adopted a resolution appointing an HMZ advisory committee to study and provide recommendations on potential revisions to the HMZ regulations. The resolution urged consideration of minimum lot sizes as large as 1 acre. In January 2006, Stonehouse Homes submitted an application for a vesting tract map for 25 acres owned by the company, and an application for a conditional use permit to develop under the HMZ provisions. The city returned the applications because they were incomplete. Stonehouse filed updated applications on April 17, 2006. The next day, the City Council voted 3-2 to approve a new moratorium resolution directing the Planning Commission and the HMZ advisory committee to prepare final recommendations for specific conditions and new subdivision lot dimensions for the HMZ. Thirty days later, the city again returned Stonehouse's applications as incomplete. Stonehouse appealed the staff's conclusion to the Planning Commission but lost. While an appeal of the applications' completeness to the City Council was pending, Stonehouse filed a lawsuit. It alleged that the resolution adopted in April violated the property owner's due process and equal protection rights and was, therefore, invalid on its face. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sohigian ruled for the city, concluding the developer had not proven its case and was seeking an advisory decision that courts do not issue. Continuing to maintain the resolution was invalid on its face, Stonehouse on appeal argued that the case was ripe for court review because the company had no administrative remedy available. Stonehouse argued that the resolution required the Planning Commission to prepare specific zoning, so the resolution was essentially legislation. But the court found the resolution "does no such thing." "The adoption of the resolution alone implicated no rights of Stonehouse. The resolution was not an ordinance that amended the HMZ provisions. Nor did it require the Planning Commission to recommend adoption of such an ordinance. The moratorium resolution simply requested preparation of final recommendations regarding potential amendments to the HMZ provisions and provided notice to the public about the changes under consideration," Flier wrote. Stonehouse contended a court ruling was needed because the company sought to use the "safe harbor" provision of the Subdivision Map Act to prevent the city from imposing new conditions on the already-filed applications. "The problem with Stonehouse's contention," Justice Flier wrote, "is that any alleged entitlement to a safe harbor is purely conjectural absent a final application, a newly adopted HMZ ordinance and application of such an ordinance to Stonehouse." Thus, the court concluded, there is no "justiciable controversy" for it to decide. The Case: Stonehouse Homes v. City of Sierra Madre , No. B195552, 08 C.D.O.S. 13133. Filed October 10, 2008. The Lawyers: For Stonehouse: Garrett Hanken, Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, (310) 553-3610. For the city: Sandra Levin, Colantuono & Levin, (213) 533-4155.

If you can tolerate a little smugness and edginess, college towns are often the best towns of all � and college downtowns are often the best downtowns, especially in small cities. College towns bring together smart and creative people, and those of us who like to associate with smart and creative people. The best college towns threaten to explode at any moment with youthful energy. In a true college town, the institution of higher education is the predominate feature. The school's events and even the physical campus commingle with the rest of town to create one large entity. And because students are less likely to drive, college town downtowns are often wonderfully vibrant and pedestrian-oriented. East of the Mississippi River, you'll find a four-year college in seemingly every Podunk of 20,000 people. Important large universities are often located in fairly small towns. Indiana University, University of Virginia, Penn State and University of Vermont are a few examples. Not surprisingly, Bloomington, Charlottesville, State College and Burlington are great college towns. California is different. Many large public universities � such as UCLA, UC San Diego and San Jose State � are simply one part of a big city. Schools in the California State University system are often "commuter schools" in suburban areas. The same is true of private schools. Even in college-oriented towns, there's a big contrast between East and West. Take the difference between Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Palo Alto, for example. Cambridge, of course, is home to Harvard and is located amidst a collection of schools that includes Boston University, MIT and University of Massachusetts. When you're walking around Cambridge, you can scarcely tell whether you're on a city street or the Harvard campus. It all runs together in a glorious mix of classrooms, labs, offices, studios, housing, libraries, gathering spaces, churches and athletic facilities. Some of it is Harvard, some of it is public, and much of it is a quasi-public mix of Harvard, private enterprise and municipal. Academically, Stanford may be the Harvard of the West. But Palo Alto is no Cambridge. Stanford lies on a campus so gigantic it is known as The Farm (and it's not within the city limits). The campus is gorgeous, but there's a reason that Stanford's campus contains many parking lots: The town of Palo Alto is distant. Downtown Palo Alto is a fairly lively place that's full of extremely well-educated people, but students and teachers can't simply walk over for lunch or a latte or a draught during a free period. Nor is there a big college nightclub or arts scene in Palo Alto. The offices and labs of all the brilliant Stanford grads? Try Cupertino or Mountain View. Still, California does have a smattering of true college towns, each with its own unique flavor. The best are remarkable places. � 1. Davis. Without the University of California, Davis would be just another valley town amid the tomato fields. But it's impossible to imagine Davis without the university because it defines the town. Downtown Davis, located an easy bike ride from campus, is a lively place full of the usual college town coffee houses, nightclubs, bookshops and late-night pizza stops. But downtown Davis even has some offices where college students and grads might work. Neighborhoods near campus provide a nice variety of student housing. The open and inviting campus offers plenty for non-students, including recreation, and cultural and sporting events. Plus, practically everyone gets around via bicycle or foot. Davis is the prototypical college town. 2. Chico. In 1987, Playboy magazine ranked CSU Chico the biggest party school in the country. No one who attended Chico State during that era, or lived anywhere in the region, could argue against the ranking. But the days of 5,000-student, open-air keggers and the weeklong drunken orgy of Pioneer Week have ended.� That's probably for the best. Still, Chico is very much a college town. One of the reasons we raved about downtown Chico one year ago in our list of the best mid-sized city downtowns is the downtown's proximity to campus and student housing, and the energy that students bring to downtown. In fact, students and upstart businesses run by former students are all over town � including the giant Sierra Nevada Brewing Company. 3. Berkeley. Forty years ago, Berkeley was the most famous � or infamous, depending upon your point of view � college town in the country. Birthplace of the free speech movement and home to daily anti-war protests, Berkeley truly did bubble over with youthful exuberance. Righteously liberal politics still dominate the city, and so does the UC campus. It seems like everyone in town has some connection to the school. Some portions of downtown and the University Avenue corridor have struggled over the years, but downtown Berkeley continues to evolve into one of the Bay Area's great urban places. And Berkeley is similar to many East Coast college towns in that campus activities spill into town, and sometimes it seems as if there are as many non-students as students on campus. 4. San Luis Obispo. There is no question that SLO is one of the best small downtowns in California. And there's no question that a lot of that has to do with the fact that it's a college town. The college kids create a local market for downtown businesses � and the college kids want to stick around after school, so they are often underemployed in downtown retail businesses or launch their own startups so they don't have to move. But the downtown and the college aren't seamlessly integrated, like they are in Davis, Chico, and Berkeley. Cal Poly is a pretty typical '60s California campus � suburban, with mostly undistinguished architecture. And it's separated from the downtown by an auto-oriented commercial strip. Honorable Mentions � Isla Vista. Although the school is called UC Santa Barbara, the campus is located in the unincorporated area known as Isla Vista, (simply "IV" to locals). It's an extremely bike-friendly community that exists in its present state solely because of the college. Unfortunately, because Santa Barbara is 10 miles away, IV is something of a student ghetto. And downtown Santa Barbara, although fabulous in many ways, is a little short of the youthful energy that UC students could provide. � Arcata. An interesting mix of students, yuppies, artists, loggers and fishermen make up the home of Humboldt State. The tension inherent in that demographic mix helps create the feel of a college town circa 1972. But the town is welcoming and has a marvelous can-do, independent streak to it � much like the most remote of the CSU schools. � Santa Cruz. Set amidst the misty redwood forest, the UC Santa Cruz campus provides a delightful academic setting. And located just up from one the state's great beaches, downtown Santa Cruz is a funky, spunky beach town that has only gotten better since rebuilding after the 1989 earthquake. Unfortunately, the campus and the beach town are about three traffic-choked miles apart. The campus's isolation causes the college energy to peter out before it reaches most of town, which seems to be just fine with some locals. � Claremont. Although Southern California has no true college town, the home to The Claremont Colleges on the far eastern edge of Los Angeles County is a fair approximation. The downtown, called Claremont Village, is a fairly thriving area right across College Avenue from campus. No hordes of college kids on bicycles here, but you'll still find some of the usual college town offerings in an inviting, walkable district. - The CP&DR Staff

The other shoe has dropped on the SB 375 front, as the California Air Resources Board has more than doubled the target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions to be obtained through regional planning. This new target -- 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year – was released on October 15 as part of CARB's "Proposed Scoping Plan" for AB 32. That's up from 2 million tons in the Draft Scoping Plan released in June. This target will put a lot more pressure on regional planning agencies to create compact land use plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled. But it may also put more pressure on local governments to reduce emissions from their operations and other sources. The draft plan in June apparently combined land use and local government operations within the 2 million tons. The recently released proposed plan separates them out – requiring 5 million tons out of land use and a 15% reduction from local government operations. Under SB 375 , CARB must take the 5-million-ton target and dole it out to the regions by 2010. Then each regional planning agency must devise a "sustainable communities strategy" that lays out a growth scenario that will meet the target. Transportation projects must conform to this strategy. Local plans don't have to conform to this strategy, but individual projects that do conform might qualify for streamlining or even exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. -- Bill Fulton

SB 375 has left a lot of public commentary in its wake, but none more hilarious than a hostile editorial in the reliably libertarian Orange County Register , which refuses to believe that anyone in the homebuying marketplace would ever want to purchase anything other than a single-family house on a large lot. The editorial -- titled "Want to live in a condo by the train tracks?" – provides a few chuckles in the way it characterizes SB 375's impetus (calling smart growth a "highly controversial and authoritarian concept") and outright guffaws in the way it mischaracterizes what the law actually does. The editorial claims: "SB375 will transfer decisions about local developments from property owners and local cities to state environmental officials." (In fact, the law specifically states that local land-use authority is not being usurped.) Indeed, the Register makes Tom McClintock's remarks on the same topic seem measured in comparison. Most amusing of all, however, is the way the Register conflates the free-market idea of what people want with the socially conservative idea of what people should want. Simply put: Despite its supposedly free-market orientation, the Register can't imagine a world in which some people might answer their derisive question –"Want to live in a condo by the tracks?" – by saying yes. The Register 's underlying assumption is that everybody wants to live in a single-family house on the largest possible lot. Left to its own devices, the market would produce only single-family subdivisions and nothing else. Therefore, the construction of anything other than single-family houses must, ipso facto , be the result of government coercion rather than market choice. In fact, the opposite is true – especially in a crowded and expensive place like Orange County. Left to its own devices, the market would probably produce more high-density housing, because a significant portion of the market either does not want or cannot afford a traditional suburban lifestyle. Meanwhile, local government regulation – zoning -- often interferes with the market by ensuring low-density development in many areas where higher-density housing would succeed in the marketplace. This is especially true in affluent conservative suburbs, where homeowners use regulation ferociously to protect their turf. In recent years, two Orange County cities -- Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano -- have blocked higher-density housing proposals because of public opposition. This is part of the reason SB 375 is necessary. But this is an inconvenient truth for the Register and the rest of the libertarian-leaning anti-anti-sprawl crowd. It seems to me that these folks – including such pundits as Randall O'Toole and sometimes even Sam Staley , who I've worked with and like – are so tied to conservative social values that they can't tell the difference between what people want and what they should want. In fact, however, conservative social values and the free market sometimes part. It may be that social conservatives believes that everyone should live in a traditional family setting, and to them this may well mean everybody should live in a traditional single-family suburban neighborhood. But that is not the same as saying that this is what the market actually demands . Even in Orange County, the homebuying (and renting) public is more diverse than ever before. There are singles and childless couples (some same-sex) and empty-nesters, many of whom prefer and can afford a more suburban lifestyle. There are vast numbers of families with modest incomes who might aspire to a suburban lifestyle but will never be able to afford it. There are even a growing number of working-class and middle-class families who are unwilling to endure the long commutes required to have a traditional suburban lifestyle in Southern California. All these different groups put together represent a large portion of the home market – maybe not a majority, but probably 30-40% at least. And even if all these folks wanted single-family homes in Orange County, the market couldn't accommodate them. Land there is so expensive now that most developers would choose to build higher-density projects; maintaining a single-family landscape would require enormously heavy-handed government regulation. And even if all new housing in Orange County consisted of detached single-family homes, those houses built would cost millions of dollars each. (Even in the recent real estate crash, the median price of a single-family home in August was $959,000.) That's far beyond the reach of most of "the market". It would be one thing for the Register to argue, Peter Gordon - style , that government has no business regulating land use, so zoning should be abolished and let the chips fall where they may. That's an intellectually honest libertarian position and I can respect that. But it is unfair to smart growth advocates – and to the idea of libertarianism – to suggest that the free market should be unshackled only for those who agree with the Register 's social values – and not for anybody else. -- Bill Fulton

While it seemed as if Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed every land use bill besides SB 375, he did in fact sign several pieces of legislation. Although some bills are minor in nature, some pieces of legislation make important changes to aspects of the general plan law, authorize funding for courthouses and parks, and even ease development of a mixed-use project on the Sacramento waterfront. Here's a look at some of the more important land use bills that the governor signed: • AB 31 (de Leon). Allocates $400 million from Proposition 84 parks money for a competitive grant program targeted at park-poor communities. • AB 1358 (Leno). Requires cities and counties to include in circulation element updates provisions for "complete streets." The requirement is effective with updates adopted after January 1, 2011. "Complete streets" are those that provide for bicyclists, pedestrians, disabled people and others besides motorists. The bill also requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to update the General Plan Guidelines. • AB 1451 (Leno). Extends an existing property tax exemption for new construction of solary energy systems and solar power generation projects until 2016. The bill enjoyed strong support from utilities and alternative energy supporters, but it was opposed by Kern County supervisors. A $1 billion, 250 megawatt solar energy facility is planned for eastern Kern County. • AB 2026 (Villines). Authorizes the California Department of Parks and Recreation to sell two acres on the Sacramento River waterfront to the City of Sacramento, and exempts the transaction from the California Environmental Quality Act. The property is essential for "The Docks" project, which proposes 1,100 housing units and 500,000 square feet of office and retail space along the river just south of the Tower Bridge. • AB 2069 (Jones). Tightens the no-net-loss provisions to prevent decreases in potential housing sites. Some jurisdictions zone land for mixed-use development, and count potential housing development in those zones in their housing element's inventory of available residential sites. This bill requires jurisdictions that approve commercial development in these zones to take steps to ensure that adequate sites remain available to meet the jurisdictions' fair-share housing obligations. The governor vetoed a similar bill last year. • AB 2280 (Saldaña). Clarifies recent changes to the density bonus law. The density bonus law permits development of up to 35% more units than zoning allows if a certain percentage of units are available to low-income households. As originally introduced, AB 2280 overhauled the law. But the bill was watered down to the point where it makes mostly minor, technical amendments to the law in order to prevent disputes between developers and local governments over the size of density bonuses and other incentives. • AB 2494 (Caballero). Places $200 million of Proposition 1C park funding with the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill settles a dispute over whether HCD or Parks and Recreation should allocate the money. Housing advocates argued that HCD should be in control because the funding is supposed to be tied to production of affordable housing units. • AB 2921 (Laird). Amends the procedures for rescinding Williamson Act contracts and for addressing contract breaches. Five years ago, the Legislature authorized the Department of Conservation (DOC) to identify and respond to breaches, which typically result from development of protected agricultural land. This bill modifies the DOC procedures. • SBX2 1 (Perata). Directs existing bond funds to programs and projects intended to stabilize the Bay Delta and increase water supply reliability through projects other than new dams. • SB 187 (Ducheny). Authorizes implementation of a pilot project for Salton Sea restoration. The state budget includes $17.8 million for the project (see CP&DR Environment Watch , September 2007 ).  • SB 732 (Steinberg). Creates the Sustainable Communities Council to coordinate state programs and allocates Proposition 84 monies to fund sustainable community planning. • SB 1065 (Correa). Allows cities and counties to use revenue bonds to refinance mortgages on owner-occupied homes for households earning up to 150% of median income. The League of California Cities and the California Association of Realtors were among the supporters. • SB 1407 (Perata). Authorizes the sale of $5 billion in lease-revenue bonds to fund courthouse construction, renovation and repair. The bill also raises criminal and civil fees and fines to pay off the bonds.   • SB 1681 (Battin). Overhauls and streamlines the process by which the Department of General Services (DGS) disposes of surplus state property. Sponsored by DGS, the bill provides local governments and nonprofit housing developers with easier access to surplus state lands. - Paul Shigley

While Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the high-profile SB 375 , he vetoed nearly every other land use bill of consequence this year. Legislation regarding financing, fire safety, school fees, the California Environmental Quality Act and other matters all failed to escape the governor's red pen. A substantial number of the bills received the following veto message: "The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 state budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the year's legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest priority for California.  This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time." The curt message – some call it petulant – has not exactly won friends among bill sponsors, lawmakers, staff members and lobbyists who put hundreds of hours into pieces of legislation.   Several bills that the governor vetoed – whatever the reason – deserve highlighting. I thought that AB 2173 (Caballero) was the sleeper bill of the two-year legislative session. The measure was complicated, but essentially it would have eliminated a number of prerequisites for school districts that want to charge "Level II" development impact fees. The Coalition for Adequate School Housing sponsored the bill, and the California Building Industry Association did not oppose it, which was shocking because Level II fees are often two to three times the amount of the state-established Level I fees (now at $2.97 per square feet for new residential construction). At a time when everyone wants to encourage construction, passage of this bill seemed odd. Maybe the CBIA knew the governor would not sign AB 2173. And he didn't. It was one of those bills that was not the highest priority for California. The governor vetoed two finance bills that would have had important, although indirect, implications for land use. Senate Bill 1293 (Negrete McLeod) and SB 1221 (Kuehl) were basically sunshine bills. The former would have imposed specific transparency and accountability requirements on joint powers authorities (JPAs) that provide tax-exempt "conduit financing" for private development projects. The latter bill would have changed various requirements that now cause hospitals and health systems in need of money for new facilities to bypass the California Health Facilities Financing Authority (a state agency) in favor of the JPAs that lack equivalent oversight. There was no stated opposition to either bill. Still, the governor deemed SB 1293 not a priority, and said SB 1221 would burden nonprofit health facilities. The vetoes set off State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who had endorsed both measures. Lockyer concluded an angry three-page letter to Schwarzenegger by saying he was "more than usually displeased and downright angry with what has become of two very important public policy reforms as a result of action by you and your staff." Also failing to survive was AB 2594 (Mullin) , which would have authorized redevelopment agencies to use non-housing tax increment revenue to refinance or assume subprime loans at risk of default, and to acquire vacant and foreclosed homes. You might recall that when the year began, everyone was demanding that lawmakers "do something" about housing foreclosures. The California Redevelopment Association offered to play a role, but the use of housing set-aside funds was rejected by lawmakers. Still, AB 2594 permitted redevelopment agencies to get involved in foreclosures if they really wanted to. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, saying it would permit redevelopment agencies to reduce the amount of tax increment available for the state to take to help balance this year's budget. Really, that's what the veto message says. It's brazen – and I also think it's bogus because I don't see how implementation of AB 2594 would have reduced the state's grab of local revenues. (See this month's Capitol Update .) Other bills that received vetoes: • AB 842 (Jones). Would have change criteria for infill incentive and transit-oriented development grant funding to favor plans that reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled. Schwarzenegger called the bill "pointless" and "duplicative." • AB 1129 (Arambula). Would have changed state grant criteria so that housing trust funds in counties of less than 425,000 people could better compete for funding. The governor said the bill would permit local governments to spend state monies without a local match. • AB 1221 (Ma). Would have permitted local officials to use property tax increment to finance bonds for infrastructure within transit village development districts. • AB1366 (Portantio). Would have required cities and counties to submit annual housing element progress reports to the Department of Housing and Community Development to remain eligible for certain housing funding.  • AB 1709 (Hancock). Would have authorized the use of Mello-Roos financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. The governor said he could not support this "fundamental shift in the purpose of Mello-Roos taxes." • AB 2000 (Mendoza). Would have allowed a city or county that exceeds production of its fair-share housing allocation to count the excess against subsequent fair-share requirements. The governor said the bill would reduce the amount of land available for residential development. While disappointing some cities, the veto pleased affordable housing advocates and the building industry.   • AB 2097 (Coto). Would have permitted Santa Clara County to use 5% of redevelopment housing set-aside funds for supportive services for extremely low-income households. • AB 2447 (Jones). Would have prohibited a county from approving a subdivision in a "very high fire hazard severity zone" or in an area where the state provides fire protection unless the county and responsible fire agency could make specific findings about fire safety and emergency services. Schwarzenegger said the bill would give the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection an inappropriate role in local land use decisions. The veto pleased real estate interests, builders and rural counties. • AB 2939 (Hancock). Would have authorized cities and counties to adopt green building standards that exceed state standards. Schwarzenegger said the bil was "unnecessary" and went too far.  • AB 2970 (Eng). Would have required the Department of Water Resources to prepare a "delivery reliability report" for the State Water Project. • SB 68 (Kuehl). Would have made clear that a developer whose project gets approved is a "real party in interest" in CEQA litigation. • SB 974 (Lowenthal). Would have imposed a fee on cargo containers going through ports in Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland to fund infrastructure and mitigate air pollution. This was perhaps the top bill for public health advocates, who note that studies have determined diesel pollution from California's ports are responsible for 3,700 premature deaths a year. Long Beach Democratic Senator Alan Lowenthal, who represents the area most impacted by port pollution, had a similar bill vetoed two years but took another run this year. Still, the governor found multiple reasons to reject the measure: It would increase costs on business; Proposition 1B already provides $4 billion for improving infrastructure and mitigating ports' impacts; the bill does little for the San Joaquin Valley, through which many cargo containers are trucked. Among those who urged a veto was Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who complained the bill would raise the cost of goods shipped to her state. • SB 1689 (Lowenthal). Would have required the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit its redevelopment audits and investigations to the attorney general and state controller for potential enforcement action. - Paul Shigley

One of my personal commitments during the last year or so to a more sustainable future is to take the train and transit whenever I travel if time and routes permit. At planning conferences during last year, eco-celebrity speakers Ed Begley, Jr. ("Living with Ed" on cable TV and a book with the same title) and Chris Balish ("How to Live Well Without Owning a Car") promoted their more eco-friendly life styles. My own experience demonstrates the danger in minimizing the difficulties of this choice for newbies like me and the work we as planners face to make transit a real option that a less committed person would try more than once � a truly sustainable lifestyle choice. None of this is news for the folks whose economic status makes transit-dependence a necessity. � The Amtrak San Joaquin has been a terrific option for business travel from Sacramento to Fresno. I work on the way and nap on the way home, neither of which is recommended while driving. If I miss the connection in Sacramento, I can drive to Stockton and catch the train there. The Amtrak station is in downtown Fresno near major public buildings, so even if I have a lot of boxes and files, it isn't any worse than the walk from the parking garage. The downsides are the lack of Internet access on the train and the unpredictable delays resulting from freight having priority for use of the same tracks that Amtrak uses. Having to transfer from train to bus on some schedules and routes is often a necessary accommodation. � Trains are also something of an acquired taste if one's travel expectations are set by air travel. The lack of cleanliness and maintenance of waiting areas and restroom facilities in bus and railway stations wouldn't be tolerated at an airport. Many train conductors and other personnel on railroads seem to be living out an image of the past heritage and culture of railroading, rather than being conscious of grooming and behavior standards prevalent in their primary competition � airlines. Eccentricity (however colorful and often amusing) seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Use of the PA system is taken as an art form rather than a means of communication. The vagaries of diction and often blaring volume make the results either unintelligible or just annoying. We're not talking about flight attendants' amusing patter or tossing little bags of peanuts around, but sharing critical information � like where to get off or make connections. � Finding the best routes and schedules for transit, especially when intermodal shifts between different agencies or operators are required to reach your destination, is very hit or miss. For example, I had an early morning meeting in Walnut Creek. I took the Capital Corridor Amtrak to Oakland the night before. The next morning I rode BART to Walnut Creek, and with a little difficulty figured out which bus route would take me to my destination. After the meeting, I was planning on returning to Sacramento on the Capital Corridor train. Although it would have been much shorter for me to catch the train in Martinez, I couldn't find the proper bus route to make the connection. Instead, I had to take BART back to Oakland and then catch a bus to the Amtrak station in Oakland. The Oakland "station" is not a readily identifiable location, but a stretch of track that runs down the middle of the street near Jack London Square. There was no signage directing me to the right platform and I wandered for several blocks in the wrong direction. Once on the train, we stopped at the Martinez intermodal station � and there was the bus from Walnut Creek that would have saved me about an hour. Unfortunately, the Bay Area transit 511 trip planner did not tell me the bus route existed. � Last year I traveled from Anaheim to the state American Planning Association conference in San Jose on an always-obliging Southwest flight. There is a convenient and free shuttle bus from the airport to San Jose's light rail line, which took me within a few blocks of my downtown hotel. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out which stop to get off and ended up walking with my bags on a warm, muggy night for many blocks through a dubious neighborhood along the rail line. The trip back to Sacramento was more of a puzzle, because there are no flights between Sacramento and San Jose, oddly enough. I tried searching on the 511 transit trip planner, but Sacramento is not included in the destinations listed. Finally, I noted that the Amtrak Capital Corridor route extends to San Jose (who knew?) but two different departure stations were listed for San Jose. I figured out with some difficulty which bus to take from near my hotel to the correct train station, but had to wander around before I could find the right platform (again no signage). � This year I traveled from Sacramento to the CCAPA conference in Hollywood. Southwest has good service to the Glendale/Burbank airport, which is more user friendly than LAX. I chanced to meet two other planners on my flight and we chipped in for a cab (CNG fueled) to the hotel in Hollywood at a reasonable cost, although I had originally planned on catching the bus identified in the conference materials. When I went to catch the bus for the return trip to the airport, I couldn't locate the bus stop with the correct route on the corner to which I had been directed. By good fortune, two other planners (with Caltrans in Sacramento no less) who were also having difficulty finding the stop spotted the bus just in the nick of time to catch it. The bus dropped us off at the airport entrance and we walked on a very hot day with our bags all the way to the terminal without being passed by one of the shuttle busses for which there was a prominent bus shelter near the entrance. Frequency of service seemed to be a problem. � The next week I had to return to downtown LA and chose to fly to LAX. After considerable hunting, I found I could take a free shuttle from the airport to the nearest Metro station. As it turned out, this bus ride was much longer and in the opposite direction than I had expected (still it was the closest station). The automated ticketing kiosk at the Metro station was obscure about what kind of ticket I needed to purchase to get downtown. The ticket said that it was only good for the Green Line and I could see on the map that I would have to change to the Blue Line and then the Red Line to get where I needed to go. I tried to buy another ticket before getting on the Blue Line, but the only ticket the machine spit out was for the Green Line, so I gave up and rode the Blue and Red in hopes it would be OK. � The wait for the train was significant. During the first leg of the journey, it was a bit disconcerting to have three burly and well-armed Sheriff's deputies get on the train escorting a prisoner in shackles. At another point, a second prisoner was brought on. The deputies made us change seats so they could isolate the prisoner. I wasn't quite as unnerved as the nice fellow I met who had just been released from jail and who was still wearing his jail-issue dark blue paper jumpsuit and canvas shoes because it was after hours and he couldn't reclaim his own clothes and car from the impound lot until the next morning. As everyone says about transit, you sure get to meet some interesting people. � With the waiting, free shuttle and three different trains, it took me more than two hours to get from LAX to my hotel downtown. It only cost me $2.50, although if I hadn't bought the second Green Line ticket, I could have made it for $1.25. Of course, it takes less than one and a half hours flight time from Sacramento to LAX, and I could park in the ramp right next to Sac Metro Terminal A.� Sac Metro Airport doesn't have transit access, I guess in part because the airport doesn't want to cut into the parking revenue needed to pay off the bonds that were issued to build the parking garage. For my return trip from the hotel to LAX I was short on time and took a cab. The driver was great. Although it was rush hour, he got me from the hotel to LAX in less than 40 minutes. It only cost me $50.00, including tip. � As I continue in my commitment to use transit whenever possible, I'll pass along observations of the good, the bad and the ugly. Finding and riding transit is sort of like working on a bad marriage � hard, but hopefully worth the effort in the long run.� To be continued . . . � � Joel Ellinwood Joel Ellinwood, AICP, is a land use and environmental lawyer and planner based in Rocklin.

With news of yet another Wall Street icon or banking giant tumbling arriving on an almost daily basis, the Congress and Bush administration enacting a massive $700 billion bailout to prevent a complete meltdown (which is probably only the first installment), and the stock market gyrating wildly with each new shockwave, planners may wonder what all this may mean for planning practice (that is, after they finish anguishing over their own pension plan or investment portfolio).   At a session called "Development Economics for Planners" at the recent California Chapter, American Planning Association annual conference, urban economist Tim Youmans of Economic Planning Systems told planners he had shortened his presentation to one power point slide, "Check back with me in two years." That was a joke, but Youmans did opine that lenders of all types that provide the capital essential to both public and private development projects can be expected to be much more conservative and risk sensitive. Even well-qualified borrowers with sound projects will have difficulty getting credit. Tighter loan-to-value and debt-income ratios will put the squeeze on sources of capital necessary to complete project financing. Youmans and his fellow panelist quipped that they had planned to include a developer as one of the presenters, but "we couldn't find any." Wry humor aside, the current crisis reinforces the need for planners to become more economically literate and develop a better understanding of market forces and how capital markets work to provide financing for development.   Consequences for Planners Local public agencies with planning staff funded by developer application fee revenue have seen activity decline dramatically, and budget cuts and layoffs occur as a result. Projects well along in the development approval pipeline are simply being abandoned in some cases. Others that are nursed along to final approval may require permit extensions or future amendments to incorporate value engineering to reduce costs that previous inflated housing prices could support, but which are not in line with the new economic reality. Even with extensions, some projects will simply never be built. Local governments are likely to be asked to renegotiate development agreements that promised community benefits that are no longer economically feasible. Falling home values will prompt homeowners to seek reassessment of their properties to reduce their property tax burden, a move that will further reduce public agency revenues.   Core Planning Policy Issues The congressional debate resonates with themes that are core issues for planners. Markets are praised or pilloried as the reason to do nothing so that foolishness is made to suffer the consequences or as the illustration of the emptiness of the ultimate market philosophy, "greed is good." Does regulation stifle the market's ability to respond to demand and drive down costs? Is regulation and rescue tantamount to socialism? Ideological purists of all kinds have plenty of fodder for their rants, but a balanced course of action based on a sound understanding of how markets work and what they can do well, and how they can fail, will provide the most constructive policy. The crisis is in large part a result of abuse or distortion of markets. Intermediaries (brokers, attorneys, accountants, bankers) created impossibly complex investment instruments. These investments were designed primarily to insulate the intermediaries from risk or liability, while also promising the improbability of secure investments with unsustainably high returns. All was fueled by promotion of spending beyond our means.   Capital - A Scarce Resource Critical to Positive Planning Outcomes Planning without taking into account market demand and at least a rudimentary knowledge of how development is financed leads to irrelevance and futility – wasting the technical expertise of planners and the political capital of public involvement in the planning process. Surrendering to mystical claims that a project "doesn't pencil out" or unsupported arguments of financial infeasibility won't work either. With a more sophisticated understanding, planners can tailor land use and environmental regulation to reduce risk and minimize costs for desired development models, and thus be more likely to attract capital in a world where we have become increasingly aware that it too is a finite resource. Like water seeks equilibrium, capital seeks to optimize risk and return. Markets, such as carbon credit trading and transfer of development rights, can also be effective planning tools. Trading the most efficient means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have the most impact the quickest and can be tuned to underwrite the most broadly beneficial development and conservation goals, such as transit and compact development. Transfer of development rights can capture the windfalls that planning and zoning entitlements can create, to compensate landowners for the wipeout of their expectations, and to preserve habitat and agricultural open space.   Markets are perhaps the biggest single factor affecting planning outcomes. Plans that ignore markets, and markets that do not capture externalities (like GHG, air quality, time stuck in traffic, loss of open space) because planning has failed to effectively incorporate them both need the increased understanding and attention of planners and policymakers in the land use arena.   – Joel Ellinwood, AICP Copies of the September 23, 2008, APA-CA session presentation "Development Economics for Planners and other Land Use Professionals" by Joel Ellinwood, AICP, and Tim Youmans, along with a list of further reading and resources is available at http://www.lawyer-planner.com .

The Stockton City Council voted 4-3 to accept a settlement with the Sierra Club and the attorney general's office of a lawsuit over a general plan update and environmental impact report adopted in December 2007. The Sierra Club and state attorneys argued that the city must consider the climate change impacts of the plan, under which the city's population could double to nearly 600,000 by 2035. City officials initially resisted, saying such impacts were too speculative to consider (see CP&DR Local Watch, February 2008 ). The settlement requires the city to: • Prepare within two years a climate action plan with specific reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled; • Provide incentives for development of at least 4,400 units of new housing in downtown and provide other infill incentives; • Limit outward growth until certain transit, jobs-housing, greenhouse gas emissions and other milestones are reached. • Adopt a green building program. • Approve development with better public transit and alternatives to cars. Although the attorney general's office has reached climate change settlements with several cities and counties, the agreement with Stockton "pushes the envelope," said Sally Magnani, supervising deputy attorney general. Three councilmembers opposed the settlement, saying it needed additional review. Stockton's development and business communities strongly lobbied against the agreement. In exchange for the settlement, the Sierra Club dropped its lawsuit and the attorney general's office agreed not to join the suit. The full settlement is available on the attorney general's website at http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1608_stocktonagreement.pdf . Merced County supervisors have approved a community plan and environmental impact report for one of the largest housing projects ever proposed in the Central Valley. Located on 6,200 acres of grasslands west of Interstate 5 near Santa Nella, the Villages of Laguna San Luis is proposed to contain 16,000 housing units to be built over 30 years. Specific plans still need to be adopted. A coalition of property owners has been pushing the project since the early 1990s, even though other huge subdivisions already approved in the area have gone unbuilt. Merced County officials have approved urban development in the area because it avoids the best farmland. Still, the county did have to remove 4,400 acres of the Laguna San Luis project site from the agricultural preserve. Detractors say that, although the housing tracts would be located adjacent to the California Aqueduct, there is not adequate assurance of water. There are also concerns about impacts to the rare kit fox. The California Planning Roundtable (CPR) issued a report during the California Chapter, American Planning Association conference called "Deconstructing the Jobs-Housing Balance" that says the issues involved are more complex than they are usually portrayed to be. Current and past CPR members found that statistics are not precise, and that contrary to popular belief there is no magic ratio that will provide traffic congestion relief. To better fight traffic congestion, the CPR recommends that planners emphasize the tradeoffs between housing affordability and travel costs, facilitate mixed-use, infill and contiguous development, consider congestion pricing and parking strategies, and design growth patterns that optimize transportation systems. The CPR report is available at http://www.cproundtable.org/ . Constructing a new federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles could cost $1.1 billion – a $700 million increase from the original estimates, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). In a report released in mid-September, the GAO cited design delays by the General Services Administration (GSA), little interest by contractors in the original project, and the federal judiciary's inability to agree with the GSA on the scope of the project. "It is clear that the current process is deadlocked," the GAO concluded. The Central District of California is one of the busiest district courts in the country, and current facilities at the Spring Street Courthouse and the nearby Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles are inadequate. Planning for a new 41-courtroom facility began during the late 1990s, and Congress authorized $400 million for the project, which was scheduled for completion in 2006. The GSA acquired and demolished a state office building at First Street and Broadway to make room for the new courthouse; however, the project has stalled. District court judges insist that operations should be housed under one roof, but the GAO found that building one large courthouse is the most expensive option. The GSA has suggested constructing a 20-courtroom facility or upgrading the Spring Street courthouse, and adding onto the Roybal building. Judges have rejected those alternatives. Less than a week after the GAO released its report, the U.S. Judicial Conference, which makes policy for the federal judiciary, approved a policy under which senior district court judges would be required to share courtrooms. That policy has the potential for reducing the size of the Los Angeles project.

In combination with the housing market crash, a water shortage has brought construction nearly to a halt in the Antelope Valley. Even if the market were to bounce back in the next year or two, it's unclear that water providers could serve a substantial number of new homes and businesses. The largest retail water provider in the area has been unwilling to guarantee water to new development since November 2007, stalling Lancaster's ambitious downtown redevelopment plan and jeopardizing proposed commercial projects and housing tracts. Meanwhile, a nine-year-old groundwater adjudication process grinds on, delaying potential groundwater banking projects. That's the bad news. The good news is that 11 local agencies have adopted the Antelope Valley integrated regional water management plan, which spells out ways that locals may stabilize, increase and make the best use of the water supply. Implementation of the plan has already begun. No one is saying, however, that carrying out the plan will solve all of the valley's problems. "The biggest challenge we have had is to try to see collaboration between local agencies and the water providers — to not step on each other's toes," said Laurie Lile, Palmdale assistant city manager. "It's been difficult to come to a consensus as to what we should be doing." Added Lorelei Oviatt, Kern County Planning Department special projects division chief, "Nobody planned for the fact that the State Water Project was not going to turn on the spigot." Located in the high desert of Northern Los Angeles and Eastern Kern counties, the Antelope Valley has been one of California's fastest growing areas. Driven largely by Los Angeles commuters seeking affordable single-family homes, the population has increased from about 100,000 people in 1970 to about 450,000 today. But the Antelope Valley is a dry place that gets only 7 inches of rainfall in an average year. The regional water plan is blunt about the situation: "The demand for water clearly exceeds even the higher estimates of currently available supplies. By 2010, the demand for water in an average year will be 274,000 acre-feet a year and by 2035 could be 447,000 AFY. … This means demand could exceed supply by 73,600 AFY in 2010 and by 236,800 AFY in 2035. The expected imbalance between supply and demand in 2035 is about the same as currently available supplies." How did the situation become so dire? The answers are multi-faceted but stem largely from a misapprehension about water supply and from a lack of cooperation among the numerous stakeholders. As a result, banking of water in aquifers during water years — a common practice in the San Joaquin Valley and parts of Southern California — has not begun in Antelope Valley. The Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency (AVEK), the area's largest water wholesaler, estimates the area could have captured 300,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of water from the State Water Project since 1992 had water banking facilities been available. In 1999, Diamond Farming filed a lawsuit asserting its rights to pump groundwater from under its East Antelope Valley fields. Bolthouse Farms, which combined with Diamond provides about 90% of the country's carrots, followed up with its own suit, as did other farmers, water suppliers, special districts, cities and landowners. The litigation is now in one large adjudication proceeding in Los Angeles County Superior Court that could ultimately result in specific allocations for specific entities. However, adjudication proceedings can last for decades – a proceeding for the Mojave River Valley took about 40 years – so some people are hoping a settlement is possible. Rosamond Community Services District (CSD) General Manager Jack Stewart is not hopeful, though. "There is major disagreement between the water pumpers and the agricultural interests. They are very far apart," he said. Agricultural interests, government agencies and individual property owners have been pulling about 150,000 acre-feet of water out of the ground every year, according to recent estimates. The sustained yield is often cited as 70,000 to 80,000 acre-feet. Farmers, however, reject the sustained yield figures and say they have the right to continue pumping at historic levels; some even argue they should be able to sell their "excess" water to the highest bidder. Meanwhile, land subsidence has started occurring in parts of the valley. The contentious groundwater situation has created reluctance over water banking because the agencies fear they might not be able to draw back all of the water they put into the ground. Still, creation of a groundwater bank is a high priority in the regional water plan, and the Rosamond CSD, Los Angeles County and other entities are prepared to start banking water — just as soon as some becomes available. That might not be anytime soon, as deliveries from the State Water Project continue to shrink. The Antelope Valley-East Kern agency supplies water to a number of retailers and also to agricultural and industrial users. AVEK's biggest customer is Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40,which serves portions of the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, as well as unincorporated territories. AVEK owns rights to 141,400 acre-feet from the State Water Project. According to the agency's 2005 urban water management plan, AVEK expects to receive about 70% of that allocation most years. However, consecutive dry years in Northern California combined with a court-ordered reduction in pumping from the Bay Delta to protect the endangered Delta smelt are drastically cutting into State Water Project deliveries (see CP&DR Environment Watch, February 2008). Russell Fuller, AVEK general manager, recently predicted the agency would receive only 10% of its allocation in 2009. Recognizing the situation, Waterworks District No. 40 last November stopped issuing "will-serve" letters to builders, and large projects that must prove a long-term water supply, whether from District No. 40 or elsewhere, have stalled. "There is no one," said Rosamond CSD's Stewart, "that is issuing will-serve letters in the Antelope Valley currently because no one knows whether they will have enough water." "We have been severely hurt in the building industry – in the housing and the retail and the commercial sectors," said Gretchen Gutierrez, executive officer of the Building Industry Association of Southern California's Antelope Valley Chapter. "We have no water in the valley. For nearly a year, we have been shut down. It's having an economic impact." The connection between land use planning and water management in the Antelope Valley has not always been strong, in part because the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster — which collectively house about two-thirds of the valley's 450,000 residents — do not provide water service. But the cities were eager participants in the regional water planning process and appear willing to assume larger roles in solving the water shortage. Palmdale has begun reconsidering its design standards, building codes and site layout requirements, Lile explained. The city, for example, may soon prohibit the installation of turf in the front yard of new houses. The city also cut its own water use by 31% this past summer. Officials are willing to reconsider the city's predominately low-density land use pattern. But it did not help, she said, when the Southern California Association of Governments directed Palmdale to plan for 17,000 units during the 2006 to 2014 regional housing needs allocation period (see CP&DR, September 2007 ). "The water situation may require that that we look more closely at the land use densities," Lile said. Lancaster Public Works Director Randy Williams, who has become Lancaster's point man on water, said his city is starting to have the same discussion. "People are beginning to realize that the higher density is not just an infrastructure efficiency issue, it's a water efficiency issue," he said. Lancaster is completing a water recycling system that will provide non-potable water to customers for irrigation. The city also is working on a pilot project for recharging groundwater with treated wastewater. Assuming the test project goes well, the city could put as much as 30,000 acre-feet a year of treated wastewater into the groundwater basin, Williams said. Palmdale and Lancaster officials and dozens of other stakeholders are putting their faith, and even their money, into the regional water management plan that was completed in late 2007. It calls for groundwater banking, recycled water projects, water reclamation, infrastructure improvements, riparian habitat restoration and even preparation of a coordinated land use management plan by Palmdale, Lancaster, Los Angeles and Kern counties, and the Antelope Valley Conservancy. The water management group composed of 11 public agencies is seeking state grants for the seven highest priority projects, although the application was passed over in May for a round of grants from Proposition 84. "We have space available for growth, and yet we are being slowed down because of something like this ," said Gutierrez, reflecting a common opinion in the Antelope Valley. "Some of it we can control locally, but we don't control the Delta." Antelope Valley water providers are not the only ones reconsidering long-term supplies. The Eastern Municipal Water District, which serves Western Riverside County south of Riverside, earlier this year approved water assessments for nine large projects only after demanding project modifications to reduce water usage. The district, which had delayed taking action for months, also insisted it could revisit the assessments as more information becomes available. Contacts: Randy Williams, City of Lancaster, (661) 723-6044. Laurie Lile, City of Palmdale, (661) 267-5100. Jack Stewart, Rosamond Community Services District, ((661) 256-3411. Gretchen Gutierrez, Antelope Valley Chapter, Building Industry Association of Southern California, (661) 949-6857. Antelope Valley Integrate Regional Water Management Plan: www.avwaterplan.org

Construction activity may have declined dramatically, but the number of ballot measures seeking to slow or guide growth remains high. Voters across California will face close to 50 growth-related local ballot measures in November. It's not unusual for the number of slow-growth measures to increase at the end of a real estate boom. Construction often continues and the real estate market dies, and slow-growth measures are often a reaction to construction rather than the market. In other words, slow-growth ballot measures are a lagging economic indicator of the real estate market. This November's total is down from the 78 measures on the November 2006 ballot, partly because California had two primaries this year. If past trends prevail, the slow-growth camp may be in for a big day in November. Two years ago, the slow-growth side won 62% of measures classifiable as slow- or pro-growth. At the November 2004 election, the sides essentially split. During the November 2002 election, the pro-growth side carried the day 19-13. A study prepared in 2000 by CP&DR and Solimar Research Group found that twice a growth backlash in the form of ballot initiatives did not hit until the market had turned sour. California cities and counties may be seeing a repeat in 2008, although results were mixed during voting in the February and June primaries. Planners remain uncomfortable with what some call "ballot box planning" and what others term "direct democracy." "Measures that go on the ballot are often poorly written and confusing, and voters don't know what they are about," Vivian Kahn, of Oakland's Kahn Mortimer Associates, said during the recent California Chapter, American Planning Association conference. One of the APA's leading experts on the subject, Kahn urges planners to play the role of educators. Woodie Tescher, vice principal for PBS&J in Los Angeles, sounded a similar note during the same roundtable discussion. Ballot measures in some cities appear to be knee-jerk reactions to increased congestion and density in the vicinity of transit stations, he said. Planners need to explain to the community how these nodes of congestion actually provide cumulative benefits, Tescher contended. A complete roundup of local ballot measure election results will be available on www.cp-dr.com on November 5. Here's a look at many of the big land use elections set for November 4. Alameda County The ballot in the City of Pleasanton contains competing measures – the citizen initiative PP and the City Council alternative, Measure QQ. Measure PP would prohibit houses on slopes of at least 25% and within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline, but it would exempt any project of 10 or fewer units. Measure PP also tightens the definition of a housing unit, which is important because Pleasanton has annual and ultimate housing caps approved previously by voters. The City Council's alternative would require the city to conduct a collaborative process to prepare a hillside and ridgeline protection ordinance. The long-controversial issue of hillside development in Pleasanton flared last year when the city approved the 51-lot Oak Grove subdivision for houses of at least 6,000 square feet apiece. Although the project also includes a dedication of 500 acre of open space, opponents prepared a referendum that appeared headed toward the June ballot. A Superior Court judge blocked the referendum because of signature-gathering irregularities. However, the ruling may have had the unintended consequence of providing political support for Measure PP. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties' East Bay Regional Park District, voters will decide on a $500 million bond to acquire parkland and develop facilities. On the Berkeley ballot is an initiative that would prohibit establishment of bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes – a reaction to an unpopular proposal for a BRT lane on Telegraph Avenue. Contra Costa County Voters in the Town of Moraga face competing ballot measures concerning lightly developed hillsides and ridges. Measure K would expand an open space zoning district by 1,700 acres. Development would be limited to 10- or 20-acre parcels with severe grading restrictions. Measure J is backed by landowner and developer David Bruzzone. Cast as a development agreement, Measure J would protect 320 acres as permanent open space but would allow housing development on about 130 acres that Measure K seeks to preserve. El Dorado County Ten years ago, voters approved Measure Y, an initiative that sought to block development that did not fully mitigate its traffic impact. Measure Y sunsets this year. In November, voters will decide on a less-stringent, 10-year extension. The revised Measure Y would apply only to single-family subdivisions of at least five units, permit the Board of Supervisors on a four-fifths vote to craft exceptions, and allow spending of federal and state funds for roads serving new development. Although the 1998 Measure Y was divisive, there is no organized opposition to the 2008 version. Los Angeles County Three fiscal measures top the ballot, while voters in several cities will also consider proposals to limit growth. Measure R is a half-cent sales tax that would generate an estimated $40 billion over 30 years for numerous transportation projects, including extensive rail and bus service expansions. Local officials are sharply divided over how the money should be spent, and the odds for the necessary two-thirds approval appear long. Voters also will decide two gigantic school bonds. The Los Angeles Unified School District has proposed a $7 billion bond – the largest local school bond in history – to fund ongoing classroom expansion and upgrade projects. Measure Q needs a 55% majority to pass. In addition, the Los Angeles Community College District has proposed a $3.5 billion bond to expand and modernize its facilities. A 55% majority is also needed for passage of Measure J. In Beverly Hills, opponents of a hotel and condominium project have qualified a referendum for the ballot. At issue is a plan approved in May to replace 217 rooms at the Beverly Hilton Hotel with a 170-room Waldorf Astoria and a conference center, construct up to 110 condominium units in two buildings of up to 18 stories, and provide 1,300 additional underground parking spaces. Officials estimate the project would generate $750 million for the city over 30 year. Opponents cite traffic as their primary concern. Santa Monica voters will decide the Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT), which would limit commercial development to a rolling five-year annual average of 75,000 square feet. In recent years, the city has permitted about twice that amount. Redondo Beach is another city where voters face competing ballot measures. The Building a Better Redondo initiative (Measure DD) is an overt slow-growth measure that would require voters to decide on any "major change in allowable land use," any project of more than 25 residential units or 40,000 square feet of floor area, and any project with a density of more than 8.8 dwelling units per acre. The City Council-backed alternative (Measure EE) would permit voters to decide on rezoning of residential, park and open space lands, as well as any proposal to increase the height limit in the coastal zone. For years, Redondo Beach officials have sought to redevelop the waterfront and the site of a power plant, as well as Torrance Boulevard. Those efforts, however, have met with stiff resistance. Marin and Sonoma counties A quarter-cent sales tax to fund development and operation of a commuter train from Cloverdale in the north to Larkspur in the south is back. In 2006, the measure received more than two-thirds support in Sonoma County but failed because of lukewarm support in Marin County. Also in Marin County is a referendum of the county's plan to construct public safety buildings of 83,000 and 7,500 square feet, respectively, on the east side of the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Civic Center. Project opponents argue that Wright designated the area for cultural and educational activities, so the county should build facilities for the sheriff's office and emergency radio operations elsewhere. Monterey County A 25-year, half-cent sales tax for transportation returns. In June 2006, 57% of voters backed a tax, which requires two-thirds approval. Nevada County City of Grass Valley voters will decide on both the Managed Growth Initiative (Measure Z) and the Limited Growth Initiative (Measure Y). Put forth by slow-growth advocates, Measure Z would prohibit changes to the general plan's land use element without voter approval. The initiative could force a vote on several large development proposals that are inconsistent with the land use element. Backed by Mayor Mark Johnson, Measure Y would place a cap on housing units until 2020 and require voter approval of boundary changes and annexations. Orange County Measure V in the City of San Clemente would prohibit rezoning or development of open space lands without voter approval. The measure follows on the heels of a February referendum vote blocking a condominium development on land now designated as open space, although it contains a private golf course. The unrelated Measure W is an advisory vote on the LAB North Beach project, a proposed retail/restaurant/office/parking development on three acres of city-owned land. Open space is also the issue in San Juan Capistrano, where Measure X would prohibit any change in designation of open space lands, and Measure Z would authorize the sale of $30 million in bonds to acquire and enhance open space. Measure BB in Yorba Linda would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development projects. Measure Z in Seal Beach would impose a 25-foot height limit on the Old Town area. San Bernardino County On the ballot in the City of Loma Linda is Measure T, which would permanently preserve 1,675 city-owned acres in the South Hills for open space and recreation. About 200 miles away in Needles, an advisory measure asks voters about a Fort Mojave Indian Tribe plan to build a casino on 300 acres of tribal land adjacent to Interstate 40, four miles west of town. San Diego County Possibly the most intriguing measure on any ballot is Proposition B, affecting the San Diego Port Authority. The initiative would amend the port district master plan to permit a private entity to build a 96-acre deck 40 feet above marine cargo facilities. The initiative's backers, businessmen Frank Gallagher and Richard Chase, say the deck could provide a site for a football stadium, a sports arena, a convention center expansion, parking or other amenities. Port district directors lost a lawsuit to keep the initiative off the ballot. Proposition B will appear in the port authority's five member cities – San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and Coronado Proposition A tackles the subject of fire protection. Since 2003, large conflagrations that have killed 27 people and destroyed more than 4,000 homes in San Diego County. Proposition A would establish a regional fire protection agency and impose a $52 annual parcel tax to fund the agency. Although many local elected officials back the measure, the two-thirds vote threshold could be a major hurdle. Slow-growth advocates in the City of San Marcos are behind Proposition O, which would bar most land use designation changes without voter approval. The measure purports to be retroactive to July 23, 2007 – which would block a 217-acre specific plan that seeks to create a dense, mixed-use downtown with extensive parkland (see CP&DR Places, September 2007). San Marcos voters will also decide Proposition N, a city-backed measure that would prohibit changes to the city's ridgeline protection overlay zone without voter approval. San Francisco Voters here face the usual lengthy ballot. This time, it includes an $887 million bond to fund a seismically safe replacement for San Francisco General Hospital (Measure A), establishment of an affordable housing trust fund (Measure B), and creation of an historic preservation commission (Measure J). San Luis Obispo County An initiative intended to block a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter is the talk of Atascadero. Measure D-08 would limit retail stores to 150,000 square feet, and would limit stores with 5% of floor space dedicated to nontaxable goods (i.e. groceries) to 90,000 square feet. San Mateo County Redwood City voters may choose from land use measures that appear somewhat similar. Backed by environmental groups, Measure W would prohibit development of open space, tidal plains, and bayfront without two-thirds voter approval. The initiative is aimed at potential development of 1,400 acres of former salt flats owned by Cargill. The City Council-backed Measure V would prohibit development of the Cargill property without majority voter approval. Santa Barbara County Measure A would extend a sales tax for transportation for 30 years. The existing quarter-cent tax is scheduled to expire in 2010. Measure W would double the rate. Two years ago, an extension of the quarter-cent tax failed to garner two-thirds voter support. In Buellton, Measure E would prohibit prior to 2025 the expansion of the city limits or the extension of sewer or water service beyond the boundaries without voter approval. Measure F would impose the same requirements but only through 2014. Santa Clara County A one-eighth cent sales tax to provide additional funding for a BART extension to San Jose is on the ballot as Measure B. The tax would be in addition to an existing half-cent sales tax for BART and other transportation projects. The new tax would be collected only if the Federal Transit Administration contributes $750 million to the BART project. Meanwhile, Measure C is a required advisory vote on the Valley Transportation Plan 2035. Measure D would eliminate the requirement that future transportation plans be subject to advisory votes. In the City of Morgan Hill, voters will decide on the city-backed Measure H, which would modify a housing cap to permit development of 500 units in downtown. An initiative seeking to overturn the city's inclusionary zoning and affordable housing policies, however, will not appear on the ballot because a Superior Court judge ruled it would conflict with state housing law. Solano County Measure T asks voters to extend a slightly modified version of the existing Orderly Growth Initiative and ratify an updated county general plan. Scheduled to expire in 2010, the Orderly Growth Initiative prohibits most development of agricultural lands and directs growth to incorporated cities. Voters rejected an effort to extend those restrictions two years ago, but that opposition appears to have faded. Stanislaus County Measure S is the latest attempt for a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation. The tax would last 20 years and half of the revenue would pay for repairing and upgrading city streets. Ventura County Oxnard voters will decide what might be the most draconian growth-control measure on this fall's ballot. Measure V would require voters to decide on any development project of at least 5 residential units or 10,000 square feet of commercial, retail or industrial space that is proposed within five miles of an intersection with a level of services worse than C. Essentially, the measure would put every project before voters. Councilman Tim Flynn, who is also challenging incumbent Tom Holden for mayor, is Measure V's chief proponent. Both the business community and organized labor have come out against Measure V. In Fillmore, Measure I would limit development in the North Fillmore Area to 350 housing units, instead of the planned 700.