Tulare County is a diverse 4,800 square miles, with extensive, mountainous public lands in the east, and some of the country's most fertile farmland in the west. It encompasses the Sequoia Park, parts of the Giant Sequoia National Monument and Sequoia National Forest, and every year hosts the World Ag Expo. How all of these diverse elements fit into a single general plan is the question that has vexed planners and stakeholders alike for the better part of the past decade.   While many cities and counties across the state have been promoting compact development through their recent general plan updates, critics contend that Tulare County's update does the opposite. Or it would if ever it was approved.  On October 19, the County Planning Commission postponed a decision on whether to recommend the General Plan Update to the Board of Supervisors, and instead voted to continue public comment on the plan during its next meeting, November 16, and directed the county Resource Management Agency to respond to critics of the plan, a coalition that includes the Sierra Nevada Alliance, Tulare County League of Women Voters, and the Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club.  In 2003, the Tulare County Board of Supervisors direct the county Resource Management Agency to update their previous plan. That plan, adopted in 1964 and amended in piecemeal fashion, became, in the words of Dave Bryant, division manager for the TCRMA's Special Projects, unusable.  The goal for the current update cycle was to modernize the plan, creating a single reference that would have both the breadth necessary for the next 20 years, and incorporate the changes in planning and environmental concerns introduced over the last 50 years, such as an emphasis on nodal transportation planning and fully integrating mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act.  The update was supposed to conclude in the fall of 2005. However, requirements of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act passed in 2006, required the county to submit a Climate Action Plan, which has meant even more delays in the process.  The new plan comprises three large subplans: the Rural Valley Lands Plan, Foothill Growth Management Plan and Mountain Framework Plan, along with a passel of previously adopted sub-area plans, including newly designated hamlet community plans and corridor plans based on projected growth, especially around Highway 99 and State Route 65.  As new policies, the plan "shall encourage" maintaining distinct urban boundaries, development based on existing infrastructure, and consistent land use within urban and hamlet development boundaries. The plan will also ensure that new development doesn't occur without adequate infrastructure, including access to potable water. Tulare County's rural population pulls primarily from groundwater wells, and a 2006 survey of those wells by the State Water Control Board found that of 20,000 private wells, 40 percent had unsafe levels of nitrates; more recently, a U.N. Human Rights Commission report also voiced concerns about Tulare County's water quality. The plan was presented for public comment in 2008 but has been mired in debate ever since. Which will begin the next phase for the county: Defending the plan.  From the beginning, there have been concerns raised about the level of planning in both the update and the Environmental Impact Report. The initial Draft EIR did not include a greenhouse gas inventory, nor a Climate Action Plan; remedying that led to the recirculated DEIR of 2008. That RDEIR led to a scathing letter from the desk of Susan Fiering, Deputy Attorney General, in May 2010. The letter holds that "the General Plan relies on unenforceable policies that ‘encourage,' but do not mandate that growth will occur in certain areas, with the result that all important development decisions are left to the marketplace."  Fiering's letter continues to describe the plan as an "aspirational document" that fails to exercise control over growth, saying that the open-ended nature of the plan means that accurate description of the impacts is impossible, and that the DEIR neither considers nor imposes enforceable mitigation measures.  Lynda Gledhill, spokeswoman for the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris, says that they are reviewing the current iteration of the plan and final EIR, and that the attorney general is very concerned about the ramifications for the predominantly Latino and disadvantaged communities throughout Tulare County. If the plan hasn't changed substantively, the letter, including its implicit threat of lawsuit, "would speak for itself." Similar comments were made by the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, and by a coalition of critics including the Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah chapter, the Sierra Alliance and the Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth.  Gordon Nipp, vice-chair of the Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club, is incensed over what he sees as a lack of enforcement and performance criteria, and rejects the planners' and supervisors' arguments for keeping the plan flexible.  "It's so flexible that the county doesn't have to do anything," he said. "Flexibility allows the good ol' boys network to run things."  Nipp cited a range of issues, from relying on coordination with state and area agencies to mitigate air pollution rather than a specific county plan, saying that the only local mandate comes from the Air District's indirect source rule, to farmland loss, to water quality — none of which are adequately addressed, according to Nipp.  "They don't have any mitigation methods — They haven't done any in the past, they're not committing themselves to any now, so why would we think that they're going to do so in the future?" asked Nipp. He said that if the planning commission and Board of Supervisors adopt the plan as its currently written, a lawsuit from the Sierra Club is likely, noting that the Sierra Club prevailed over the city of Tulare in a similar lawsuit.  Rich McIntyre, Campaign Director of the Sierra Nevada Alliance, concurs with Nipp.  "Instead of having infill, this plan has sprawl," says McIntyre. He says that the Board of Supervisors has taken the position that it's not their place to direct growth. "From the perspective of the alliance, that is exactly the role of supervisors. This plan is an abnegation of their role."  McIntyre cites the recent plans in Mariposa and Nevada counties as solid and sustainable, and brings up a specific sore spot for many of the critics of the plan — a proposed development in Yokohl Valley that would comprise 30,000 new residents and 56 square miles of new urban development for the county, also cited by Nipp as one of the big beneficiaries of the new plan. McIntyre says that the Yokohl Valley east of Visalia development would be prevented by the sort of plans adopted in Mariposa and Nevada counties, but not in Tulare County. "The plan basically allows new development whenever, development wherever. Either you're going to have infill and infrastructure replacement, or you're encouraging sprawl," McIntyre said, emphasizing that the situation is especially dire for lower-income residents. "It's the disadvantaged communities that always pay the price for bad planning."  McIntyre also complains that the comments made by critics haven't been adequately integrated into the final revision.  "The comments we made were extensive, and there has been no movement. The supervisors have dug in their heels."  Supervisor Steve Worthley disagrees: "We went through a process of public comment — we're not proposing any drastic changes or anything out of the character of Tulare." Likewise, he says that the complaints miss the point of the document.  "It's a general plan — you're very careful to avoid specifics," said Worthley, adding that projects would be evaluated individually, with details appropriate for those projects. The plan itself does contain roughly 50 pages of responses to the public comments, and specifically addresses the complaints about the enforceability of the "should" (as opposed to "shall") language repeatedly used in the general plan. The argument, from Brian A. Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage," is that the "should" language creates a directory provision, requiring "substantial compliance only; not exact compliance." The RMA sees this as allowing for the necessary flexibility required for a truly general plan, saying in their response, "'Should,' as used in General Plan policy development, is a less rigid directive to be honored in the absence of compelling or contravening considerations …  They are clear expressions of the policy makers' (i.e. Board of Supervisors) intent to rely on the subject policy to guide relevant decisions, and so must be recognized and analyzed in such decisions." The responses also address complaints over the level of detail, holding that beyond the statutory requirements, counties have wide latitude in implementation, and that the implementation in Tulare County will be primarily set by lower-level and more local regulations.  "The general plan, in addition to being a policy document, is a guide — there will be a host of implementation policies as it proceeds, specifically updating zoning and ordinance codes," said Bryant.  And while McIntyre has complained that the county is asking critics to take the assertions of smart growth and effective mitigation efforts on faith, Bryant responds by cataloguing the outreach process: "There have been multiple public outreach efforts during the general plan process. After release of the 2008 version of the plan staff has included recommendations to improve clarity in the land use element, provide for long-term sustainability of water resources, and initiated a climate action strategy. In 2010 and 2011, staff conducted 26 public outreach meetings in the 8 cities and unincorporated communities."  Some critics have been mollified — the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment said that the changes made between the 2008 plan and the current revision shifted from a policy of essentially leaving poor rural communities to wither in order to shift growth to more urban areas, to supporting them with infill and infrastructure, especially through the new Hamlet designation. Alegria de la Cruz, legal director of the CRPE, said that the changes meant that while the CRPE still had concerns over the implementation process, they would work with local partners to ensure the interests of their constituents, rather than further participating in the planning process.  According to Worthley, part of the problem that smaller communities in Tulare County have, especially with regard to water supply and utility infrastructure, is one of scale, and that the updates to the general plan address that.  "We're trying to get them to a level of self-sufficiency. We're suffering some of the consequences of a failure to grow these communities, and we're looking to share the opportunities," said Worthley. Worthley is confident that the plan will pass the next hurdles, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.  "We're feeling good. We feel good about the plan and the direction of this county, which is in line with our history." But for opponents of the plan, passing at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would mean taking their case to the courts. Once the plan is approved, a lawsuit is very likely, said McIntyre.  Ultimately, the disputes over the adequacy of the language in the Tulare County general plan are legal questions. To resolve them will probably require litigation, which will only further delay the comprehensive update. For now, anyone seeking to build or develop in Tulare County will have to make do with the filing cabinets.  Bryant is circumspect. "The county has done its due diligence, circulated a final EIR. At the end of the day, the planning commission will decide the fate. There will be concerns that will be raised and concerns that will be addressed. At this point, it's premature to speculate on satisfying everyone." Contacts & Resources: Tulare County General Plan Update: http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/index.html Josh Steichmann is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.

Probably too much has been written about the Tea Party movement already--which may be emerging as a distinctive voice in land use politics (see CP&DR Vol. 26, No. 15 August 2011)--but sometimes the urge to comment is irresistible.  In a few short years the Tea Party movement has already proven itself as much a celebration of negativity as it is a political movement, no more so than when it dabbles in land use policy.  The latest comes from Lodi, where Tea Party activists last month convinced the city council to delay the acceptance of a $120,000 federal grant to help it implement SB 375.  That's right: the Tea Party hates Washington so much that it won't accept its money, even when that money is free.  Why would they do such a thing? Because they do not want Lodi to come under the sway of nefarious undemocratic powers.  Somehow the ghosts of Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, and Hancock have convinced Tea Party activists that SB 375 -- and seemingly all other manifestations of smart growth -- is a tentacle of the United Nations' "Agenda 21." I have to hand it to the Tea Party for a moment. "Agenda 21" does sounds menacing. What it really should be called is "Some nice things that countries and cities can do to ensure that they don't starve to death, exhaust their energy supplies, or fall into the ocean--but only if they want to."   Be that as it may, the Tea Party seems to be confusing "conspiracy" with "something that's just a good idea." There are lot of good ideas floating around out there. If the U.N. were to say, promote nutrition, women's rights, education, and democracy, should we reject those things too? Oh yeah, it does .  I'd say that this kerfuffle about smart growth is the opposite of a conspiracy. The last time I checked, the road to global domination did not being in Lodi. Crying about the UN is like praying that you'll sink the next putt. Jesus doesn't care about your golf score, and, well, I think it's safe to say that the UN cares even less about Lodi.  If the creation of compact cities is really a conspiracy, then we can find its influence in slightly less obscure places. Maybe, New York, Tokyo, and London, for starters.   We can certainly debate the merits of smart growth. In fact, we can debate the merits of SB 375. In fact, it would be a lousy piece of conspiracy mainly because many people think that it's not strong enough. Rather than force residents into urban high rises, it calls for 8% reductions in per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Eight percent means carpooling to the stock car races instead of driving in a caravan.   Back to that $120,000. These funds aren't just for Lodi to conduct a grand experiment on an unwitting population. It's to fulfill a state mandate to implement SB 375, which assumes that managed growth is probably better than haphazard growth. That means that it's going to have to spend the money one way or another -- and if Lodi is like the rest of the cities in California, then it doesn't have the money.  The reason it has to spend it is that a few years ago something called the democratic process wrapped its icy fingers around the State of California and caused the passage of SB 375. That process included open debates and votes by legislators (of both parties) and approval of the dude who was then the state's Republican governor.  But it's no wonder that none of this fazes the Tea Party. The website of the California Tea Party Patriots still features that same governor on its website. It even urges citizens to "tea bag" him. I hate to break it to the Patriots, but Arnold is no longer in office. And has almost certainly been tea-bagged already.  And if they don't know what that means, well, they probably can't figure out what smart growth is either.

After yesterday's California Supreme Court oral argument in California Redevelopment Association vs. Matosantos – the lawsuit challenging the state's new pay-ransom-or-die redevelopment system – it's still hard to tell where the court will go. But the biggest question that emerged was: What happens it the court upholds AB 1x 26, which abolishes redevelopment, but strikes down AB 1x 27, which permits redevelopment agencies to continue to exist if they pay a "remittance" to the state? Apparently it's a plausible scenario given the nature of Proposition 22, the successful 2010 initiative that sought to protect redevelopment funds from being raided by the state. AB 1x 26 might survive a constitutional challenge on the theory that, while Prop. 22 amended the constitution to prohibit raids, it didn't explicitly protect redevelopment itself, meaning redevelopment agencies can be killed by statute. However, because AB 1x 27 calls for "remittances" to the state, that could be interpreted violating Prop. 22. The net effect of upholding AB 1x 26 and striking down AB 1x 27, of course, would be to kill redevelopment completely – a worse outcome than the redevelopment agencies got from the Legislature and the governor.  The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody, obviously would prefer that both laws be upheld. Steven Mayer of San Francisco's Howard, Rice law firm – representing the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities – said AB 1x 26 "is the whole ballgame to my clients". Meanwhile, James Williams of the Santa Clara County Counsel's office argued passionately to uphold AB 1x 26 and strike down AB 1x 27. All three lawyers were pepped with questions during the 70-minute oral argument. Much of the questioning had to do with whether or not the remittances were truly voluntary and whether cities had any options for paying the remittance other than using tax-increment funding. AB 1x 27 could fall if the court found that the remittances are not voluntary and/or that the cities must use tax-increment funding to pay them – which would appear to be a violation of Proposition 22.  Moody argued that, in a facial challenge, the court had no choice but to accept the "voluntary" contribution idea at face value.  "It's hard to argue it's a voluntary payment," Justice Carol Corrigan said. "Everybody gets paid," Moody responded. "Is that so bad?" "It is if you want to keep doing redevelopment," Corrigan said. "That's a facile argument – they get to continue to exist just as long as they are wrapping things up."  Moody called the remittance program not a ransom but, rather, "a legislative offer to participate in a program." Not even all of the justices appeared to take that one seriously. "We're from the government and we're here to help you?" Justice Kathryn Werdegar gently mocked. And a lot of the questioning focused on whether cities would any alternative in paying the remittances other than using tax-increment funding. Moody, of course, argued that it was entirely possible – and, in fact, heartily agreed with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye asked whether cities could pass a tax increase to pay the remittances. Mayer, on the other hand, basically argued that most cities have no other source of funds, so the practical reality is that they will have to use tax-increment financing to pay the remittances, possibly in violation of Prop. 22.  Williams from Santa Clara County made a passionate pitch that AB 1x 27 is unconstitutional. That's not surprising considering the pickle the county is in. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency – once of the richest and most powerful agencies in the state – does not appear to have the money to pay the remittance; but if San Jose can figure out how to do so, the county will be out an enormous amount of money. Mayer spent his final presentation responding to Williams and making what appeared to be circuitous arguments about why the two laws could not be severed – even though there is a severability clause in the language. Mayer noted at one point that, regardless of the statute, "The Legislature designed 27 because they wanted agencies to op-in....the Legislature did not intend to end redevelopment."  The court is expected to rule by mid-January, when the first installment of the remittance payments is due.

Oral arguments in  California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos , the lawsuit by CRA and League of CA Cities seeking to invalidate Assembly Bills 1X 26&27, will be heard in the California Supreme Court tomorrow, Thursday Nov. 10, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. The  CRA and League of California Cities contend the legislation is unconstitutional, violating recently-passed Proposition 22 and other provisions of the state constitution. CP&DR will be blogging the hearing, which will take place in the Earl Warrren Building in Sacramento.  For background, please see previous CP&DR coverage:  CRA, League Sue to Overturn Redevelopment Remissions

The Malibu Bay Company (MBC) owns the last undeveloped beach front parcel in Malibu, a 2.08-acre, 200-foot-wide parcel. In order to accommodate its proposed division into four parcels, MDC proposed an amendment to the Local Implementation Plan of Malibu's local coastal plan in order to create a new zoning district which would allow for lot widths of 45 feet, a decrease from the, then existing, standard of 80 feet. Despite opposition from neighbor Deane Ross, MBC's request to subdivide the property was ultimately successful following the ruling of the Second District Court of Appeals in Ross v. California Coastal Commission.  As the application advanced to the City Council, council staff ultimately recommended that the required width for all parcels in same district as MBC's property was located in, be reduced to the 45-foot standard. Altogether, this change would impact 733 parcels, although as staff noted, a majority of the existing parcels were already substandard to the 80-foot width standard. Staff further determined that only five parcels (including MBC's) were capable of further division under the proposed 45-foot standard. Two of the five were subject to additional legal limitations precluding further re-division, leaving only two parcels in addition to MBC's. Staff concluded that any further re-division of those parcels would require a coastal development permit and CEQA review.  Concluding that there would be negligible direct and cumulative effects on aesthetics, biological resources and land use and planning, staff recommended acceptance of a negative declaration. Due to the presence of an environmentally fragile sand dune area, and based further upon a dune study submitted by the applicant's biologist, mitigation for dune species was required. The City Council eventually approved a revised mitigated declaration, and conditionally granted the approvals, subject to Coastal Commission approval. Neighbors opposed the approval of the entitlements, and submitted a biologist study indicating potential impacts to sensitive species. Further review at the Commission resulted in conflicting recommendations from applicant, city and commission staff biologists as to the desired setback from the sensitive area, which is a habitat for the Globose dune beetle, which is considered a "species of concern" by the federal government. Commission staff eventually recommended a less aggressive setback then that proposed by its own consultant, based, in part, on a restoration requirement. The Commission staff also recommended a change to the view corridors as well. Neighbors continued to oppose the project at the Commission level. Immediately prior to the Commission hearing, Commission staff issued an addendum staff report, and recommended a further change to the LCP plan amendment. The Commission approved the amendment on a 10-1 vote in June of 2008. The matter was remanded to the Town of Malibu who adopted concurring revisions, and Commission staff ultimately certified compliance with the Commission's approvals, and the approvals took effect.  The neighbors filed suit. The trial court granted partial relief. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, ruling in favor of the town and the Coastal Commission. In the published portion of the decision, the appellate court addressed a number of procedural and substantive issues.  The first substantive issue dealt with the setback for the dunes, an environmentally sensitive area. The town's general plan specified a 100-foot setback, whereas the local implementation plan of the local coastal plan allowed for a reduced setback. As there were reports in the record from the applicant's and town biologists on this subject, the court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's imposition of a 5-foot setback. As to the application of these two different standards, the court held that the Commission's interpretation was entitled to deference.  The court then addressed the CEQA claims, in the context of a certified equivalent CEQA process as authorized by CEQA and the Coastal Act. The first matter for consideration was whether or not CEQA's review period for EIRs (30 days; Public Resources Code section 21091) applied, or in the alternative, the 13-day review period utilized by the Commission was sufficient. The appellate court held that the Commission's certified regulatory program was exempt on the basis that the Secretary of the Resources Agency had certified the Coastal Commission's regulations which included the shorter, seven-day time period. It was too late to challenge the validity of the shorter review periods under the Coastal Act.  The Commission also successfully argued to the appellate court that under CEQA procedures, it acted as a responsible agency, and therefore the many requirements and steps necessary for preparation of the appropriate CEQA document did not apply. The appellate court also upheld the sufficiency to the responses to the general public comments by the Commission.  The opponents also challenged the trial court's decision regarding the underlying analysis to the cumulative impact analysis, which analysis concluded that only two other lots were capable of additional division. In the face of the argument that owners of other lots may in the future combine them and seek re-division, the court, as had the court in Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 23, No. 2 , Jan. 2008), concluded that the agency was not required to speculate as to what might happen in the future and, in any event, such development would be subject to regulation under the local coastal plan.  The final CEQA issue pertained to the trial court's decision requiring that CEQA required a concurrent examination of the two existing lots which were capable of further division. Reversing, the appellate court observed "It is unreasonable to require the commission, city or developer to conduct a biological assessment on developed property they do not own and for which there is no reason to expect will be subdivided. Should these two developed lots be subdivided in the future, their owners will need to obtain a coastal development permit…"   The Case:  Ross v. California Coastal Commission B225796, 2011 DJDAR No. B225796. Filed and ordered published, September 9, 2011.  The Attorneys:  Elkins Kalt Weintraud, John M. Bowman and Reuben Gartside for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, John A. Saurenman, Assistant Attorney General, Christina Bull Arndt and Wyatt E. Sloan-Tribe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant California Coastal Commission. Christi Hogin, City Attorney, Jenkins & Hogin and John C. Cotti for Defendant and Appellant City of Malibu. William W. Abbott is a partner in the firm of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

Forget about setbacks, traffic counts, and environmental impact reports. A new nationwide initiative suggests that planners and community development officials should be focusing as much on canvases, scripts, and jam sessions—especially if those planners are in California.  Last month, 11 national foundations plus the National Endowment for the Arts announced the founding of ArtPlace America, a nationwide initiative to drive revitalization in cities and towns with a new investment model that puts the arts at the center of economic development. The launch of Artplace, based in Chicago, coincided with the awarding of $11.5 million in grants to community-oriented arts organizations nationwide.  Of the 34 grants, eight of them went to organizations in California; no other state received more than three. These ranged from a project in San Francisco – not a surprise – to an "Art and Ag" project in Yolo County. They reinforce the widely held belief that in a down economy, the arts – and the foundations that support them – can play a critical role in stimulating urban revitalization. The aim of the grants is not only to support individual organizations but also to promote economic development and even revitalization of the respective urban fabrics where the organizations are located. Artplace operates on the principal that the arts, though they often lack the monumental physical presence of factories and office buildings, can contribute just as much to a local economy as can conventional businesses and housing programs.   "We are acting very deliberately to affect place and we believe vibrancy is the best proxy for quality of place, and quality of place is of course essential to attracting and retaining talent," said Carol Coletta, executive director of ArtPlace. "And attracting and retaining talent is essential to economic success in places."  According to research by Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, planning professor at the University of Southern California, and others, artists are not mere gentrifiers, spiffing up a neighborhood and kicking out longtime residents only to commute to work elsewhere. Rather, they keep their activities local and create economic multipliers in relatively small radii, especially when artists' residences, studios, galleries, and watering holes arise next door to each other. This pattern, according to Currid-Halkett, dates back at least to the revitalization of New York's SoHo in the 1970s.   "The arts have been thought of as icing on the cake," said Currid-Halkett. "But if you look at the cases of some of the most successful neighborhoods in the world, there's a real presence of the arts and cultural industries." Among the eight grant recipients in California, some have direct connections to the built environment, whereas others are more ephemeral (see sidebar). The preponderance of grants in California suggests that the state's creative economy—at least that which does not involve the mass-market entertainment industry—is getting its due.  "I think California's reputation has not been as big as the actual art that exists here," said Currid-Halkett. "Los Angeles and San Francisco have huge concentrations of artists doing incredibly interesting work and I don't think it has the global reputation it ought to….Hopefully, for California's sake, the NEA's investment will have the spillover effect of actually creating the California art brand that it should have had years ago."  Artplace officials hope that these projects will catalyze local development in a way that traditional local government programs could not.  "If you think about the trajectory of community development, in the beginning, it was thought of as investments in housing," said Coletta. "Over time, it became clear that that's not enough. We need to have more complete communities." The grants, though small in the scheme of the California economy, come at an opportune moment in light of the state's budget crisis and especially the woes of its redevelopment agencies.  "It could help our redevelopment problems," said Currid-Halkett. "If there's one thing that artists tend to do historically, it is act as change agents in neighborhoods. They seem to set off a series of other kinds of activities, whether it's galleries, coffee shops, or restaurants, and those draw other residents."  Crucially, the arts generally require physical places, including neighborhoods where artists interact and buildings where they produce and display their work. That is a crucial distinction from those types of commerce that can take place online or that can be outsourced.  "Everybody's on Facebook and cell phones and everybody feels massively connected through the Internet, and yet the arts still continue to be one of the places where we connect," said Dani Thomas, executive director of grant recipient YoloArts. "And then you keep the money local." Representatives of the Berkeley Repertory Theater say that this process has already occurred in downtown Berkeley and that the Artplace grant may enable it to happen again in west Berkeley. The theater is establishing its Ground Floor incubator on Harrison street in a forlorn industrial district. The company expects to attract as many as 50 visiting dramatists, in addition to dozens of staff that will occupy offices there.  "It's an opportunity to do to a new neighborhood what (we did) in downtown Berkeley," said Meghan Pressman, managing directof of the Berkeley Rep. "Harrison Street is definitely a neighborhood in need of revitalization.  We're hoping to turn it into an incubator home that attracts new businesses." But the Artplace philosophy does not apply only to urban areas. One of its grants is helping to fund the Arts & Ag Project of YoloArts, which serves largely rural Yolo County. The project is intended to bring "artists out from their studios and farmers off of their farms," said Thomas. It is also promoting the display of art in unconventional places, such as gallery spaces in corner drug stores. The idea, says Thomas, is to demonstrate that art does not need to be the sole provenance of cosmopolitan elites.  "We're not Carmel, so we don't have a gallery every other building," said Thomas. "It's opened up the opportunity to start working with general businesses." The fact that Yolo County is not Carmel – and that Watts isn't SoHo – is central to the mission of Artplace's grants. Coletta said that Artplace is deliberately giving grants to organizations that it believes can be catalytic in communities. But it is not choosing communities prima facie, either because they have thriving arts scenes or because they might seem like fertile ground.  "We believe that investments in artists and arts organizations who have a passion for this work and for their community are the ones where we want to make investments," said Coletta.  "That is," said Currid-Halkett, "a sound strategy."  "I don't think with the arts it's, ‘if you build it they will come.' I think it's ‘build around what's already there,'" said Currid-Halkett.  Building, however, may be only half the battle. The other part lies in the permission to build environments that complement the work that arts organizations are attempting to do. Currid-Halkett noted that the typical arts neighborhood includes large spaces, live-work spaces, and often requires inexpensive real estate that fits artists' budgets. In the past, zoning and other regulations have all but forbidden such neighborhoods in cities nationwide. Halkett said that planners deserve credit for letting artists colonize SoHo.  "There was this choice to root them out and what they actually did was rezone for the artists to live and work there," said Currid-Halkett. "That is an absolute planners decision." Many Artplace grant recipients are hoping for similar cooperation from the public sector in their respective jurisdictions.  "There are certain factors that enable vibrancy, and planners know very well what those factors are: Create a better public realm, and tend to buildings where they hit the streets," said Coletta.  In some places, public sector officials are cooperating enthusiastically. Thomas, of YoloArts, said that she initially drew incredulous reactions from county officials who did not think that the arts had a place in either agriculture or economic development. Those attitudes appear to have changed.  "The health and the dynamism of an arts program in a jurisdiction is a key indicator of quality of life," said Ervin. Ervin noted that quality of life is almost impossible to measure – and, therefore, may not get much attention from public officials – but that it can be worthwhile.  "I'm not sure how much economic activity arts generates directly or whether that could be measured easily," said Yolo County Economic Development Director Wes Ervin. "It certainly enhances the experience of the visitor and…makes the place more attractive and, therefore, encourages placemaking."  Ultimately, Coletta said that the Artplace movement should extend beyond just the 34 recipients of the initial grants and even beyond future recipients. Instead, she hopes that other communities and organizations, in California and elsewhere, will cultivate their own arts communities and creative industries.     "We hope to invest not only in projects that will move the needle on vibrancy in their communities but also those projects that we can learn from and that others can learn from," said Coletta. ArtPlace America Grant Recipients in California: Bay Area (14 Counties): The Creative Work Fund provides grants and other means of support so that artists can collaborate with community-based nonprofits.   Berkeley: The Berkeley Repertory Theater's Ground Floor is an innovative incubator for new dramatic works. It is being established on a campus in an industrial area of west Berkeley.  Los Angeles: The Watts House Project enlists artists, designers, and architects to work on a range of community revitalization projects and programs around the Watts Towers.  Los Angeles: Good Magazine Ideas for Cities describes itself as a "continuing brainstorm" on the future of cities, in collaboration with CEOs for Cities.   San Francisco: Intersection for the Arts is partnering with developer Forest City on the "5M Project," which involves the redevelopment of four downtown acres near 5th Street and Mission. The property includes the old San Francisco Chronicle building, empty parking lots and vacant warehouses into space for film and digital-media businesses, artists' workshops, social-entrepreneur offices and cultural events. San Jose: 1st ACT Silicon Valley s a network of business, civic and arts leaders working to foster cultural engagement and help create an authentic sense of place and cultural identity for Silicon Valley. San Jose: Zero1 commissions local artists to create works that explore the relationship between culture and technology.  Yolo County: YoloArts Arts & Ag Project cultivates a dialogue between artists, farmers, and the community to raise awareness of the importance of preserving working landscapes, to promote sustainable agriculture and visual arts in Yolo County.  Contacts:  Artplace America Carol Coletta, Executive Director, ArtPlace America, 901.233.8496 Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, University of Southern California School of Planning, Policy, and Development, 213.740.4012 Wes Ervin, Economic Development Manager, Yolo County, 530.666.8066 Meghan Pressman, Managing Director, Berkeley Repertory Theater, 510.647.2949

In this off-year election, there are few land use measures on Nov. 8 ballots statewide. The City of Vernon's measures regarding term limits and other reforms represents a resurrection of sorts in the wake of the highly publicized efforts to disincorporate it. Updated Weds., November 10. San Mateo Measure G: Affordable Housing: Rejected, 52% opposed Measure G would amend the City of San Mateo's general plan to allow the city to impose housing impact fees and a fee refund incentive program to compel developers to provide below-market-rate units in rental properties. The measure is in response to  Palmer v. City of Los Angeles , which invalidated certain approaches to inclusionary zoning.   Vernon Measure A: Term Limits: Approved, 43-9 In response to the firestorm of criticism--and an attempted forced disincorporation--the industrial City of Vernon in Los Angeles County is pursuing reform measures now that it has a new lease on life. This measure would limit council members to two-five year terms, with a lifetime ban thereafter. Critics contend that city council members have ruled over the city for decades and treated it like their own fiefdom in the absence of term limits or a functioning municipal democracy. Vernon has fewer than 200 residents. The Vernon city ballot also includes measure regarding city administration, at-will employment, and prevailing wages. Pittsburgh Measure I: Urban Limit Line: Approved, 79% in favor Sponsored by developer West Coast Homebuilders, Measure I would amend Pittburgh's general plan and expand its urban limit line to accommodate a 193-acre development averaging three dwelling units per acre. The measure would pre-zone the land for a combination of single-family residential, high-density residential, and light industrial uses.

The words "green" and "cargo containers" hardly seem to belong in the same sentence. Shipping is a dirty business. Particulate matter and greenhouse gases have long blackened the lungs of people who live near the ports, giving the area the lowest air quality rating in the region. One source of foul air is the port equipment, including the diesel-burning cranes and tow-trucks that move containers from ships to trucks. More harmful, however, is the fleet of fume-vomiting trucks that haul containers from the ports to intermodal yards near downtown Los Angeles and other places further inland, where the containers are loaded onto rail cars to destined for points east. These trucks make an average of 6,000 trips daily to and from the ports (including multiple trips by individual vehicles.) Many of these trucks are more than 20 years old, and engines tend to emit increasingly more with age.  You can understand my initial incredulity, then, with the claim that the proposed $500 million Southern California International Gateway would be "the greenest intermodal facility in the U.S." This claim can be found in the draft EIR of the project, filed last month by the developer, BNSF Railways of Dallas, Texas. BNSF appears to be betting heavily on a government-relations campaign that emphasizes both environmental quality and improved efficiency in moving the metal boxes through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And the company has some progressive, even eye-opening suggestions on how to improve better air quality. Yet we still must ask whether BNSF is overstating the benefits the intermodal facility to bring to the region, such as improved air quality and lighter traffic on the 710 Freeway, the antiquated roadway leading to and from the ports.  An obvious tension exists between the goals of improving the air quality in the port area and the need to push millions of containers more quickly through the two ports onto waiting trains. The Los Angeles-Long Beach ports are the busiest in the nation, in part because they are primary point of entry for Chinese goods and/or American goods made in China. The aging 710 Freeway, which carries the bulk of the truck traffic to and from the ports, has undergone repeated studies for widening, although that prospect seems both expensive and politically volatile.    The basic premise of the BNSF intermodal yard is fairly simple: To cut down on pollution, they will shorten the distance that trucks must travel. Located about four miles away from the ports, the facility is far closer to the ports than BNSF's existing intermodal yard, which is 24 miles away in downtown Los Angeles. Shorter truck trips mean lower emissions overall, at least from those serving the new intermodal yard. (Many other trucks travel further to intermodal yards in the Inland Empire.) The shorter trip to the new yard means greater efficiency, with an expected increase of 1.5 million containers annually. The project sponsors, in the draft EIR, further claim that the project will improve traffic on the stop-and-go 710 Freeway. BNSF offers several other green features: One welcome decision is to use all electric equipment to move the containers. Another idea is to incentivize truck drivers to use cleaner-burning vehicles, by refusing to do business with drivers with substandard emissions.  All these green ideas are admirable, as far as they go. But will they make a meaningful difference to the brown air hovering over this heavily trafficked freeway? Sparing an estimated 1.5 million truck trips a year is a good thing. But the 710 Freeway is a thoroughfare in which demand always is greater than capacity. If BNSF actually manages to create some room on the road, that room will be quickly filled other truckers, who are driving their high-emissions trucks to container yards deep in the Inland Empire, shooting out tons of greenhouse gases and particulates all the while. So in this theoretical situation, BNSF gets good marks for increasing its own efficiency and sustainable practices, any claims to lighten traffic or reduce overall pollution, however, are not realistic. Similarly, the decision to do business with only low-emissions trucks seems to send the right message to the trucking industry. But if other container yard operators do not insist on cleaner trucks, BNSF has not really changed the equation. The preferences of one yard operator for clean burning truck engines over dozens of others that do not does not stack up as a strong enough incentive to change the behavior of truck drivers. Keep in mind that the majority of truck owners are small, family-owned businesses that bought older trucks because the latter cost a fraction of the sticker price of newer models. These owners do not have deep pockets. One meaningful program, sponsored by the ports, was to buy older trucks and cut them in half with acetylene torches, while the owners got a grant to help buy a newer, less polluting vehicle. A few dozen vehicles, however, are not enough to change the chronically poor air quality of the harbor area.  The resulting situation is an unenviable policy question that counterposes the needs of small business, the needs of big business, and those of public health. BNSF is "modeling good behavior," as they say in parenting class. The net improvement to the environment, however, remains questionable if others do not similarly change their trucks and their equipment.  But in the endless slow recovery, high-paying jobs are nothing to sneeze at. The best part of the BNSF container yard is that it promises 1,500 construction jobs for three years. Apparently the construction unions agree with me: In late October, when a group of them agreed to provide $255 million in project financing in exchange for an agreement from BNSF to hire union labor. If BNSF can't clean the air in L.A. County's worst air shed, they can at least make blue skies for a lot of under-employed people.

On October 7, the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Institute of Architects held a symposium to discuss opportunities to design communities that promote greater physical activity and equitable access to healthier lifestyles.  The event brought together a architects, planners, landscape architects, policy makers, urban designers, public health professionals, and students.  The major theme of the symposium is the need for greater cross-collaboration between architects and planners, and public health professionals to address the problem of obesity. Highlights of the event, by sub-topic, included: •         Public Health: Dr. Paul Simon with the L.A. County Department of Public Health provided important background on the historic connection between city planning and public health, with statistics on childhood obesity and healthcare spending that demonstrate the severity and urgency of the problem.  Dr. Simon also highlighted various ongoing efforts by the Public Health Department to create healthy communities, including the Policies for Livable, Active Communities and Environments (PLACE) and Renew Environments for Nutrition, Exercise, and Wellness (RENEW) programs. •         Planning: Los Angeles City Planning Director Michael LoGrande discussed the city's efforts in healthy design and planning such as: plans to incorporate a health chapter into the General Plan Framework, along with implementing ordinances; development of a health-centric transit-oriented development template in South L.A. along Metro Blue Line stations; and update of the Mobility Element of the General Plan to give Angelenos a full range of options including biking, walking, and public transit. •         "Living Streets": Consultant Ryan Snyder presented the idea that a living street is one in which the needs of automobile drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole; it is a space designed to be shared by pedestrians, playing children, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles.   Snyder's presentation focused on the Model Street Design Manual that was created through a writing charrette involving national experts.  This manual focuses on all users and modes, seeking to achieve balanced street design that accommodates automobiles while ensuring that cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users can travel comfortably and safely.  •         Community Engagement: Lark Galloway-Gilliam with Community Health Councils contended that the community needs to be engaged in any process to design and redesign communities.  She pointed out how past planning efforts lacked vision on the part of leadership and reflected disconnect between different public agencies responsible for planning, transportation, housing, and redevelopment.  Gilliam also stressed the need to speed up in coming up with strategies to help the residents of underserved communities. •         Recreational Space: Carolyn Ramsey discussed the Trust for Public Land's successful efforts in improving and increasing usage of existing parks through "fitness zones."  Fitness Zones are easy-to-use outdoor gyms designed to promote general health and introduce a new set of healthy activities to the park experience.  Installed in existing parks, the equipment is designed to be durable, vandal resistant, and appropriate for teenagers and adults of all fitness levels.  To date, 29 Fitness Zones have been installed throughout L.A. County and more are planned in the near future. An idea that was briefly mentioned during the symposium, but not fully discussed was the temporary closure of some streets for recreational activities. Inspired by Bogotá's Ciclovía, Los Angeles has held three CicLAvia events (most recently on October 9), which opened up some city streets to pedestrians and bicyclists, creating a temporary network of public space where participants could walk, bike, socialize, and learn more about their city. Closing streets temporarily recognizes the urgency of addressing the recreational needs of residents. Los Angeles could learn from New York City's Playstreets Program created by the city's Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Transportation, and Parks to battle childhood obesity.  This program is a quick and low-cost way to create active play space, and is a health measure that directly targets children, the city's most important at–risk population.  Other ideas also deserve consideration.  For example, given the success of mobile libraries, and the lack of land and money to develop permanent recreational facilities, mobile park spaces may also be employed as a way to bring in outside resources to a community in need. Mobile gyms provide additional opportunities for residents to work out and are flexible in that they can be parked at any location where vehicles are allowed.  Also, the conversion of existing buildings for recreational use is growing in popularity and has been carried out by both commercial interests and public agencies.  Warehouses, for example, have been converted to sports facilities for indoor soccer, badminton, handball, and batting cages. The symposium was successful in many ways.  Hopefully, it would lead to the rise of more political and professional champions in the architecture and planning realms, and the development of timely, effective solutions to promote greater physical activity in our communities and address the obesity crisis.  Clement Lau is a freelance writer and a planner with the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.

In a feat of chronological gymnastics regarding a proposed development in the City of Napa, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a Notice of Determination posted over the course of 31 calendar days was not posted long enough to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act's requirement that it be posted for 30 days.  CEQA provides for shortened statutes of limitations to challenge project approvals if the local agency files and posts a Notice of Determination (NOD) according to Public Resources Code section 21152. The shortened statute of limitations means that a project opponent has 30 days, rather than 180 days to challenge the project approval. Public Resources Code section 21152 requires the local agency to file a notice of determination within five days of the project approval. The notice then must be posted within 24 hours of the receipt and shall remain posted for 30 days. In Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa , supra, (196 Cal.App.4th 1154), the Court of Appeal held that for the shortened 30-day statute of limitations to apply the notice must be both filed and posted, and the notice must be posted for 30 days, excluding the first day, and must be posted for the entire 30th day.  On June 16, 2009, the City of Napa approved revisions to the housing element of its general plan, and related general plan and zoning amendments, concluding the project would have no environmental effects beyond those identified and mitigated in the 1998 general plan. On June 17, 2009, the city filed an NOD with the county clerk. The cash register receipt shows the document was received at 9:05 on June 17. According to the Clerk, the NOD was posted from 10:00 a.m. on June 17, 2009 until at least 10:00 a.m. on July 17, 2009.  Petitioners Latinos Unidos, a group that advocates for affordable housing in the region, visited the clerk's office at 11:29 a.m. on July 17, 2009 and found no NOD posted. On September 17, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the project approval, claiming the longer 180-day statute of limitations applied, rather than the shorter 30-day statute of limitations, because the NOD had not been posted for the full 30-days required by Public Resources Code section 21152 subdivision (c). The trial court granted the city's motion for a judgment on the grounds that the petition was barred by the 30-day statute of limitations. Petitioners appealed. Petitioners based their claim that the longer statute of limitations applied on an interpretation of the posting period in CEQA on Code of Civil Procedure section 12 which excludes the first day of posing and includes the last. Petitioner further argued that the NOD must be posted for the entire 30th day to satisfy the 30-day requirement.  The city argued the notice was posted over the course of 31 days – from 10:00 a.m. on June 17 to 10:00 am on July 17. The City further argued that even if the first day is excluded from the calculation, the NOD was posted for part of the 30th day, and thus, was adequate. Petitioners argued, that when calculated according to Code of Civil Procedure section 12, which excludes the first day and includes the last, the 30th day of posting was July 17. Further, Petitioners argued that the notice should have been posted for the full day on July 17, pointing to Scoville v. Anderson (1901) 131 Cal. 590 and other case law holding that the effect of fractions of days are disregarded when time is computed.    The court agreed with the petitioners.  The court rejected the city's argument that Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 25, No. 4 , Feb. 2010) stood for the proposition that the 30-day statute is triggered when the NOD is filed, not when it is posted. The court also rejected the City's argument that it had substantially complied with the 30-day posting requirement, stating that "any assessment of substantial compliance would introduce an element of subjective line-drawing into an area where clarity and precision are vital."  The court held that because the NOD had not been posted for the full 30 days as calculated according to Code of Civil Procedure section 12, the 180-day statute of limitations applied and the dismissal was reversed.  The practical effect of this case is that the 30-day posting period in 21152(c) is actually 32 days. However, the effect will be limited, given that a potential project opponent risks missing his filing deadline if he or she actually waits to see if the NOD was posted for the full statutory 30 days. The Case:  Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1154, No. A129584. The Attorneys:  For Plaintiff and Appellant: Law Offices of David Grabill and David Grabill. For Defendants and Respondents: Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, Andrea J. Saltzman, Rick W. Jarvis and Julie M. Randolph  Leslie Walker is an attorney with Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

This case involved the perfect storm of events resulting in the flooding of the plaintiffs' properties and an ensuing legal tempest. Plaintiffs sued the county in court claiming that the flooding was a result of county's failure to maintain a county road, from which the runoff spilled. Plaintiff claimed that the county's neglect of the road constituted a taking and inverse condemnation. In Gutierrez v. County of San Bernardino , the Fourth District Court of Appeals grappled with the application of the "reasonableness" takings test that applies to flood control projects. The court concluded that the county acted reasonably, and therefore, there was no taking. Background In October 2003, a wildfire eliminated all of the trees on a section of the mountains north of the unincorporated community of Devore, where plaintiff Michael T. Gutierrez and other plaintiffs resided. In December 2003, it rained, causing water to flow down the mountain trapping debris and sediment in its wake. The water flowed across Greenwood Avenue and brought the debris and sediment to plaintiffs' properties. In an attempt to protect the properties from further flooding, the county placed concrete K-rails along the sides of the paved portion of the street on which plaintiffs' live. Unfortunately, another large rain storm passed through and the K-rails failed to contain all of the debris and settlement. Plaintiffs brought this action against the county on the grounds that the county's actions in maintaining the street in 2003 and 2004 caused the flooding, and thereby, constituted a taking. The trial court found in favor of the county, and plaintiffs appealed. Appeal On appeal, the appellate court divided the case into two separate issues: was there a taking in 2003, and was there a taking in 2004 by implementation of the K-rails? The court quickly dismissed the issue of the 2003 taking because the road that brought the debris and settlement was still in its natural state and never maintained by the county, and therefore it was not a "public improvement" for purposes of inverse condemnation. As to the part of the road that was paved, plaintiffs failed to present any evidence as to how this road caused the damage to their properties.  The court spent more time discussing the issue of the 2004 flooding. All parties and the court agreed that the K-rails installed in 2004 constituted a public improvement, and the court accepted the trial court's conclusion that the K-rails caused damage to plaintiffs' properties. Thus the only remaining issue, the one that took up most of the court's opinion, is whether strict liability or the "reasonableness test" applied. As stated in Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550, 565, "a public agency that undertakes to construct or operate a flood control project clearly must not be made the absolute insurer of those lands provided protection." For this reason, courts apply the reasonableness test to flood control improvements, which requires the court to evaluate whether "the design, construction or maintenance of the flood control project…posed an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiffs." The appellate court found that the K-rails constituted the type of flood control project to which the reasonableness test applied, and strict liability was not proper. After reviewing the record of evidence, the court found that "substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the county acted reasonably relative to its installation of the K-rails," and the trial court's decision was upheld in its entirety. The Case: Gutierrez v. County of San Bernardino (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 831. Filed August 24, 2011.  Cori Badgley is an attorney with the firm of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

Gov. Jerry Brown considered over 600 bills that came to his desk this legislative session. Some of the most contentious involved land use, particularly bills concerning redevelopment and the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Los Angeles got a CEQA exemption for its proposed football stadium and infill developments have received special dispensation; speculation is that other such exemptions may be on the horizon. High-profile failures and vetoes include a bill opposing the expansion of Walmart in San Diego and a bill that would have lowered parking requirements in transit-oriented districts.  In total, the governor received 870 bills, the lowest number in decades. Yet, he still managed to veto 14 percent of them. Herewith is CP&DR's roundup of relating to land use that made the cut.  California Environmental Quality Act AB 320 (Hill) will prevent CEQA lawsuits and litigation from being thrown out in the event a "recipient of approval" appears only after the statute of limitations time period has passed. The bill will help bring clarity to the question of which parties must be named in CEQA lawsuits and litigation. AB 900 (Buchanan) will allow the governor to choose as many projects as he deems appropriate for the expedited judicial review process, primarily by skipping Superior Court review and expediting the timeline for the litigation process at Appellate Court. SB 226 (Simitian) seeks to streamline CEQA processes to facilitate projects (including rooftop solar, renewables on disturbed lands, and infill) that are generally considered ‘green'.  SB 292 (Padilla) establishes specified administrative and judicial review procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the EIR and approvals granted for a project related to the development of football stadium in the City of Los Angeles.  Land Use AB 147 (Dickinson) is an amendment of the Subdivision Map Act that allows municipalities to include fees to developers for constructing bicycle, transit, pedestrian or traffic calming measures.  AB 208 (Fuentes) extends by 24 months the expiration date of any approved tentative map or vesting tentative map that has not expired as of the effective date of this act and will expire prior to January 1, 2014. AB 516 (M. Pérez) establishes a specified public participation process for the establishment of Safe Routes to Schools programs.  Redevelopment AB 936 (Hueso) requires redevelopment agencies and other public bodies to report debt forgiveness. AB 1338 (Hernández) requires redevelopment agencies to get appraisals before acquiring real property.  Housing AB 221 (Carter) – The Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Acts of 2002 and 2006: supportive housing. AB 1103 (Huffman) allows localities to count foreclosed homes and second units converted into deed-restricted homes toward their regional housing needs assessment requirement. Allows cities and counties to plan to meet up to 25 percent of their Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets by converting foreclosed homes into homes affordable to low- and very low-income households. SB 562 (Committee on Transportation and Housing) Housing omnibus bill. Water & Waste AB 54 (Solorio) establishes new requirements for organizing and operating mutual water companies.   AB 359 (Huffman) would encourage the sustainable management of groundwater resources by requiring, as a condition of receiving a state grant or loan, local agencies to including a map of prime recharge areas in their groundwater management plans. It would then require these maps to be shared with the planning agencies, interested parties and organizations. AB 938 (M. Pérez). Public water systems. This bill would add environmental documentation to the costs of a single project that the department is required to determine by an assessment of affordability AB 964 (Huffman) authorizes any person to obtain a right to appropriate water for a small irrigation use. AB 1221 (Alejo) – State Water Quality Control Fund: State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account. SB 267 by (Rubio) – Water supply planning: renewable energy plants. SB 607 (Walters) – State Water Resources Control Board: water quality: brackish groundwater treatment. Environment, Parks & Open Space AB 42 (Huffman) allows the state to explore partnerships with non-profit organizations that can help support state park system.   AB 566 (Galgiani) amends the Surface Mining Act (1975) to include additional legislative findings, including, among other things, that the state's mineral resources are vital, finite, and important natural resources and the responsible protection and development of these mineral resources is vital to a sustainable California. AB 703 (Gordon) – Property taxation: welfare exemption: nature resources and open-space lands. AB 1036 by Assemblymember Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa) – Parks: regional park, park and open-space, and open-space districts: employee relations. AB 1077 by Assemblymember Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto) – State parks: Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park. AB 1112 (Huffman) Oil spill prevention and administration fee: State Lands Commission.  AB 1414 (Committee on Natural Resources) Forestry: timber harvesting. SB 152 (Pavley). Public lands: general leasing law: littoral landowners. Requires the State Lands Commission to charge rent for a private recreational pier, as defined, constructed on state lands and would require the rent to be based on local conditions and local fair annual rental values SB 328 (Kehoe) revises the Eminent Domain Law to establish requirements for acquisition of property subject to a conservation easement.  SB 436 (Kehoe) – Land use: mitigation lands: nonprofit organizations. Revises these provisions and would additionally authorize a state or local public agency to authorize a nonprofit organization, a special district, a for-profit entity, a person, or another entity to hold title to and manage an interest in property held for mitigation purposes, subject to certain requirements. SB 551 (DeSaulnier) – State property: tidelands transfer: City of Pittsburg. SB 618 (Wolk) allows landowners and local officials to simultaneously rescind Williamson Act contracts and enter into easements allowing photovoltaic solar facilities on the same land.  SB 668 (Evans) – Local government: Williamson Act. Authorizes a nonprofit land-trust organization, a nonprofit entity, or a public agency to enter into a contract with a landowner who has also entered into a Williamson Act contract to keep that landowner's land in contract under the Williamson Act, for a period of up to 10 years in exchange for the open-space district's, land-trust organization's, or nonprofit entity's payment of all or a portion of the foregone property tax revenue. SB 792 (Steinberg) – Surface mining: mineral resource management policies. SB 860 by Committee on Natural Resources and Water – Tidelands and submerged lands: public trust lands: mineral rights. Infrastructure & Transportation AB 529 Gatto (D-Burbank) – Vehicles: speed limits: downward speed zoning. AB 615 (Lowenthal) supplements Budget Act appropriations by appropriating $4,000,000 from the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Fund to the authority for the Los Angeles to San Diego segment. AB 628 (Conway) – Vehicles: off-highway vehicle recreation: County of Inyo. AB 664 (Ammiano) allows San Francisco to form special waterfront Infrastructure Financing Districts for the Port America's Cup and Treasure Island areas.   AB 706 (Torres) – Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. AB 716 (Dickinson) – Transit districts: prohibition orders: Sacramento Regional Transit District: Fresno Area Express: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. AB 751 (Cedillo) concerns a freeway segment to be constructed without an agreement within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. AB 957 (Committee on Transportation) – Transportation omnibus bill. AB 892 (Carter) Department of Transportation: Environmental Review Process. Allows CalTrans to continue its participation in the National Environmental Policy Act delegation pilot program in SAFETEA-Lu or any successor federal transportation reauthorization legislation.  AB 1027 (Buchanan) requires local publicly owned utilities to provide space on their utility poles for use by communication service providers. AB 1097 (Skinner) authorizes a state or a local agency, relative to the use of federal funds for transit purposes, to provide a bidding preference to a bidder if the bidder exceeds Buy America requirements applicable to federally funded transit projects. AB 1143 (Dickinson) – Sacramento Regional Transit District: bonds. AB 1164 (Gordon) – Federal transportation funds. AB 1298 (Blumenfield) – Vehicles: parking: mobile billboard advertising displays. SB 310 (Hancock) allows cities and counties to adapt Infrastructure Financing Districts and other incentives for transit priority projects.   SB 325 (Rubio) enacts the Central California Railroad Authority Act to create the Central California Railroad Authority as an alternative for ensuring short-line railroad service in the Counties of Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, and Merced. SB 468 (Kehoe) Department of Transportation: north coast corridor project: high-occupancy toll lanes. SB 771 (Kehoe). In regards to programs of the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, expands the definition of "renewable energy" to include energy generation based on thermal energy systems such as landfill gas turbines, engines, and microturbines; and digester gas turbines, engines, and microturbines. Local Finance, Governance, & Agency Formation AB 307 (Nestande) includes a federally recognized Indian tribe as a public agency that may enter into a joint powers agreement. AB 506 (Wieckowski) – Local government: bankruptcy: neutral evaluation. A signing message can be found here. AB 912 (Gordon) expedites the dissolution of special districts.   AB 1344 (Feuer) alters the statutory requirements regarding how cities and counties can put a proposed charter before the voters. Increases the noticing period from the regular 72-hour noticing requirement to a 10-week process. AB 1430 (Committee on Local Government) – The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 omnibus bill. SB 244 (Wolk) General Plan: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. Mandates General Plans be updated to address disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Cities required to submit dual annexation requests.   SB 555 (Hancock) allows Mello-Roos community facilities districts to finance renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water efficiency improvements on private property.