The budget negotiations in Sacramento took a dramatic turn last Friday when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the Democrat-led budget that had been sent to him less than 24 hours before. Though it sends the parties back to the drawing board, the veto did not directly affect the so-called "two-bill" strategy that threatens to do away with, or possibly impoverish, many of the state's redevelopment agencies. Two pairs of identical budget bills are under consideration in both houses of the Legislature. The first bill would eliminate redevelopment agencies while the second bill would spare them in exchange for voluntary payments to the state, totaling $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2011-12 and $400 million in 2012-13. The California Redevelopment Association analysis of AB1 27x, the Assembly version of the bill regarding voluntary payments, has estimated the burden on each of the state's nearly 400 redevelopment agencies.  Agencies that wish to stay alive will have to write some fairly large checks relative to their total tax increment revenues. Calculated by the research organization Time Structures, Inc., CRA's estimates are based on agencies' 2008-09 revenues. As described in AB1 27x, the estimated 2011-12 payments are based roughly on agencies' respective percentage shares of statewide gross tax increments, multiplied by $1.7 billion and $400 billion.  To cover the 2011-12 payment, the Los Angeles Community Redevlopment Agency--representing roughly 5% of statewide tax increment revenues--would have to pay over $97 million of its $265 million revenues in 2008-09. San Diego's redevelopemnt agencies would pay a total of $69 million. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency would pay roughly $47 million, while San Francisco would pay just under $25 million. For 2012-2013, those numbers drop by roughly a factor of four.  CRA has posted two spreadsheets calculating every agency's transfer payments for FY2011-12 <.xls> and FY2012-13 <.xls> . CRA notes that these figures are not official and are intended to be used only to guide agencies' planning processes.  CRA and other opponents contend that, despite its the voluntary nature, the two-bill strategy violates Proposition 22's prohibition against the transfer of local redevelopment funds to the state.

As one of the most prominent organizations lobbying on environmental and land use issues in Sacramento, the Planning and Conservation League has led campaigns on everything from global warming to public health to local dam removal. Its history includes the promotion of such landmark measures as the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Act, and Prop 12, the 2000 Parks Bond measure. Now in its 46th year, PCL is welcoming new leadership. Just this month, veteran attorney and environmental activist Bruce Reznik was installed as the new executive director for PCL and its sister organization, the PCL Foundation. Reznik arrives in Sacramento after serving for more than ten years as the executive director of Coastkeeper, a leading clean water advocacy group in the San Diego Region. Reznik spoke with CP&DR about his goals for PCL and his approach to the state's most pressing land use issues. What are your immediate and medium-term goals for PCL?  I'm getting to know the organization and the staff and undertaking a strategic planning process with the board.  At this point we're still trying to figure out exactly that question of where we want to get engaged. First and foremost, we've had a very accomplished water program, and that's something that's heavily in my background.  I expect that to continue to be a big part of our work plan.  That includes work that we're doing on the Delta and on statewide water policy relating to water transfers, dam removals, promotion water recycling, indirect potable re-use.  We were one of the first groups to propose smaller alternatives for the Delta – a tunnel rather that the canal – and that's been picked up at least as an option by the governor's office. I'd also like to broaden some of our focus on conservation and efficiency. I can imagine a a loading order where conservation and efficiency should be at the top and then harvesting and reclamation are down the line. Having spent a good amount of time in the environmental world, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that it's very hard to separate issues. But I recognize that, counter to that, it's very easy for organizations to take on too many things and be a mile wide and inch deep.  If you're working on water policy you have to understand the linkage between land use planning and how that affects water quality. So I'd like to get engaged in broader energy policy, but we have to figure out if we have the resources and staff to do that. we have to make sure we're not spreading ourselves too thin. A little bit thin, I think, is good; too thin is not so good. Would that depend on internal reorganization, or more of defining the goals really clearly?  It really is both. PCL hasn't, I don't think, had a great strategic plan for a while. It was undertaking a strategic planning process at the same time they were doing a search for a new executive director. What it means is that I'm coming in and we don't yet have those specific outcomes that we want to achieve.  Part of my priority is figuring out what we have the staffing for and how we can reorganize to be more efficient. PCL, like most groups, has seen its staff shrink and has taken the same hits that everyone else in the nonprofit world has taken. So I don't think it's as simple as a reorganization; we have to rebuild now that the economy is bouncing back a little bit.  We have to bring in some additional resources and expertise and lay out a plan.  Funders want to know what you want to get accomplished. How does PCL hope to capitalize on SB 375, and what challenges does SB 375 pose for the state as a whole?  I want to look at how SB 375 actually hits on the ground and how we do a better job of integrating our transportation and land use planning and even economic development and job creation. SB 375 was not without controversy. Within PCL and within the entire environmental community there are folks who wanted it stronger and people who think it went too far.  My personal take on 375, which is not necessarily the take of PCL, is that 375 was transformative in saying, "OK, we're going to start thinking about these things in a creative fashion." That seems very common sense, but frankly it was not often done in the past.  We have to credit SB 375 for forcing folks to look at things differently, to connect the dots, and realize that all these issues are connected. But, the devil is really in the details. There aren't real teeth in SB 375. You can tell agencies to do a better job coordinating, but they're separate agencies. SCS's don't force agencies to actually integrate the policy. Now that SB 375 is the law of the land, it's up to PCL and other groups to make sure that it is in fact the transformative law that we hope it will be. So far the only one I've reviewed in terms of SCS is the San Diego plan.  I don't think it hits the mark at all.  It's kind of funny because I know the San Diego plan is heralded as first out of the gate and a good model. (See lead story, Page 1.) Here's the difficulty with getting any new law off the ground: you've got this interesting balancing game.  Everyone wants 375 to succeed. (Sen. Darrel) Steinberg and the Legislature and the environmental groups want to see the momentum and see the first one be successful. The problem is you can't lower the bar so much that anything looks like success. Frankly, that's my take on the San Diego plan. It's a lot of paperwork, it looks glossy, it looks nice, but in the end there's nothing in that plan that shows to me that they get what SB 375 is trying to do: promoting job growth, linking communities, investing in the urban core, not promoting more sprawl. It is incumbent now that we have 375 not to pat ourselves on the back. In fact. I think our workload is even greater.  Now we have the opportunity to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm not trying to be critical. I think it's transformative, but only if we make it work. How do you build those coalitions and what role will PCL play?  Working with the local groups is one of my other areas of focus at PCL. I want to reintegrate the "L" part of PCL – the "league" part – which is working more closely and collaboratively with local groups on the ground.  I come from a locally based grassroots organization that is based on a lot of locals being connected. I think PCL has that opportunity to work with those groups to make sure that the promise of 375 is realized in the actual Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies. How hard will that be given that there are countless groups across the state, whereas SB 375 sees the state at a macro level?  Coalition-building and community empowerment are always very, very difficult.  It's a time-consuming, grueling slog through the mud.  But I also think it's crucial. One of my complaints about the environmental community is that we're often disconnected and at odds.  Many are really focused on the grassroots, community aspects. Then we have regional or national groups that work more within the power structure and halls of government and all those policy arenas. We're never going to be as strong as we can, and should, be until we're actually communicating, collaborating, connecting so that what's happening at the community level is also happening in the halls of power, like at the State Legislature and then at all these agencies like SANDAG and CARB and the Water Board. I have no illusions about how difficult that is; it's not like there aren't already groups working in this arena. But because of PCL's long history and its origins as a collaborative effort, I think we're well positioned to be a leader in trying to connect those different aspects of the environmental community.  Grassroots can only do so much of our laws are getting gutted in Sacramento and DC. Speaking of laws that some people would like to gut, how will you approach CEQA?  I'm a big CEQA fan. I'm not a strict constructionist in anything.  I certainly think laws should be evaluated to figure out what works well, what can be strengthened, and what are some of the unintended consequences and intended consequences.  I don't have a problem looking at CEQA and figuring out where we should be.  That being said, I certainly don't think we should be folding up the tent and looking at wholesale weakening of CEQA. We should get back to looking at the original goals of CEQA: informed decision-making and making sure the communities have a meaningful say in decisions that impact them. We should be looking at CEQA to see where those aims are being met and where they are not.  If we are going to reform CEQA, it should be to those goals. I know everybody talks about "CEQA is a job-killer."  I don't agree with that.  CEQA has played a critical role in the way we have developed the state.  Even with CEQA a lot of really dumb projects get built.  I think we should step back and think about what our vision for California is. I know everyone loves to talk about the "triple-bottom line": ecology, economy, equity, or whatever you want to call it. My issue with the triple-bottom line, even though I like those aims, when people often talk about it as tension between those three areas that need to be somehow addressed. I don't buy that.  I think that what's good for the economy 100% of the time is good for the environment and communities and vice-versa. For instance, in California we use 140 gallons of water per day; much of the world uses 40-50.  If we get really serious we're going to be putting people to work installing rainwater harvesting, installing greywater systems and smart meters, and changing landscapes and putting people back to work. And we're not going to be relying on one massive pipeline that sucks up 5% of the state's energy that's just going to be more and more expensive. Speaking more personally, a lot of folks say we can certainly look to reform CEQA in ways that will promote good projects. That sounds really good. Certainly, we all like solar, we all like rainwater harvesting—so we can waive CEQA, right? My problem with that is that you either believe in those goals of informed decision-making or you don't.  I think we set ourselves up if we are the police of all that is good, as if "we know that solar is good, so we can waive CEQA for solar." Are we that smart to know everything in advance?  Do we know if exempting industrial solar, or desalination, from CEQA review is the right way to go? Should we do whatever we can to promote distributed generation of energy and local sustainable water supply strategies? Absolutely.  I think we need to figure out how to do that without undermining those aims of CEQA. What's your take on the $40 billion question of high speed rail?  That is one of our bills—the Lowenthal bill--which is about reforming the HSR Authority. In general, because we haven't gone through a lot of our strategic planning, I'm sort of speaking for myself: I am a fan of high speed rail.  I think it is important for California. I think it can offer a tremendous amount of benefits for the state, environmentally and for job creation and all that. But the devil's in the details. So far we haven't seen the High Speed Rail Authority working all that effectively. Our bill is looking to reform the authority to get more expertise on and less political appointments. Other folks want to see it absorbed into Caltrans, and we're still figuring out those fixes. We have to figure out how the governance of that project is going to be more accountable.  Obviously the devil's in the details of how it goes and where it goes. We have to be above the fray and push for what's the best project for the environment.  Whatever you do, you're not going to make everyone happy. There's going to be impacts. I want to be the group basing our decisions on sound science and sound policy principles, pushing it where it should go best. The other thing is the balance of how high speed rail meshes with more localized transit, particularly in our urban cores. We still need to figure out how compatible those goals are.  Is high speed rail going to suck all the energy out of the room and suck energy away from more urban-core transit strategies? Or are there opportunities to leverage resources working on projects that could serve both needs. In previous years PCL has pushed a lot of bond measures. Do you want to pursue that strategy as well?  That's something we need to look at.  I think the bond measures were critically important for the time that they were passed.  Gerry Meral, who was leading PCL for most, if not all of the bond measures, deserves tremendous accolades for getting those pushed through for continuing to raise consciousness. I don't know that that's something that will be a major area of focus.  I have mixed feelings about the initiative system as a whole. I'm a little more representative democracy kind of guy. I'm a big believer of campaign finance reform and holding our elected officials accountable.  I think it makes it very challenging when you try to merge a representative democracy with a direct democracy. You elect folks, but often their hands get tied. I'd like to see us focusing more on accountability of elected officials. That being said, the reason that initiatives have been passed is we don't always get that accountability and we are left with the system we have.  Sometimes that's the only thing that's left to actually push the policy, like the Coastal Act and some of the parks and water bonds that PCL has been so involved in. I'd like to focus more on the legislature and push good legislation. This interview has been edited and condensed. Photo courtesy of  9mphoto.com .

Update: Late this morning, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the budget package that the Legislature sent him yesterday. Brown said that the budget was imbalanced and that the legislation "contains legally questionable maneuvers, costly borrowing and unrealistic savings." Brown reportedly wants to hold out and force a popular vote on tax extensions that he considers critical to overcoming the state's remaining multi-billion dollar deficit. He did not mention redevelopment in his veto statement.   As in a common mugging, the California Legislature has made the state's redevelopment agencies an offer: "your money or your life?"  The legislation that passed yesterday was not quite so pithy. But, according to critics of the proposal to help close the state's remaining $9.6 billion budget deficit, that is essentially the deal that lawmakers have struck in the six-month battle to do away with redevelopment agencies. Yesterday, the day of the state's budget deadline, the Assembly and Senate voted in favor of a so-called "two-bill strategy," which hinges on pairs of bills introduced in both houses.  The governor contends that the garnishing of tax increments is an unfortunate but necessary maneuver to ease the state's budget crisis.  SB 14x/AB 26x would eliminate redevelopment agencies outright, as Gov. Jerry Brown first proposed in January. Then AB 27x / SB 14x  would allow agencies to salvage themselves in exchange for voluntary transfers of tax increment funds to their local school districts, transit agencies, and fire protection districts. Those that do not "volunteer" would be shuttered and have their assets liquidated.   The bills call for the transfer of $1.7 billion in redevelopment funds this fiscal year and $400 million annually thereafter. Many agencies say that they simply cannot come up with that kind of cash. In fact, many analysts contend that the governor's hoped-for $1.7 billion windfall would turn out to be far less given the amount of redevelopment funds that are already obligated for projects and bond repayment.  The strategy arose only in the past week as negotiations over previous efforts to eliminate redevelopment had stalled several months ago.  Votes in both houses were largely along party lines, with Democrats in favor of the bills.  Members of the Assembly voted, 47-31, in favor of the scheme to shift funding and, 52-24, in favor of the elimination of redevelopment entirely. The Senate voted similarly on the respective bills, 21-15 and 21-16.  Supporters of redevelopment had been clamoring for the Legislature and governor to spare the state's agencies and instead adopt a slate of reform measures. The Legislature is considering AB 1250, which, supporters say, contains a major package of reforms.  Representatives of the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities have condemned the vote, saying that it undermines reform efforts and, in fact, is illegal. As with the governor's original proposal, they contend that even the "voluntary" payment scheme violates Proposition 22 and other constitutional provisions.  "While many legislators who voted in favor of this package spoke of protecting and reforming redevelopment, these bills do neither," said CRA Executive Director John Shirey, in a statement. Opponents have threatened to take legal action, claiming all along that any elimination of redevelopment or imposition of forced payments would be unconstitutional.  "If the governor signs these bills, we will be prepared to defend the constitution and the will of the voters in court very soon thereafter," said League Executive Director Chis Mckenize in a statement. "It is a very sad day for Californians when their State Legislature knowingly acts in such direct violation of our highest laws." Gov. Brown has 12 days to sign the bills, along with the rest of the budget that the Legislature passed yesterday.   --Josh Stephens

Last week the Nevada Legislature—usually not an entity with much to say on California land use—issued a decision that would make King Solomon blush.  After 31 years as a supposedly equal party in the Bi-State Compact governing the Lake Tahoe basin, Nevada has taken its first steps towards pulling out of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and thereby negating the agreement under which the two states have governed and managed Lake Tahoe and the surrounding basin.  The original version of Nevada's Senate Bill 271, sponsored by Sen. John Jay Lee of the Las Vegas area, called for Nevada to essentially abrogate the compact upon signing by Gov. Brian Sandoval. The version that passed at 1 a.m. on June 8, the state's legislative deadline, instead outlines Nevada's demands on TRPA – a change in the governing structure and passage of its long-overdue regional plan update. If those demands are not met, then the state could initiate withdrawal two legislative sessions from now, in 2015. (Lee did not respond to requests for comment.)  Many in the environmental community in both California and Nevada fear that the bill—which Sandoval is expected to sign—undermines environmental protections and will lead to development. Even the mellowed version that was passed, they say, essentially holds TRPA hostage to Nevada's interests while denying the unavoidable conflict that arises when two sovereigns share a single resource.  "What was recognized when the TRPA was created is that it's just not feasible to deal with each side of the lake," said Schladow. "What happens in California has an impact on Nevada and vice-versa." SB 271 makes two major demands to avert Nevada's secession from the compact. It first requires that TRPA pass a long-overdue update to its regional plan. It also would profoundly change the agency's governance by altering the voting structure among its 14 board members.        Currently, to adopt, amend, or repeal environmental threshold carrying capacities, the regional plan, or ordinances requires a supermajority of nine votes, with at least four yeas coming from the state in which a plan or project is located. SB 271 requires TRPA to abandon the latter provision if Nevada is to remain a party to the compact.    Even though SB 271 calls for the update of the regional plan, some predict that Nevada will try to exercise power by refusing to approve any plan that does not meet the state's stated needs. Therefore, TRPA will either have to adopt a plan favorable to Nevada or automatically face dissolution. Therefore, TRPA is between a lake and a hard place.        "That does not seem like a reasonable demand by Nevada," said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to save Lake Tahoe. "As a consequence, we're concerned that it will not be possible to salvage TRPA."   Though Nason said that TRPA is crucial for protecting the lake, opponents of SB 271 say that TRPA itself did not forcefully protest its own demise. TRPA Executive Director Joann Marchetta appeared at the initial Senate hearing, but agency staff did not take an official position on the bill. "The conservation groups had to defend the TRPA," said Ann Nichols, president of the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.  TRPA External Affairs Director Julie Regan said that staff were not free to take a position in the absence of direction from the board; Marchetta was not available for comment.  "Our board never took a position, and we have differing opinions on the board," said Regan. "It would not have been appropriate for us to take a position when the policy makers on the board did not take a position on the bill."  Instead, Regan said that the law presents a valuable opportunity.  "We are hopeful that this legislation will allow enhanced dialog between the states of California and Nevada," said Regan. "Sometimes there are just different ideas about the best path to get there and this bill is one example that those differences are coming to a head."  As well, some say that this reticence symbolizes the problems that plague TRPA, have held up the regional planning process, and thus made the agency a target for the Nevada Legislature.  "TRPA not being present for this discussion is like a miniature version of TRPA sitting on the regional plan for 5 years," said Nason. "In the absence of consensus on their board, they can't act. The whole purpose of a board—and a diverse board like this—is to build consensus but also to make decisions. The board never voted not to take a position, and it never voted to take a position."  Most notably, a regional plan update that was supposed to come out by 2007 remains unfinished. Without that update, uncertainty—and therefore stasis—has come to dominate land use in the basin, thus leading to SB 271. In addition, the California side of the basin must now mesh the regional plan with a sustainable communities strategy as required under SB 375. "We haven't had for quite a while. They're just amending the current on piecemeal, project-by-project," said Nichols.  Authorized by a unanimous board vote in January, TRPA staff have finally embarked on a new planning process for the regional plan update. Staff hopes to circulate a draft EIR by the end of 2011 with a possible vote in 2012. What, exactly, the Nevada delegation might demand of a new regional plan update remains undefined—but not without attracting speculation.  Though TRPA regulations cap development in the Tahoe Basin in the broad sense, Nichols said that plenty of developers and existing landowners would like to create new developments and expand existing ones, especially in casino-rich South Lake Tahoe. Opponents of SB 271 have pointed to projects such as the Boulder Bay hotel expansion in Crystal Bay, Nev., as examples of things to come under SB 271. They say that, by quadrupling its current size, the project violates the Bi-State Compact; it was approved by TRPA in April.  "It's obvious that this is being promoted by Nevada gaming interests on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe," said Nichols. "They don't want to be constrained by thresholds all that pesky stuff that the compact has them do. "Although they would say that they have to comply with all the existing environmental restrains, even if they separate, I think they will change those thresholds." SB 271 comes about now in part because Nevada's economy has suffered during the current recession and landowners see TRPA's regulatory structure as an impediment to efficient development. In particular, TRPA has been blamed even for holding up projects that were intended to reduce pollution and runoff into the lake.  Billy Vassiliadis, CEO of R&R Partners and creator of the famed "What happens in Vegas" marketing campaign, was one of the lead lobbyists in favor of SB 271. His clients included a collection of landowners around the lake, including prominent casino interests. Likewise, the Nevada Resort Association supported SB 271.  "The Nevada Resort Association supported the position of one of its largest members, Caesars, in seeking assurances regarding Lake Tahoe's future during one of the most challenging times that tourism market has ever experienced," said association President Virginia Valentine in a prepared statement. That argument draws little sympathy from Nichols. "We can't change the compact every time there's a recession," she said.  Environmentalists fear that a Caesars Palace, or even a poorly designed mountain chalet, could wreak havoc with the lake's fragile ecosystem, which of course does not heed the state border that runs through it. Regan said that urban runoff is one of the biggest threats to the lake's clarity. The lake is currently clear to 67 feet, whereas the goal of TRPA is 100 feet.  Vassiliadis insisted that Nevada maintains a paramount interest in supporting the health of the lake. He noted that SB 271 adopts the environmental language of the Tahoe Compact and thus obligates the state to uphold its goals.  "The impact is not to reduce or to lower any environmental standards, as has been alleged," said Vassiliadis.    But Nevada's definition of "obligation" may hew more towards voluntary compliance and away from regulations that some say are crucial to preventing the further muddying of the lake's waters.  "It's not that Nevadans don't love Lake Tahoe; it's that they think it can be saved through purely voluntary approaches," said Nason. "The League to Save Lake Tahoe and the rest of Tahoe's conservation community believes that strong regulation of matters like land coverage and traffic impacts needs to continue."   "Oftentimes Nevada has more of an independent streak, perhaps more of an interest in protecting private property rights," said Regan. Moreover, if Nevada is not constrained by California's interests, then its Legislature can amend SB 271 at will, thus obviating the protections that the current version contains.  Conversely, despite the stigma that accompanies the notion of development in such a sensitive area, some suggest that more development could actually help the lake. In particular, if an updated regional plan could promote the replacement of aging, substandard buildings with new, environmentally sensitive construction.  "We have marvelous new technology to conserve and be green," said Vassiliadis.  "So it's more of a matter of not allowing a group to just say no to any permits or any process." Geoffrey Schladow, director of the Tahoe Environmental Research Center at UC-Davis, said that advances in understanding the threats to the lake and in mitigation techniques may warrant new construction, some of which might have to be executed by the sort of deep-pocketed developers that concern environmentalists.  "If we want these developed areas to be re-engineered then some degree of redevelopment may be inevitable," said Schladow. "It's hard to believe that the existing small-scale mom and pop stores or motels would have the capital to do what's needed." Contacts Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe , 530.541.5388 Ann Nichols, President, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance , 775.831.0626 Julie Regan, External Affairs Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency , 775.589.5237 Geoffrey Schladow, Director, UC-Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center , 530.754.8372 Billy Vassiliadis, CEO and Principal, R&R Partners, 702.228.0222

With a surface level at 227 feet below sea level and shoreline temperatures often rising past 120 degrees, the Salton Sea could be mistaken for the headwaters of the River Styx. Sometimes, concentrations of salt in the brackish lake, formed by a not-quite-natural overflow of the nearby Colorado River a century ago, asphyxiate resident tilapia fish by the thousands. Currently California's largest lake--larger, even, than Tahoe--the Salton Sea itself may soon dry up, leaving a dust-filled crater. Remnants of Atomic Age vacation towns line the sea's shores, as if residents had evacuated and never returned. And yet, despite this challenging environment, a development team--backed, perhaps incongruously, by an insurance company from Minnesota--thinks the time has come to introduce some sustainability to this forlorn landscape.  A 'New City' Travertine Point would cover roughly 5,000 acres along the northwest corner of the Salton Sea, roughly 10 miles from Mecca and 35 miles from Palm Springs. It is designed as a self-contained city, with mixed uses, employment centers, and over 13,000 units of housing for over 35,000 residents. It would also have a marina and other shoreline amenities�assuming, of course, that the Salton Sea does not dry up before the project is completed.  "People are going to want to live around the sea," said Riverside County Supervisor and Salton Sea Authority Boardmember Marion Ashley, who expects the rapid growth of Riverside County�41 percent last decade�to continue. "This would be a very well planned, self-sustainable development that would be a well planned place to live."  Though its build-out will follow a nearly geological time scale, its environmental impact report was released in December . On June 15, it will receive its second hearing before the Riverside County Planning Commission. If the commission approves a version of the project, it could go before Riverside County supervisors by the end of the summer.  Developer Black Emerald, LLC, in partnership with the Torrez-Martinez Tribe and funded by Federated Insurance, is seeking approval based, in part, on their contention that the project will be a model sustainable community. Roughly 1,400 acres of the project would occupy land that is, currently, part of the Torrez-Martinez reservation.  Despite Travertine Point's remoteness, Black Emerald believes that the southern Coachella Valley and, in particular, the immediate Salton Sea area, is poised for an economic and demographic boom in the coming decades. The developers claim that 150,000 more residents will populate the valley, no matter what.  Therefore, living in a compact, self-contained city that ascribes to smart growth principles will be considerably more green than living in the traditional subdivisions that comprise communities such as Indio, Palm Desert, and the rest of the Coachella Valley.  Straddling Highway 86S, Travertine Point is planned to include a variety of uses, including a resort, a marina, and a variety of residential neighborhoods, with a complement of regional and local retail, schools, recreational and open space. A mixed use town center will sit roughly at the geographic center of the development. Situated next to a planned highway interchange, the town center will include local amenities, as well as, a business park and even light industrial activities, presumably related to renewable energy.  The plan calls for 13,000 residential units at a variety of densities.  Roughly 10,000 of those units will be planned at eight or fewer units to the acre, with some  as few as two units per acre. In the town center, 1,125 of "highest-density" units will occupy 45 acres. "Travertine Point enables the other lands in the eastern Coachella Valley to be able to continue on as agriculture, rather than just continue as subdivision on subdivision," said Paul Quill, a land development specialist with Innovative Land Concepts and spokesperson for the Travertine Point project. "Rather than allowing the ongoing encroachment of population, we're trying to do something in a big way that concentrates it into a community." SB 375 Poster Child? In fact, Quill said that Travertine Point is designed, explicitly, to conform with Senate Bill 375, the 2008law that promotes emissions reductions through compact development. Travertine Point's plan contends that if new, non-infill development is to occur, some models are better than others.   "I feel it not only conforms with SB 375, but I believe it should be fully embraced as the intent of SB 375," said Quill.  "To the extent that there will be development in raw land areas in Southern California, Travertine Point is the model for that."  Though the project covers three jurisdictions�Riverside County, the Torrez-Martinez reservation, and a small piece of Imperial County�Quill said that the planning and environmental documents are being drawn up holistically.  "To avoid the piecemealing argument, we have treated it as one project and mitigated our impacts as one project," said Quill.    So far, those efforts have impressed some officials in Riverside County, which will consider the project first.  "The backers of Travertine Point have really gone the extra mile to try and make it as environmentally sound and friendly as possible," said Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit, whose district would include Travertine Point. "I think they've gone that far and a little further." The project's sustainability plan contends that residents of Travertine Point, which would be built largely on fallowed agricultural land, would generate 38% less per-capita emissions than would residents in a business-as-usual scenario. This performance would be achieved through a combination of sustainable building techniques and compact development intended to reduce residents' vehicle miles travelled.  While most of the jobs in the area are currently low-paying agricultural jobs, developers say that Travertine Point is posed to capitalize on � and facilitate � a predicted explosion in green industries in the area. Though the desert is anything but lush, its relentless sunshine is poised to attract, by some estimates, up to $8 billion in solar energy projects in the coming decades.  Those projects, plus geothermal energy projects towards the southern end of the Salton Sea, are expected to bring construction and permanent jobs. Quill said that workers who live in Travertine Point will face far shorter commutes than they would if they lived in currently built-up parts of the valley.  "Everybody that works in the industry is driving an hour to get to it because they live in Palm Springs, La Quinta, and Indio," said Quill. "This project is located where the jobs will be."   Exorcising Ghosts of a Dead Sea Travertine Point's business model differs considerably from those of the developments that first arose around the Salton Sea. In the 1950s and '60s, vacation homes sprung up around the sea, which played host to all manner of water sports and recreation. Boosters promoted it as an oasis for water skiers and weekenders who populated homes in cities such as North Shore and Salton City. Those cities' mother lode ran out, however, as the sea's salinity spiked in the 1970s and the lake became inhospitable to recreation.  Today, ghostly traces of streets make Salton City perhaps the state's largest stillborn development. It, and similar developments, have made the sea a symbol of Southern California noir.  Black Emerald insists that Travertine Point faces a far different future.  "What happened then in the 1950s was strictly a water-vacation based development," said Quill.  "We're not that. We're trying to provide housing, industry, commercial�.that would be a sustainable new town. Salton City and North Shore were never designed to be sustainable." Environmentalists, however, would prefer that Travertine Point never even have the chance to become a ghost town�or anything else.  'Dumb Growth on a Massive Scale' They reject the developer's claims about greenhouse gas mitigation and contend that it lies too far from any established jobs or housing centers to be considered anything but leapfrog development. A May 24 letter from the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Defenders of Wildlife to the Riverside County Planning Commission urges the commission to deny the Travertine Point EIR on several grounds. In addition to claiming that the EIR includes improper deferral of analysis and mitigation efforts, the letter contends that "there is no way over 37,000 people can truly live in a sustainable fashion in a desert environment" and that it does not support SB 375.   "It's dumb growth on a massive scale," said Jonathan Evans, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been active in Riverside County habitat issues.  Evans also said that planning a development around a brand-new industry�and anticipating certain commuting patterns�does not amount to a recipe for sustainability.     "Who knows if they'll materialize," said Evans. "We're seeing a large rush of solar development in the desert in terms of permitting. Whether the financing and actual construction of that occurs is speculative at best." Moreover, they say that a development that massive is bound to take its toll on nearby ecological resources, including the sea and nearby Anza-Borrego State Park.  "I think that it's placing a disastrous project next to a water body that already is troubled," said Evans. "Certainly there won't be any benefits to the Salton Sea from the runoff or the pollution caused by this project." The biggest environmental disaster, however, may have nothing to do with development as such.  According to scientists and public officials alike, there is a very real possibility that the Salton Sea may dry up entirely within the next generation. The 2004 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), governing California's allocation of 4.4 million annual acre-feet of Colorado River water, calls for water to be diverted from Imperial Valley farms. The runoff from those farms feeds the Salton Sea.   Though the QSA is currently being litigated, if and when it goes into effect, the Salton Sea will lose the majority of its inflow.  "After 2017 the sea essential goes into a tailspin," said Michael Cohen, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute.  The evaporation of the sea and exposure of seabed is expected to result in dust storms that would give a Depression-era Okie pause.  "We're going to have a dust problem that's going to make the Owens Lake look like child's play," said Ashley, referring to the lake that dried up when its waters were diverted to the Los Angeles aqueduct. "Property values will plummet even further around the area.  It will be an economic and ecological disaster." Salton Sea 2.0 Averting this fate has been on the minds of policymakers and environmentalists since the 1950s. Currently, the Salton Sea Authority governs restoration projects around the sea and has been involved with the planning of restoration efforts, but neither it nor any other entity is currently pursuing a restoration plan.  Most recently, in 2004, the state legislature directed the California Natural Resources Agency to devise an ecosystem restoration plan. In 2008 the Legislative Analysts Office issued a report on a number of plan alternatives, recommending the adoption of a plan that would reduce the sea's surface area by 60 percent through a network of dams and dikes�at an estimated cost of $9 billion (see CP&DR Vol. 22, No. 9 Sept. 2007 ).  Since then, little action has been taken and no significant funding has been allocated to the project.  "If the Legislature felt like the state could financially support the preferred alternative and move forward with funding," said Kent Nelson, who covers the Salton Sea for the state Department of Water Resrouces. "In the absence of some kind of miraculous recovery, we're not sure where that money is going to come from." Quill insists that Travertine Point remains viable even if the sea does dry up. He said that Black Emerald is prepared to scrap the marina, which would sit on Torrez-Martinez land, and that the recreational component would be "a home run," according to Quill, for an otherwise viable development.  "We don't rely on Salton Sea restoration for the future success of the community," said Quill.  "We know that these renewable energy industries are coming. That growth is going to occur whether or not the sea is restored."  On the other hand, Black Emerald does not want the sea to die without a fight.  Local officials, who say that the sea simply isn't a priority for Sacramento lawmakers, are promoting a plan that, they say, would cost as little as $3 billion. That plan would include an initial phase of $500 million, spent largely on a dike across the northern portion of the sea. Those amounts could be modest enough to spur the establishment of an infrastructure financing district funded by a public-private partnership.  As such, despite environmentalists' criticisms of Travertine Point, it may, in fact, hold a key to the sea's future.  "Projects like Travertine Point and projects similar to it around the sea, as well as the renewable energy industries�.will be able to contribute significant funding to the infrastructure financing district," said Quill.   "Travertine Point could be a real meaningful component of saving the sea," said Ashley, the county supervisor. Longtime observers of the sea are not optimistic.  "Every year or two the Salton Sea Authority says we should have an infrastructure financing district," said Cohen.  "We say it definitely makes sense to have local financing contribute to a portion of this. And nothing ever happens." Contacts:  Travertine Point Project Site, Riverside County Planning Department Marion Ashley, Supervisor, Riverside County District 5, 951.955.1050 John Benoit, Supervisor, Riverside County 4th District, 760.863.8211 Michael Cohen, Senior Research Associate, Water Program, Pacific Institute, 720.564.0651  Jonathan Evans, Staff Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity, 415.436.9682 Kent Nelson, Department of Water Resources, 916.653.5791 Paul Quill, Land Development Specialist, Innovative Land Concepts, Inc., 760.771.8050

In the first quarter of 2011, 53% of buyers could afford the median-priced single-family in California, and 60% could afford the median-priced condo or townhouse, according to the California Association of Realtors. This is a remarkable turn from the years of the housing bubble, when CAR's affordability index dived to the low teens. Pegging a lower median price and making more generous lending assumptions, the National Association of Homebuilders now places California's housing affordability index at 64.6%. At the same time, about one-third of California homeowners are underwater, owing more on their mortgage than their real estate is worth, according to CoreLogic, Inc., a leading analyst. This is the way things are going to stay for a while, apparently. Real estate experts predict housing prices will either fall a touch more, or increase by a few percentage points during the next three or four years. And California housing construction remains in a slump, with the Construction Industry Research Board predicting in late May that builders would pull permits for 51,000 units this year. That total is an increase from 36,000 in 2009 and about 45,000 last year, but it's still remarkably few units for a state that continues to add about 500,000 residents a year . "California is in a situation which shouldn't be possible to be in," Jed Kolko, associate director and research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California told me. "That is a situation of falling prices, and a situation of high prices." Here's what he means: California's median home price has fallen by nearly half in five years to about $290,000, yet it is still roughly 75% greater than the national median. Moreover, prices remain the least affordable in the job-rich coastal urban areas such as San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Orange County, while housing has become extraordinarily inexpensive in job-poor inland areas such as the San Joaquin Valley and San Bernardino County – locations where the median price is less than the national average. "Just because prices have fallen a lot doesn't mean prices are low relative to incomes in California and relative to other states," Kolko said. Still, there's no denying that real estate prices have nose-dived. That's the primary reason that one-third of homeowners are underwater and that California continues to be among the foreclosure leaders. So California finds itself in the seemingly intractable position of needing to boost the supply of affordable housing while also bolstering real estate values. "It's very hard to make policy for two problems that call for almost two completely different solutions," Kolko observed. Making the problems even more difficult to tackle is the fact that California is composed of many different, yet overlapping, housing markets. In the Central Valley, including Sacramento itself, housing affordability is no longer much of an issue. But in much of the Bay Area, San Diego and Los Angeles, a shortage of affordable units remains a problem for households and for businesses. You would think this situation presages the resurgence of the monster commute from homes in Hesperia to jobs in Pasadena, or from Merced to Santa Clara. However, gasoline costs $4 a gallon now, and we are all aware that fuel prices could spike upward again with little warning. It's no surprise that the policy response at the state Capitol is confused. After years of being a high profile issue, affordable housing has faded into the background. The Brown administration proposes eliminating redevelopment (the state's largest ongoing source of funding for affordable housing development) and the Department of Housing and Community Development's housing element review and technical assistance functions. Bills in the Legislature are all over the map, but the only ones that appear to be moving forward are those that tinker at various fringes. The California Housing Law Project reported last week, "With an increasingly bold mod (moderate) caucus, the Senate appears hostile territory for legislation to address the housing needs of low-income families this year." On the issues of foreclosures and lending, the state has limited authority, as the federal government does most of the regulating. Plus, banks and other lenders continue to exert a great deal of influence over state lawmakers, as financial institutions can make much larger campaign donations than can homeowners who are drowning in debt. Again, most of the bills that have moved through the Legislature since the real estate market crashed have addressed minor matters. If you've read this far in hopes of finding light at the end of the tunnel, you're going to be disappointed by the pervasive darkness that I see. The overall market is weak and is going to remain so. Housing policy, not only at the state level but also at the federal level, is equally weak. In an era of black-and-white politics, our housing problems require answers in many shades of gray. Cities and counties that make real decisions about what housing gets built are mostly pawns in a game they don't control. Senate Bill 375 would have us making housing decisions based in large part on climate change considerations. It's a noble thought, perhaps even visionary, and it's driving conversations about urban development patterns that we probably should have had decades ago. But may I suggest that other climates need to change before California can start truly thinking on such a grand scale. – Paul Shigley

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

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

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

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

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

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