The Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR) has released a draft of the new CEQA Guidelines for assessing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts of and on projects as mandated by SB 97 (Public Resources Code § 21083.05). The proposed revisions are one more reminder that the shortest path through the CEQA thicket on greenhouse gas emissions will be for local agencies to adopt climate action plans and to be fully engaged in regional planning to assure that greenhouse gas effects are adequately addressed in a plan for which an environmental impact report was certified. As the introduction to OPR's draft frankly acknowledged, "The most difficult part of any greenhouse gas emissions analysis will inevitably be the determination of significance." OPR tracked existing law in stating that lead agencies have discretion to establish thresholds of significance "based on individual circumstances."  Presumably by "individual" OPR means the agency's individualized local circumstances. To be considered valid, local thresholds of significance must be adopted for general use by the jurisdiction for review of all projects, after undergoing a public review process (which for local agencies would include a public hearing) and be based on substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7). Local thresholds should not be based on the individual circumstances of specific projects. Project-level assessments of significance if potentially above adopted threshold levels as determined in the initial study are made in an EIR. OPR pointed out that it had requested CARB technical staff to recommend methods for setting thresholds of significance. OPR did not refer to CARB's "Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases" released in October, which received a chilly response at a public workshop last fall. OPR noted only, "If CARB makes recommendations supported by substantial evidence, lead agencies may take them into consideration as part of their independent processes, consistent with adopted CEQA regulations, to adopt thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions." You might say OPR handed CARB back its watch, unwound. The draft revisions are presented in a red-line strike-out format to show the context in which they appear in the existing CEQA Guidelines. Of particular note are the provisions broadening the documents which may be used for tiering purposes. In addition to general plans and previously specified regional plans, agencies would be allowed to tier off specific plans, regional blueprint plans, sustainable community strategies (a nod to SB 375) and climate action plans. Again, this reinforces the idea that local agencies should take a systematic approach, rather than addressing projects' greenhouse gas impacts on an ad hoc basis. – Joel Ellinwood, AICP

The notion of using redevelopment to help solve the state's budget deficit continues to percolate in Sacramento. Meanwhile, analyses of the governor's proposed 18-month budget that was released on New Year's Eve are trickling out. In today's column , the Sacramento Bee' s Dan Walters lays out the redevelopment scheme, which we first described two weeks ago . Essentially, in exchange for a portion of proceeds from the sale of tax increment bonds, the state would permit redevelopment agencies to extend their activities for decades. Most of the discussion so far has concerned the legality and fiscal ramifications of such an approach. But what of the implications for redevelopment itself? State lawmakers have been "reforming" redevelopment since the early 1990s to limit the opportunities for abuse. Among the most important reforms is a mandatory end date for redevelopment activities, which is forcing a number of the oldest redevelopment project areas to shut down by the end of this year. Permitting redevelopment agencies to extend their activities for as much as 40 years without having to make new legal determinations that blight still exists could cancel out many of the reforms. You won't find the redevelopment extension scheme in the governor's budget proposal . But you will find a truly remarkable array of revenue increases and spending reductions for the remainder of the 2008-09 fiscal year and for 2009-10. Some of the proposals are tried-and-true and typically DOA, such as eliminating Williamson Act subventions. More interesting is the administration's attempt at what would appear to be the impossible – cutting billions from the state budget while using state spending to juice the economy.  Among the measures that get our attention, in no particular order: • Elimination of $459 million in funding for transit operations, with the money shifted to education. • Spending an additional $1.15 billion in Proposition 1B funding for building local transit projects. • Speeding up engineering, design and environmental work for the high-speed rail project by $123 million. This would be funded by the $9.95 billion Proposition 1A bond approved in November. • Redirection of $100 million in tribal gaming revenues from transportation projects to the state general fund. • A $2.2 billion push for highway building framed as an "economic stimulus package." This includes "exemptions for a limited number of projects from the California Environmental Quality Act." • Spending $487 million from the Proposition 1C housing bond for affordable housing, infill development, transit-oriented development and parks. • A $248 million reduction in the Cal Fire (nee CDF) budget for fire suppression. This is a cut of more than 50%. • Spending $648 million from Proposition 84 and 1E bond funds for flood control projects in the Central Valley and Bay Delta. • $5.6 million for environmental work related to renewable energy projects in the Southern California deserts. Included is $3 million for development of a Natural Communities Conservation Plan. • Elimination of Williamson Act subventions. This saves the state about $35 million a year and makes counties fully liable for reduced property taxes paid by agricultural landowners. • A $7.2 million increase in a revolving fund to pay for retrofits that reduce energy consumption in state buildings. • A 9.9% tax on oil production that could generate about $1.2 billion.   • And, of course, the increase in the state sales tax from 5% to 6.5%. We'll be following all of these proposals and more as the budget evolves in coming days (and weeks and months). You may find the California State Association of Counties' budget analysis here . The League of California Cities' brief budget analysis is here. The California Budget Project analysis is here . – Paul Shigley

The 23rd Annual Land Use Law and Planning ConferenceFriday, January 23, 20098:30am-5pm Reg # U6232, $ 400, fee goes up to $450 on January 9, 2009.  Reg # U7874, $150 for faculty and students 7 hours of MCLE and CM credit available, including Legal Ethics credits. UCLA Extension's annual Land Use Law and Planning Conference is the leading source of information on California land use legislation, case law, and the emerging issues that frame land use and development practices in the nation's most populous state. Its unique cross-disciplinary approach explores the full range of perspectives drawn from the land use planning, legal, development, and environmental communities—and demonstrates how these factors influence the day-to-day work of planners, developers, environmental regulators, and attorneys. Join our experts and audience members as they review the important issues of the past year and explore what is on the horizon. Conference Chairs: Catherine Showalter, Director, Public Policy Program, UCLA Extension Steven A. Preston, FAICP, Deputy City Manager and Community Development Director, City of San Gabriel Margaret Moore Sohagi, President, The Sohagi Law Group, Los Angeles Conference Advisors: Peter Detwiler, Staff Director, California State Senate Local Government Committee,Sacramento Susan K. Hori, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Costa Mesa Key Note Speaker: Darell Steinberg, CA State Senator SB 375 and Its Implications for Land Use and Transportation Planning Update Topics: • CEQA 2008: New Directives from The Court and Legislature • Litigation and Legislation: Planning, Zoning, Development Law (PZDL) Update • Quick Hits: Mr. Toad's Wild Ride o Floods & Wildfires o Community Benefit Agreements o SCAQMD Rule 2301 o Stormwater Permit o Transportation—Goods Movement o Tribal Gaming Assessment Topics: • 100 Years of The Planning Movement: What Has It Gotten Us? • The Right Stuff: Making Ethical Choices • Climate Change and Land Use: The Ultimate Compass for Navigating the Storm • When the Going Gets Tough: Development in a Recession We look forward to seeing you at the 23rd Annual Land Use Law and Planning Conference ! For more information and to enroll go to www.uclaextension.edu/landuse09 or call 310 825 7885.

The development of affordable housing is inherently difficult. Projects typically require multiple funding sources, face neighborhood opposition, and are closely watched by both skeptics and state housing officials. Yet California's need for additional affordable housing is undeniable, despite the crash in real estate prices. So CP&DR shares this look at three different projects to offer lessons for anyone involved in providing housing affordable to people of modest means: a crime-ridden, market-rate condominium complex that the Rialto Redevelopment Agency rehabilitated as affordable apartments; a new, eye-catching project in an industrial part of San Jose that serves 218 households making less than half of median income; and a project in Contra Costa County that overcame what appeared to be imminent failure. Rialto Rehab The Willow-Winchester condominiums were originally built during the late 1960s for first-time homebuyers. By the early 1990s, however, most of the 160 units had become rentals with absentee owners. Crime and drugs grew to be major problems, and the condo complex saw multiple homicides every year, said John Dutry, housing preservation specialist for the Rialto Redevelopment Agency. "It was the worst crime area in Rialto. When we had calls for service, three police officers responded," Dutry recalled. By 2004, the City Council had had enough and directed staff members to do whatever was necessary to solve the problem. The city's Housing Authority signed an agreement with the nonprofit National Community Renaissance (or National CORE) to revitalize Willow-Winchester, which would soon become Citrus Grove. At the time, about 120 of the 160 units were occupied, but only about 10 by condo owners. The Housing Authority began acquiring units quickly, as most owners were willing to sell. Acting as the Housing Authority board, the City Council approved use of eminent domain to acquire about a dozen units. All but two of the reluctant owners eventually settled and, by October 2005, the Housing Authority had control of all the units with National CORE as interim property manager. The city then needed to empty the condo complex. The city evicted about 40 households because of nonpayment of rent or crime problems. The 10 owner-occupants were relocated, as were about seven renters. Everyone else vacated on their own terms, according to Dutry. The Willow-Winchester condominiums (above) were revamped into the Citrus Grove project (below). Construction started in the summer of 2006. Units were rehabilitated down to the studs, with the majority converted from two bedrooms and one bath, to three bedrooms and two baths. The city also demolished eight units to make space for a community learning center, which now houses a Head Start program, after school tutoring, day care, adult education and other services. Citrus Grove had its grand re-opening in October 2008. "If you have the money and the will, you can make it happen. One of the secrets of the project was having the council 100% in support," said Dutry. He also credited National CORE for its expertise, as well the law firm of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth for helping with rapid acquisition of units and the condemnation process. The $37.6 million project had multiple funding sources: $7.8 million from the Proposition 48 housing bond, $8.2 million in tax credits, $14 million from the city redevelopment agency's affordable housing fund, $3 million from the HOME program, $2 million from the California Housing Finance Agency, and smaller contributions from other sources. Citrus Grove rents range from $351 to $864, depending on unit size and household income. Rialto officials are now expanding the rehabilitation effort into a neighboring 42-unit complex that was slipping into the same crime trends as Willow-Winchester. The city has acquired the units and intends to start reconstruction later this year. San Jose's Senter In the last 20 years, San Jose has developed more affordable housing units than any other city in the state, and possibly the country. The city's Housing Department has provided about 16,000 units since it was carved out of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency in 1988. Paseo Senter at Coyote Creek is one of the newest projects. Completed last summer, the project provides 66 units for households with incomes no more than 25% of median, and 152 units for households with incomes no more than 45% of median. But the project, said San Jose Housing Director Leslye Krutko, has done more than simply provide shelter. The project has features that provide services to Paseo Senter tenants and neighboring residents, she said. Child care is offered on-site in addition to a Native American community and health center, a swimming pool and tot lot, and facilities for kin caregivers, after-school programs and educational classes. In addition, the project was designed to link two disconnected sections of Wool Creek Drive. The new extension provides vehicular and pedestrian access to an elementary school. Previously, students had to walk along very busy Senter Road and through an industrial park to reach the school, explained Ron Eddow, a senior development officer with the Housing Department. The project also involved a land swap that resulted in creation of public open space along Coyote Creek. The site of Paseo Senter before the project (above) and after completion (below) Architects at David Baker + Partners gave Paseo Senter a modern design with apartments that wrap around a parking garage, shielding the parking facility from view and providing tenants with parking on the same floor as their unit. The project's bright, tropical colors and central walkway (or paseo) provide an atmosphere far from the drabness of many low-cost housing projects. The city worked with Charities Housing Development Corporation and CORE Affordable Housing to develop the $80 million project. Financing sources numbered 13, including $32 million in low-income housing tax credits, $18.5 million from the Department of Housing and Community Development's multi-family housing program, $12.9 million from the Redevelopment Agency's housing fund, $1 million from a state fund for support services, and $1 million from the Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund. "This is very special about the project. This is a lot of different funding sources coming into one project," said Alina Kwak, an analyst with the Housing Department. More than 3,000 people, including many Vietnamese families who already lived in the area, applied to live in Paseo Senter. Rents start at $260 a month, compared with an area median of about $1,500. Bay Point Rescue When the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency completed the 52-unit Bella Monte apartment complex in the fall of 2005, it was cause for celebration. Located on a former junk yard near Pittsburg in the poor, unincorporated community of Bay Point, Bella Monte was intended to bring decent housing and a measure of stability to a rough neighborhood. The California Redevelopment Association named the North Broadway Neighborhood Revitalization Program – which includes the Bella Monte, 69 market-rate houses and infrastructure improvements – the winner of a 2007 award for community revitalization. But things were going wrong. In less than a year's time, nearly half of Bella Monte's tenants moved out, most voluntarily. It was beginning to look like even an award-winning redevelopment project could not survive in Bay Point. The Redevelopment Agency was willing to do physical improvements to increase Bella Monte security, but they were not going to improve the situation. "The driver of our problem was a bar that was located across the street, and that had been both a code enforcement and law enforcement problem for many years," explained Jim Kennedy, the redevelopment agency's executive director. "It was bringing into the area a cast of characters that was spilling into the adjacent housing project." What the county and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control found, according to Kennedy, was that the owners of Grover's Bar were elderly people who seemed unaware that their establishment had become a haven for prostitution, drug-dealing and minors seeking easy access to booze. Facing stepped up enforcement, Grover's Bar closed in early 2008. The bar's closure, plus a few Bella Monte property management improvements, have made all the difference, Kennedy said. The lesson is that ongoing management – which is easily overlooked – is probably the most important part of affordable housing development, he said.

There is a new gold rush in California. Rather than extracting minerals from the ground, the new prospectors are hoping to exploit California's abundant sunshine and wind. From the southern Cascade Mountains of far northern California to the desert along the Mexico border, utilities, start-up companies and entrepreneurs are proposing scores of large-scale solar thermal, photovoltaic and wind projects to generate electricity. So far, very little has actually gotten approved or built, but many projects are in the planning pipeline at the California Energy Commission, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and individual counties. The projects come in response to concern over climate change and the long-term price of oil and natural gas, and in response to a state law that requires utilities to provide 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, as well as Gov. Schwarzenegger's executive order demanding that one-third of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, about 12% of the state's power comes from renewables. While almost no one is questioning the push for renewable energy, questions have begun to arise about the projects. Large-scale solar projects require huge tracts of land – roughly 6 acres per megawatt – and solar thermal projects need approximately 1 acre-foot of water annually for every 8 to 10 megawatts. Wind farms involve windmills that are deadly for birds, especially raptors that often live and hunt in windy grasslands. The newest, most powerful windmills can interfere with military radar. Many of the projects are planned in remote desert or agricultural areas, potentially turning isolated places into major industrial centers. The projects often require new transmission lines, which can mean carving power line corridors through previously undeveloped areas. (Geothermal sources and tidal action are also potential renewable resources, but they are not being pursued aggressively so far. Hydroelectric power often is not characterized as renewable.) The state's permitting scheme is schizophrenic. The California Energy Commission (CEC) regulates solar thermal projects, which essentially collect the sun's warmth to create steam that turns a turbine, thereby making electricity. Solar thermal projects smaller than 50 megawatts, however, fall to local government. In addition, local government has jurisdiction over wind energy and photovoltaic projects, which create electricity directly from the sun's energy. Dozens of solar projects are proposed for federal territory controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, which is working with the CEC on project review. Wind and photovoltaic projects proposed by a public utility such as Sacramento Municipal Utility District or Los Angeles Department of Water and Power do not have to abide by local government regulations. Transmission lines fall within the purview of the Public Utilities Commission. "We've never had such a long list of power plants under review," said Percy Della, a CEC spokesman. The list contains both gas-fired and alternative fuel projects. Long the center of California's petroleum industry, Kern County appears poised to become the heart of the renewable energy business. County planners are currently reviewing five conditional use permit applications for projects that would generate from 350 megawatts to 850 MW apiece, and it has at least a dozen energy-related environmental impact reports in process. (One megawatt is enough to power approximately 700 homes.) The county last year permitted a 300 MW wind farm in the high desert proposed by a subsidiary of enXco, a company that operates wind farms around the country. It would be the largest wind farm in California. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) recently activated the first of 80 1.5 MW windmills in its Pine Tree project near Ridgecrest, and LADWP plans another 200 MW of wind development in the area. "There is certainly potential here from an energy standpoint, even without the oil," said Kern County Planning Director Ted James, noting the county's windy mountain passes, and sunny Central Valley and high desert territories. "There is a lot of good for Kern County that will come out of it." Still, said James, the issues are rapidly becoming challenging. The biggest issue may be protection of military installations. With its expansive desert bases, the military remains Kern County's largest employer. However, reflections off wind machines – some of which are proposed near military flight paths – can interfere with radar. The county is currently working with the CEC to determine the best practices for dealing with the conflict, as well as for minimizing avian mortality, James said. The windmill-radar conflict has stalled proposals for large wind farms in Solano County's Montezuma Hills, southwest or Rio Vista, according to Solano County Planning Manager Mike Yankovich. Sacramento Municipal Utility District and other companies have operated wind farms in the area since the 1980s, but they have used smaller, 100 kilowatt wind machines that had no effect on radar. The proposed 1MW to 1.5MW machines cause a ghost in the radar used by the Air Force, whose base at Travis is within 10 to 15 miles of the Montezuma Hills. Both Solano County and the CEC have identified the Montezuma Hills for wind power development. Although aesthetics and avian impacts are concerns, large-scale wind development is compatible with the area's wheat, hay and livestock operations, Yankovich said. In Eastern San Luis Obispo County's Carrizo Plain, the interest is sun. A CEC study found the area could generate as much as 4,600 MW of solar electricity. The county has begun reviewing a proposal from Topaz Solar Farms, a subsidiary of Optisolar, for a 550 MW photovoltaic power plant, according to John McKenzie, senior environmental planner for San Luis Obispo County. A separate 250 MW photovoltaic project is also being discussed, as is a 177 MW solar thermal plant. "There are a few unique components to these type of developments that we are dealing with. But we are also looking at the standard impacts on the ground," McKenzie said. The more obvious effects include potential loss of habitat, and water and visual impacts. But the projects also create the need for new transmission line capacities, meaning the creation of new corridors, and the photovoltaic projects' on-site energy storage presents a safety issue, McKenzie explained. The biggest concern of both the county and residents of the sparsely populated pastoral area, though, may be the sheer size of the projects. The Topaz Solar Farm would cover 9 square miles with solar panels, McKenzie said. "The size and industrial composition of these projects would change the nature of the Carrizo Plains," he said. Environmental advocates are monitoring the large-scale alternative power plant trend. Steve Siegel, a Center for Biological Diversity attorney, emphasized the organization endorses the replacement of fossil fuel energy. But, he said, new solar and wind projects need to be located in already disturbed locations, and not in areas with viable habitat. In addition, he said, projects should be located as close as possible to power users to minimize the need for new transmission lines. Among the projects environmentalists are watching is the very isolated 400 MW Ivanpah solar thermal project proposed by Solar Partners/Brightsource near Interstate 15 and the Nevada border. A preliminary assessment released in December determined the project could have significant impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use, soils and water, traffic, aesthetics and transmission systems. The Ivanpah project is one of dozens proposed for BLM land in the Southern California deserts. The BLM is currently working on a programmatic environmental impact statement for solar development on public lands. A transmission corridor that could reach some projects on BLM land in Imperial County was approved by the PUC in December. The 123-mile Sunrise Powerlink project won approval after San Diego Gas & Electric agreed to steer the transmission lines away from Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Still, environmental groups and some consumer activists say the project is unnecessary and vow to sue. Contacts: Ted James, Kern County Planning Department, (661) 862-8600. Mike Yankovich, Solano County Planning Department, (707) 784-6765. John McKenzie, San Luis Obispo County Planning Department, (805) 781-5600. Steve Siegel, Center for Biological Diversity, (619) 241-6409. California Energy Commission solar projects: www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html . Bureau of Land Management Solar Energy Development: http://solareis.anl.gov .

Although gigantic state budget deficits are threatening to stall thousands of public works projects in California, one major effort appears to remain on track: Courthouse construction. The $5 billion program for replacing, rehabilitating or expanding 41 courthouses has its own funding source in the form of civil filing fees and criminal penalties. Four projects – new courthouses in Los Angeles County, Chico, Red Bluff and Woodland – have been approved and authorized, and eight others have been approved by the state Judicial Council and await final Department of Finance authorization. "California's courthouses are in a spiraling state of crisis," the state Judicial Council reported last year. "Many buildings which house California courts are in a critical state of disrepair and antiquated design. Inadequate security has created dangerous conditions that place children, jurors, witnesses, litigants, visitors and court employees at risk." Legislation approved last year (SB 1407, Perata) authorized the issuance of $5 billion in lease-revenue bonds to be retired by new civil and criminal fees. The legislation increased numerous civil filing fees by $20 to $25, raised fees for motor vehicle license, registration or mechanical violations by $15, boosted traffic violator school fees $25, and imposed an assessment of $30 on each felony or misdemeanor conviction, and $35 on each infraction, including traffic offenses. The construction program is a follow-up to the ongoing transfer of court facilities from counties to the state government. State lawmakers authorized the transfer in 2002, and court officials have been inspecting, reviewing and ranking the facilities for repair or replacement ever since, said Philip Carrizosa, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts. "The counties are more than glad to get this off their budgets. As the counties had gotten more strapped financially, they had pretty much stopped taking care of the courthouses," Carrizosa said. Although the state has taken possession of many of the 451 court facilities, it continues to negotiate with counties over some seismically questionable buildings. Essentially, the state is requiring the counties to accept liability should a future earthquake damage these facilities, Carrizosa explained. The state's negotiating position has eased, as several years ago it insisted counties bring facilities up to seismic safety standards before the state would accept the properties. The Judicial Council estimates 90% of courthouse facilities need some level of improvement. The council and the Administrative Office of the Courts chose the 41 projects for the SB 1407 program based on security needs, the level of overcrowding, physical hazards and public access needs. After deciding on the projects, court officials prioritized them according to security needs, economic opportunity (such as low-cost land, contributions from local government and operational cost savings) and the need to replace or consolidate inefficient, disparate or small spaces. In Red Bluff, for example, a new courthouse will replace five courtrooms that are spread out in four different buildings, a layout that is both inefficient and unsafe. In 1985, a judge was shot at, but not hit, while walking through an unsecured parking lot. Red Bluff's five-courtroom, $78 million project is scheduled for completion by 2013, about the time the largest of the SB 1407 projects might get started – a $1.19 billion, 71-courtroom high rise in downtown San Diego. The new Central San Diego Courthouse will replace the existing courthouse and two other downtown facilities, said Ming Yim, director of court facilities for the San Diego County Superior Court. Even though the existing downtown courthouse, which spans three blocks, is only 48 years old, it poses numerous security problems and is extremely expensive to maintain, Yim said. Because of asbestos in the ceiling, for example, jobs as minor as changing a light bulb require workers to don protective asbestos suits and block off areas with warning signs, he said. Plus, a fault runs right under the north tower of the existing building, which is likely to crumble in a large earthquake. The new courthouse is proposed to fill a 200-foot-by-300-foot city block bordered by B and C streets to the north and south, and Front and Union streets to the east and west. The 17-story, 370-foot tall courthouse envisioned by Skidmore Owings & Merrill would replace a county building now located on the site. The Superior Court and the county continue to negotiate the transfer of the site, Yim said. The site is ideal because of its close proximity to the central jail, said Yim, who added, "The idea is that eventually we will tunnel back to the central jail." The Superior Court facility would connect via a new pedestrian plaza to a federal courthouse that is proposed only one block away (see CP&DR Public Development , December 2005 ). The $400 million federal courthouse project has been delayed several years, partly because contractors said the structure could not be built within the original $220 million budget. The new courthouses would be important parts of a downtown government district. Right across the street from the proposed state courthouse site, the City of San Diego is in the early planning stages for replacing its 1960's-era civic center. Once the San Diego Superior Court gets the green light, construction of the new courthouse should take about seven years, Yim estimated. Contacts: Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Construction and Management: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/occm . Ming Yim, San Diego County Superior Court, (619) 450-5700.

How far can the City of Riverside extend $6 million in federal aid for cleaning up the foreclosure mess? Before tackling that question, please review the following numbers, all of which are big: As of October 2008, more than 2.5 million households in the U.S. were either in foreclosure or somewhere along the way, a 72% increase above the year-earlier level, according to foreclosures.com, an investment website. The total value of what lenders call REOs (for "real estate owned" by banks) is anybody's guess, but it's safe to peg it somewhere north of $100 billion. (Remember when a $1 billion seemed like a lot of money? Now it seems barely enough to buy a carton of milk at the school cafeteria.) If the financial cost of the foreclosure avalanche is high, however, the social cost seems no less overarching. In many working-class neighborhoods, where foreclosure activity tends to predominate, the number of abandoned properties on some blocks threatens to outnumber homes that remain occupied. As a consequence, even non-foreclosed homes lose much of their value and become nearly unsellable while vacant homes become nests for squatters or gangs or both. The so-called Inland Empire, which is the marketing name for Riverside and San Bernardino counties, is reporting one of the highest foreclosures rates in the country. In cities such as Perris and Hemet, foreclosures represent up to 15% of all single-single-family homes. The mortgage default rate in the City of Riverside is not as severe, yet 3,688 homes became REOs from July 2007 through November 2008, according to city officials. In October, Congress finally responded by enacting the $15 billion Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008, authored by a group led by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program, created to disburse the money, is budgeted with only $3.92 billion, for some reason. The intent of the bill is to enable local government to buy foreclosed homes and resell them as quickly as possible to new owners, rather than let the homes become social hazards and eyesores. At least 25% of those units (both single-family and multi-family) must be sold or rented to low- and low very-income households. As a whole, Riverside County is set to receive $48 million for neighborhood stabilization. Some communities have balked at the idea of government getting involved in the business of buying and selling homes, viewing the practice as an unwelcome intrusion on free enterprise, or as tying up precious cash in white-elephant real estate at a time when local government is cash-poor. The slow recovery of the mortgage market combined with the calamitous growth in foreclosures arguably trumps both those contentions, however. Like much recent Congressional legislation, the statute is an emergency measure: Under HUD rules, local governments had only 45 days to put their plans together, with a deadline of December 5, so they can receive funds by mid-January. Riverside, a city of nearly 300,000 people, responded as quickly as any municipality in the country, according to the city's housing program manager, Jim Yerdon, who wrote the city's foreclosure aid plan. In less than four weeks, "we held a public hearing, drafted the plan, held another public hearing on the draft, got the plan approved by the City Council and submitted the plan to HUD on Election Day, a month before the official deadline," he said. "I think we were the first in the country to finish." Beyond speed of preparation, flexibility may be the most notable aspect of Riverside's foreclosure-aid plan. The plan says the city is ready to participate in nearly every category of housing rescue listed by HUD – including rehabilitation, readying properties for sale to homeowners, and even demolishing properties that are too far gone and selling the land to Habitat for Humanity, the volunteer home building group. The only category that Riverside did not sign up for is new construction. "There's just no market for it," Yerdon said. To assist low-income families to buy homes, the city plans to set up a lease-purchase structure, by which households initially pay monthly rent. The city sets aside at least 5% of the rents into an escrow account to be applied toward a future purchase. To stretch the city's thin supply of foreclosure-aid dollars, the city plans to ask lenders of some foreclosed properties, when possible, to "carry back the note" while the city looks for a new buyer. In other words, the city wants the bank to provide a new mortgage for the city as homeowner. It's cheaper, after all, for the city to pay a monthly mortgage than buy a property outright for cash. The city plans to assist households earning less than $35,000 a year, for whom home ownership is untenable, by converting multi-family foreclosures into affordable rentals. Nobody, including Yerdon, pretends that $6 million is enough to cure the foreclosure problems of Riverside. "It's a drop in the proverbial bucket, but a start in the right direction," he said. One best-case result, he said, would be to "stabilize the neighborhoods that are near the tipping point," because foreclosures could overwhelm the local housing inventory. Given its limitations, what is Yerdon's view of the HUD program? "I'm completely impressed by HUD," said the Riverside official, who worked as a real estate agent for six years before entering government. The federal housing agency, he added, took "a very difficultly written piece of legislation and made it workable." This statement may startle some readers, especially affordable-housing advocates who have long viewed the federal housing agency as a tangle of red tape and inefficiency. Hearing the federal agency praised for effectiveness may strike their ears as oddly as hearing defense contractors being applauded for thrift. So be it. If the Neighborhood Stabilization Act is not enough to cure the foreclosure problems in Riverside or elsewhere, at least HUD was able to move quickly while allowing local government enough flexibility to get the maximum benefit from limited dollars. Until the next ship comes in, Riverside's version of neighborhood stabilization looks seaworthy enough.

Five million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is the target – at least for now – that is likely to drive "smart growth"-style land use planning in California over the next few years. It's the tentative reduction target that the California Air Resources Board has assigned to the land use sector in order to help meet the state's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals by 2020. CARB adopted the target in its AB "Climate Change Scoping Plan" in mid-December. First, it's not a very large percentage of the overall statewide reduction target of 174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E). Second, it's not nearly what environmentalists asked for. They wanted a reduction of between 11 and 15 MMTCO2E. Third, it is still a pretty big number. As near as I can tell, meeting this target will require a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (from the current levels, not projected 2020 levels) of around 3-4%, which would require a considerable shift in land use patterns. And fourth, it actually is not the final number. CARB punted to the soon-to-be-appointed "Regional Targets Advisory Committee" called for in SB 375 (see CP&DR , November 2008 , September 2008 ). The committee will to do an analysis of each region in the state and come up with a target for that region. The total reductions could be more or less than 5 million metric tons. But if it's less, then CARB will have to come up with other savings somewhere else. So the battle over the target is far from finished – and it's likely to stretch well into 2010, when the regional numbers must be finalized. Let's take a step back and look at just exactly what 5 million metric tons means in the real world of planning and development. Right now, Californians have more than 35 million vehicles, and they drive about 330 billion miles a year. Obviously, that's more than any other state. On a per-capita basis, however, California does pretty well. Annual per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California is about 9,000 miles, or about 24.6 miles per day. This ranks California 11th out of the 50 states in VMT efficiency. By contrast, per-capita VMT is about 10,200 miles in Texas and 11,300 miles in Florida. Still, all this driving represents a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions – somewhere around 135 million metric tons per year, or slightly less than a third of the state's current total of around 460 million metric tons. The problem is that VMT is expected to go up in the future – both in absolute numbers and per capita – and it has to go down in order for the state to meet the AB 32 targets. Forecasts for VMT for 2020 range between 380 billion and 430 billion miles, and the higher number is a much more likely "business as usual" scenario. This kicks the GHG emissions up to around 180 billion metric tons. Under AB 32, the state is expected to realize significant savings in vehicle-related GHGs from two other sources – better fuel efficiency for the vehicles themselves (32 million metric tons) and lower carbon content in the gasoline (15 million metric tons). But that still won't be enough to meet the state's goal. Hence the 5 million metric ton total to be extracted from changing land use patterns. So how much driving do we have to eliminate? If nothing else were to change, VMT would have to go down 11 billion miles per year from the current number – about 31 million miles per day. That's the equivalent of taking more than 1 million vehicles off the road completely in California. Alternatively, it's the equivalent of everybody in California – 40 million or so vehicles – driving about 1 mile less per day. Obviously, lots of people are locked into current driving patterns because they live in residential subdivisions accessible only by car. Others will probably increase their driving if they move to distant areas in order to buy houses, such as the Central Valley and Southern California's high desert. So that puts an enormous amount of pressure on infill development to deliver driving reductions. In essence, infill is going to have to offset all the increased VMT from new greenfield development and deliver a reduction of 31 million miles driven every day from current levels. Does this mean the end of greenfield development in California? Obviously not. There's too much land in play, too big a market and too many expectations – by landowners, developers, and local governments – for greenfield projects to go away. But the regional targets, combined with new SB 97 requirements to study a project's contribution to climate change, will put enormous pressure on greenfield projects to minimize their carbon footprint. And because even the most carbon-light greenfield development will create an increase in greenhouse gases, there will be an enormous amount of pressure on infill projects to create greenhouse gas savings. Inevitably, if AB 32 is the driving force, regional planning agencies will have to stack huge densities at every serious transit stop, and even in nodes and activity centers not heavily served by transit in order to reduce VMT (even if congestion increases). Infill areas could conceivably serve as "mitigation banks" for greenfield projects. Of course, if the enviros have their way, the target will be double or triple the 5 million metric tons per day. And because the land use target is currently squishy, it's possible that other sectors who anticipate having a tough time making their target will try to push for more savings from the land use sector. Which leads us, inevitably, to the politics of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee, which will recommend the actual land use target for each region. Senate Bill 375 says that the committee – which is scheduled to be appointed this month – is to be essentially a land use stakeholder committee that includes representatives from the metropolitan planning organizations and the air districts; from cities, counties, and local transportation agencies; and from homebuilding groups, environmental organizations, planning organizations, environmental justice organizations, affordable housing organizations, and other groups. Senate Bill 375 envisions a nerdy, technical task for the Regional Targets Advisory Committee, which is supposed to pass judgment on the modeling that will forecast possible GHG savings from land use in each region, as well as growth predictions and jobs-housing balance forecasts. The committee is supposed to make its recommendations to CARB by September. No matter how technical the task is on paper, however, the targets committee inevitably will be enmeshed in a political tug-of-war among the usual land use suspects – local governments, homebuilders, environmentalists – over the numbers. Local governments and homebuilders will probably argue in favor of 5 million metric tons at most – and maybe less. Environmentalists will probably continue to argue for double or triple that number. Given the history of land use politics in Sacramento, it is hard to see how this committee will break through the usual logjam to have a meaningful discussion about how to shape the future of California's growth.

A mobile home park owner in San Luis Obispo County has won a state court order for a new county hearing on a rent increase. The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that Manufactured Home Communities is due a new hearing because it did not have the opportunity to cross-examine tenants who testified against the proposed rent increases at an earlier county hearing. However, the state appellate court panel declined to consider Manufactured Home Communities' argument that the county's application of its rent control ordinance was an unconstitutional taking of private property. In a federal court case involving exactly the same ordinance and proposed rent hikes, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals withdrew a 2007 ruling against the mobile home park owner, but once again rejected all the property owner's contentions that its Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. One of largest owners of mobile home parks in the United States and Canada, Manufactured Home Communities (also known as MHC and Equity Lifestyle Properties) has vigorously fought rent control measures in numerous California cities and counties with minimal success. In 1997, the company purchased the 126-space Sea Oaks Manufactured Home Community, located in the unincorporated coastal town of Los Osos, just south of Morro Bay. The park is subject to San Luis Obispo County's mobile home rent stabilization ordinance, which voters approved in 1984. The ordinance limits annual rent hikes to 60% of the increase in the consumer price index, although park owners may boost rents by 10% upon transfer of a mobile home. The ordinance also provides a hardship exception when park owners have extraordinary expenses, and an exception when tenants sign leases or contracts for a period longer than month-to-month. The company's San Luis Obispo County lawsuits stemmed from its 2002 proposal to increase rents by 185% for nine tenants in Sea Oaks. MHC said the rent control ordinance did not apply to those tenants because they had signed 12-month rental agreements. The county's rent review board conducted a hearing at which the tenants said the park manager had told them they were covered by the rent control ordinance and that MHC had engaged in "deception" and "mob-like bullying tactics." An MHC attorney asked to cross-examine the tenants, but the board refused to allow the questioning. The board rejected the rent increase after finding that the tenants had treated the leases like month-to-month agreements and that MHC had misrepresented the contracts' terms. MHC appealed to the Board of Supervisors, which upheld the rent review board. The company then filed suit, alleging that the county had denied MHC a fair hearing because it would not allow cross-examination of witnesses, and that the county's rent control ordinance was unconstitutional. A San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge ruled the 12-month contracts were invalid and not exempt from rent control, and rejected arguments about the ordinance's constitutionality. On appeal, MHC argued it had a constitutional right to cross-examine the tenants. The county argued MHC had no such right in a rent control proceeding akin to a public hearing. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Six, agreed with MHC. "The tenants had an unfair advantage. They could select the facts they wanted the board to hear, and avoid questions concerning those facts," Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert wrote. "There are valid reasons for restricting cross-examination in some administrative proceedings. But this was not a quasi-legislative hearing or an informal public hearing where speakers are not sworn and cross-examination could inhibit public comment. "This was an adversarial hearing where the tenants requested the board to make findings against MHC. The rent control ordinance requires findings and testimony under oath, and the board exercised ‘judicial-like' powers in deciding the parties' rights involving their individual leases," Gilbert explained. "Where it makes a decision based on a party's testimony, the adversary is entitled to question his or her opponent." The court then turned to the question of the leases' validity. The trial court found them invalid because one paragraph permits the park owner to raise rents upon a 90-day notice. The court ruled this provision conflicted with the county's rent control procedures. However, the appellate court noted that the same paragraph in the leases says that rent increases are subject to state and local laws. The leases are not necessarily invalid, the court ruled, although it is possible the county could reject the leases if it determines the tenants were misled or that MHC was somehow barred from claiming a rent control exemption. The court sent the matter back to the county's rent review board for a new hearing at which it permits cross-examination. Because it ordered a new hearing, the Second District declined to consider MHC's contention that the county's application of the rent control ordinance to MHC's proposed rent increase was an unconstitutional taking. In federal court, the Ninth Circuit withdrew a 2007 decision in which it rejected all of MHC's arguments about the validity of the county's rent control ordinance and refused to consider challenges to the rent increase process (see CP&DR Legal Digest , November 2007 ). In November, the Ninth Circuit rejected MHC's petition for rehearing and issued a new opinion similar to the 2007 ruling. On MHC's taking claim, the court continued to maintain MHC could not seek federal court relief without first requesting a "Kavanau adjustment," the state process in which future rents increase to compensate for previous confiscatory rents (see CP&DR Legal Digest , February 2004 ). The court found no basis for MHC's arguments that the county violated the company's due process and equal protection rights. The rent control ordinance serves a legitimate public purpose, and the shortage of mobile home spaces along with the impracticality of moving a mobile home justify the county's singling out park owners, the court found. State Court Case: Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. County of San Luis Obispo , No. B196426, 08 C.D.O.S. 13243, 2008 DJDAR 15820. Filed October 15, 2008. Federal Court Case: Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., v. County of San Luis Obispo , No. 05-55406, 2008 DJDAR 17425. Filed November 25, 2008. The Lawyers: For MHC: Edith Matthai, Robie & Matthai, (213) 624-3062. For the county: Henry Heater, Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater, (619) 544-0123.

A property owner cannot participate in a California Coastal Commission appeal process for years and then assert that the Commission was prohibited from considering the appeal because it missed a procedural deadline years earlier, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected a Pacific Palisades landowner's contention that the Commission had lost jurisdiction over an appeal of the landowner's three-lot development because the Commission did not conduct a hearing within 49 days of receiving an appeal in 1999. Landowner Mt. Holyoke Homes (MHH) "did not question the Commission's jurisdiction until June 7, 2003 – three and a half years after the latest date on which it contends the Commission lost jurisdiction. During that time, MHH readily provided information to the Commission in response to several requests; its actions over such an extended period of time constituted consent (acquiescence) to jurisdiction or, alternatively, invited error," Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss wrote for the Second District, Division Seven. As with many coastal development projects, the one at issue here has a legacy. Nearly 20 years ago, Darla and Stanley Jones formed Mt. Holyoke Homes for the purpose of developing their property in Los Angeles's Pacific Palisades. (Mr. Jones has since died.) They filed an application with the city for a four-lot subdivision, which the City Council ultimately rejected on appeal of a neighborhood group. After MHH sued, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in December 1993 ordered the city to reconsider. Negotiations ensued amongst the Joneses, their neighbor Barbara Schelbert and the city. MHH agreed to reduce the project to three lots, increase building setbacks and provide view corridors between the planned houses. But city officials raised new concerns about geology and soils that required extensive study. Finally, in April 1999, the city approved the revised, three-lot project. Schelbert appealed the decision to the Coastal Commission in June 1999. The following month, the Commission opened but continued a public hearing on the appeal because the city had provided no documents related to the project. The landowners then arranged to have a copy service copy and transmit more than 2,000 pages of city records to the Commission. Staff members for the Commission found the record incomplete, however, so MHH arranged to have the entire city file delivered to the Commission. On April 3, 2000, MHH delivered a stipulation signed by the Joneses, a city representative and Schelbert stating the Commission had been given all documentation. Five weeks later, the Commission determined the appeal raised substantial issues regarding geologic hazards and landform alternation and said it would conduct a de novo hearing at a later date. From August 2000 until April 2003, MHH and the Commission's staff went back and forth, including one 17-month period when MHH did not respond to a staff request for seismic information. Eventually, the staff recommended project approval, but at a June 2003 hearing, the Commission denied the proposal. MHH then requested the Commission reconsider, in part because the Commission did not act on the appeal within 49 days as required by the Coastal Act. MHH argued the Commission should have determined whether the appeal presented a substantial issue by either August 2, 1999, or January 25, 2000, the later date being 49 days after MHH's copy service delivered records to the Commission. After filing the request for reconsideration, MHH then asked the Commission to continue the matter "for an indefinite period of time in order to facilitate discussion and consideration of alternatives." In the meantime, MHH sued the Commission and Schelbert for inverse condemnation and to overturn the Commission's decision. In 2004, the Commission and the landowners signed a tentative settlement in which the Commission agreed to conduct a new hearing on an alternative site plan with a larger view corridor. But when Schelbert protested that she had not been a party to negotiations, the settlement fell apart. After further proceedings, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs ordered the Commission to conduct a new hearing but also dismissed MHH's suit. In an unpublished 2005 opinion, the Second District Court of Appeal overturned Janavs and ordered the suit reinstated. The case went back to Superior Court, where Janavs in November 2006 ordered the Commission to set asides its disapproval and dismiss Schelbert's appeal because the Commission had missed the 49-day deadline. This time, the Commission and Schelbert appealed. Much of the argument on appeal centered on the relevance of Encinitas Country Day School, Inc., v. California Coastal Commission , (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 575 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , July 2003 ). In that case, the court ruled the Commission had lost jurisdiction in an appeal of an approved private school project because the Commission did not decide within 49 days whether the appeal presented substantial issues warranting a new hearing. In the case at hand, however, the Second District said Encinitas "did not change the law" and was not needed for a decision anyway. The Second District said the question here concerned "estoppel to contest jurisdiction" – in other words, whether MHH should be prohibited from challenging the Commission's jurisdiction over the project. MHH argued it should not be barred from challenging the Commission's jurisdiction because MHH's participation in the Commission's process did not hide the facts or cause the errors. But the Second District said MHH "had an obligation to contest the Commission's jurisdiction promptly after the date on which it contends the Commission lost it." Justice Perluss even suggested MHH was wasting everyone's time with its allegations. "If MHH were not now estopped to contest the Commission's jurisdiction and the city's approval of its project were to be deemed final without a de novo hearing on the substantial issues raised by Schelbert's appeal, significant resources will have been expended over a period of several years for naught," Perluss wrote. "Such conduct amounts to an unacceptable trifling with a public agency and the courts." The Second District decision appears to clear the way for new Commission hearing on the MHH proposal. In December, MHH asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court. The Case: Mt. Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Commission , No B201517, 08 C.D.O.S. 13328, 2008 DJDAR 15935. Filed October 21, 2008. Modified and rehearing denied November 12, 2008, at 2008 DJDAR 16823. The Lawyers: For Mt. Holyoke Homes: John Bowman, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, (310) 203-8080. For the Commission: John Saurenman, (213) 897-2000. For Barbara Schelbert: John Murdock, (310) 450-1859.

An environmental impact report for a proposed quarry in Madera County has been thrown out by an appellate court, which found the document's consideration of water, traffic, noise and cumulative impacts to be inadequate. The court also determined a water supply assessment is needed for a mitigation measure that could require the quarry to connect surrounding property owners with a water system. Although the Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld portions of the EIR for the proposed Madera Ranch Quarry, the court found a number of shortcomings. The court said the analysis of water issues was acceptable, for example, but found that one mitigation measure defied common sense and another improperly deferred specific action. Seven years ago, W. Jaxon Baker purchased property in Madera County, about 16 miles northeast of Madera. Baker applied for a conditional use permit to develop and operate a hard rock quarry, and he sought a rezoning and second use permit for a hot mix asphalt plant. The excavation pit for Madera Ranch Quarry would encompass 86 acres, and the remaining facilities would cover about 39 additional acres. At the time of the application, the land was zoned for agriculture, used for cattle grazing and covered by a Williamson Act contract. There are dozens of residences and at least 55 wells within a mile of the project site. Residents raised many questions about the project, as did the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. After several public hearings, the Madera County Board of Supervisors in October 2006 approved two conditional use permits, the rezoning and the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. The board also certified the EIR. Neighbors Sheryl and Bruce Gray sued, arguing the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Madera County general plan. Madera County Superior Court Judge Charles Wieland ruled for the county. Area residents and the Regional Water Quality Control Board were concerned that the quarry would dry up area wells and that the quarry's pit would serve as a well tying together disconnected aquifers, possibly polluting aquifers residents use for drinking water. The county approved two mitigation measures to ensure neighbors were not harmed. Measure 3.9-1a provided Baker with three options: rehabilitate or deepen the private wells; provide "incremental replacement water" with a connection to the quarry's water system, or provide full replacement water with a connection to the quarry's system. Measure 3.9-1b permitted Baker to provide bottled water to neighbors or build a "water system constructed under federal, state and county guidelines" to provide potable water to affected neighbors. The Grays argued there was inadequate evidence the mitigations were feasible or effective, and the Fifth District agreed. " ur common sense informs us that the mitigation measures will not effectively replace the water that could be lost by the neighboring landowners," Presiding Justice James Ardaiz wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "It is true that the mitigation measures will provide a replacement for the lost amount of water. However, neither Mitigation Measure 3.9-1a nor Mitigation Measure 3.9-1b will provide neighboring residents with the ability to use water in substantially the same manner that they were accustomed to doing if the project had not existed and caused a decline in the water levels of their wells." The only true mitigation would be connecting neighbors to a water system, but the county never examined the feasibility or impacts of such a system, the court determined. "While we generally agree that CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically detailing mitigation measures as long as the lead agency commits itself to mitigation and to specific performance standards, we conclude that here the county has not committed itself to a specific performance standard. Instead, the county has committed itself to a specific mitigation goal – the replacement of water lost by neighboring landowners because of mine operations," Ardaiz wrote. Because building a new water system "is the only effective mitigation measure that was proposed," the court said the county must analyze the impacts of building a system, and the county must either conduct a water supply assessment to determine whether water will be available or explain why a water supply assessment is not required. To offset traffic impacts, the county required Baker to construct intersection improvements on Highway 41 under Caltrans oversight or to pay fees to Caltrans. Another road mitigation measure required the payment of maintenance fees based upon annual tonnage mined. Again, the court agreed with the Grays that the mitigations were inadequate. There was no evidence Caltrans had scheduled improvements to the highway "in a way that would mitigate the increase in vehicle traffic," the court ruled. Nor was there evidence the county had a plan for maintenance or improvements required by the increased traffic. The court rejected the county's findings regarding noise because of the "bare conclusion" that an increase of 2.1 decibels in the day-night average was insignificant. In addition, because the area already has noise levels greater than allowable in the general plan, the EIR should have addressed the project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts, the court found. For these reasons, the court found the county's statement of overriding considerations regarding noise to be unacceptable. The county's failure to address cumulative noise impacts also placed the project in conflict with the general plan. The court rejected the EIR's cumulative impacts section because the county did not document how it determined there would be no substantial cumulative impacts. The county did not violate SMARA, the court ruled. The Case: Gray v. County of Madera , No. F053661, 08 C.D.O.S. 13523, 2008 DJDAR 16168. Filed October 24, 2008. The Lawyers: For Gray: Donald Mooney, (530) 758-2377. For the county: Douglas Nelson, county counsel's office, (559) 675-7717. For Madera Ranch Quarry: Thomas Terpstra, (209) 599-5003.

In the world of land use planning and real estate development, 2008 will go down as a memorable year, but not necessarily for positive reasons. If the housing market bubble burst in 2007, it crashed to the ground Hindenburg-style in 2008. The fallout from the housing market disaster continues to affect nearly every aspect of planning and development in California. In fact, if you are in the pro-development camp, there was not a lot to cheer during 2008. State lawmakers approved SB 375, which has the potential to completely change the rules of the development game. Voters extended growth control initiatives in the Bay Area. The state decided to take a bunch of redevelopment money. Heck, local government even re-exerted control over cell phone antennas. Does that mean 2008 was a big year for the slow-growth side? In some aspects, yes. Passage of SB 375 was clearly a strike against sprawl, however the term gets defined. Plus, voters demonstrated their commitment to transit, and to preserving farmland and open space, and the Schwarzenegger administration continued to lead the nation in fighting climate change. Rather than pick the winners and losers, though, we have selected what we think are the 10 most important land use stories from 2008. While the national economic recession plays a role in some of these stories, our list provides proof that life � as well as planning, litigation and lawmaking � goes on. With that, here are California Planning & Development Report 's 10 Most Important Land Use Stories of 2008: 1. Passage of SB 375 Whether or not this was truly the most important land use measure since passage of the Coastal Act in 1976 (as some suggested), state Sen. Darrell Steinberg's bill has the potential to alter the planning system in dramatic fashion. Essentially, the bill uses the urge to limit driving as a way to mandate regional planning . Quite clearly, the goal is to encourage infill development, mixed uses and transit, and to discourage greenfield housing subdivisions. As important as the bill might have been, the unprecedented coalition that backed it might have been even more impressive. Environmentalists, major building organizations, labor, planners and local government all endorsed SB 375. The only real opponents were Republican lawmakers who hate everything the Democrats propose and the pavement crowd. 2. The Housing Bust We thought things were bad when we named this the top story of 2007. Little did we know. In 2008, housing starts reached their lowest level since anyone started keeping track. The median housing price in many markets is now 30% to 50% less than it was only three years ago. In some Central Valley cities and Inland Empire exurbs, more than 10% of the housing stock has been foreclosed. Cities and counties all over the state cut their planning staffs by one-quarter to one-half. Building inspection and plan check staffs shrunk even more. And the killer: No one expects the housing market to rebound in 2009. 3. Sales taxes approved Despite the sour economy, voters approved sales taxes for transportation in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Marin and Sonoma counties in November. The result should be major expansions of Los Angeles rail service,  completion of BART to San Jose, and a new commuter rail service through Sonoma and Marin counties. Voters also backed the $9.95 billion bond to start building a high-speed train system. 4. Voters Reject Proposition 98 After voters defeated a confusing and oddly worded property rights initiative in 2006, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation returned with an initiative that sought to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. But the measure also would have outlawed local rent control laws, a provision that earned the scorn of retired people and anti-poverty advocates. The result was a 61-39 defeat , and probably the end of the anti-eminent domain backlash spurred by the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision. Instead, voters approved Proposition 99, a modest initiative backed by the California Redevelopment Association that prohibits the taking of owner-occupied homes for economic development projects. 5. State Supreme Court's CEQA Infatuation Never in the 38-year history of the California Environmental Quality Act has the state Supreme Court shown so much interest in the law. This year, the court issued three rulings, upholding the EIR for Cal-Fed Bay Delta project, approving the review of three timber harvest plans in the Sierra Nevada, and rejecting West Hollywood's delayed review of a contract to build affordable housing. Three other cases remain pending. While the court has clarified some aspects of CEQA, it has not steered the law in an obvious direction.  6. Growth Control Extensions Voters in November extended existing growth control mechanisms in Solano and Napa counties . Unless voters change their minds, the extensions jointly lock up nearly 1 million acres of agricultural land, watershed and open space between the Bay Area and Sacramento until at least 2040. 7. Adoption of AB 32 Scoping Plan A month ago, it looked like this might be the biggest story of the young century. The California Air Resources Board appeared ready to adopt a very aggressive target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions due to land use changes. At the last minute, the board backed away and, instead, deferred to the SB 375 process . Homebuilders breathed a sigh of relief. Environmentalists cursed a lost opportunity. 8. Redevelopment Gets Stiffed To "balance" the state budget, lawmakers and the Schwarzenegger administration agreed to shift $350 million of tax increment revenue from redevelopment agencies to school districts in order to decrease the state's obligation to education. Arguing that the shift is unconstitutional, the California Redevelopment Association responded with a lawsuit . Meanwhile new Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor released a report urging lawmakers to increase the shift to $400 million and make it an annual fixture of the budget. 9. Wireless Zoning Not often does an appellate court do a 180-degree turnaround in only seven years. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals completed a course reversal when it decided that local government does in fact have the ability to regulate the siting and appearance of wireless telecommunications facilities . After years of blowing past local regulations, cell phone companies no longer have the upper hand. 10. Stanislaus County Slow-Growth In February, voters by a 2-to-1 ratio backed the Stamp Out Sprawl initiative , which requires voters to decide on the rezoning of land from an agricultural designation to residential. The measure was the first of its kind to pass in the Central Valley. � CP&DR Staff