The California Air Resources Board's long-awaited greenhouse gas emissions targets probably are not perfect, to say the least. But they may be the closest thing California has to a consensus these days. After two years' worth of recommendations, staff reports, committee meetings, research, computer modeling and input from literally all corners of the state, the ARB approved greenhouse gas emissions targets pursuant to SB 375 late last month. Many have called the target-setting process � resulting in goals of at least 7% per capita emissions reductions for the state's four biggest metropolitan planning organizations by 2020 � the most exhaustive, collaborative, and data-driven regional planning process in the history of the state, if not the country.  "I think that with these ambitious targets California absolutely may be on the verge of a paradigm shift where planning for sprawl that has dominated since the 1950s is on its way out," said Stuart Cohen, executive director of smart growth advocacy ground TransForm and member of the ARB's now-disbanded Regional Targets Advisory Committee. "These targets are ushering in a new focus on how we reduce not just GHGs � that's the leading indicator � but also a range of co-benefits." Whether the shift is definitive is another story. "SB 375 isn't like looking for the Holy Grail -- as if you go to enough meetings you may find it," said Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge, president of the National League of Cities and ARB member. "But there is no Holy Grail there. This is a developmental process." The resulting targets direct the state's four largest MPOs to devise plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled (at least on a per-capita basis) and, in turn, limit their per-capita greenhouse gas emissions. The targets may turn out not to be prescriptions so much as benchmarks in the state's efforts to combat climate change and adopt more efficient land use patterns. "For the last two years...the best thing about SB 375 is that it has generated a never-before-heard regional dialogue on the future of California," said Rick Bishop, executive director of the Western Riverside Council of Governments . "(The discussions) have been fantastic, but they've been largely philosophical. I think (the targets) moves this one step closer to this being a real deal." By now participants in the target-setting process have nearly hypnotized themselves with "ambitious but achievable," That mantra that has been used countless times to describe ARB's goals. Nearly every speaker at the Sept. 23 ARB meeting insisted on ambitious but achievable targets, but for some critics the adopted goals lack the right balance.  "They erred significantly on the side of aggressive and not so much on the side of achievable," said Richard Lyon, vice president for governmental affairs at the California Building Industry Association. "Through the draft preliminary target ranges and the discussions we were having with the ARB and the four major MPOs we felt that targets in the rage of 4, 5, or even 6% were likely to be adopted and we felt that those were doable," said Lyon. "We were fine up to the time the staff-recommended final targets came out and were shocked to find that something significant happened between spoon and mouth." Lyon and other BIA officials have questioned the higher 2035 targets, saying that some of the regions themselves have projected that feasible 2035 targets could turn out to be as low as 3%. The targets that the board adopted are consistent with those recommended by ARB staff in June. For 2020, three MPOs will be shooting for 7% per capita reductions: the San Diego Association of Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission; the Southern California Association of Governments has been assigned an 8% target. By 2035, the targets become more disparate, based in part on what each MPO said it could achieve according to its research and modeling. SANDAG and SCAG have been assigned targets of 13%, though SCAG's target is conditioned on further discussions between the agency and ARB. MTC and SACOG will be shooting for 15% and 16%, respectively.  Meanwhile, the eight MPOs of the San Joaquin Valley have been assigned "placeholder" targets of 5% in 2020 and 10% in 2035. The use of placeholders, which will be revisited in 2012, reflects unique, persistent challenges relating to air quality in the valley. The state's six remaining MPOs, which represent a small fraction of the state's population, are expected to make efforts to improve upon their own targets for those years but they are not directly addressed by the current goals that ARB has set out. The MPOs of Monterey Bay and Santa Barbara have already volunteered to model their goals after those of the big four.  "Every region has different models and different premises and variables built into them," said Mayor Ron Loveridge. "They're not always measuring the same thing from region to region." Lyon said the final numbers and that they had not been sufficiently explained by ARB or vetted by stakeholders. The most notable voice of dissent came from SCAG, whose Regional Council voted, 29-21, to recommend targets of 6% and 8% on the argument that the region simply would not be able to meet anything higher without incurring significant costs. Support for those lower targets was led by Simi Valley City Council Member Glen Becerra. Whether the region can achieve the ARB-approved targets or not does not necessarily depend on the Regional Council's perceptions. " I don't think that the 6% and 8% were very scientific," said SCAG Executive Director Hasan Ikharta, regarding the Regional Council's discussion. "They just wanted to have lower targets to make sure that we could achieve them at the end of the day. I tried to tell our board that the discussion shouldn't be about 6%, 8%, 13%�it should be about a positive policy message that we're going to do our best." "The differences of opinion capture the uncertainty about how this is going to work out," said Loveridge. "I thought it was important that we, particularly for 2035, have a very serious discussion between the CARB staff and the SCAG staff." Loveridge said he was not present for the Sept. 2 Regional Council vote. Opponents of the adopted targets also point to early studies by MTC staff that, they say, implied that higher targets were achievable only through measures such as taxes and fees that would result in $9 per gallon gasoline prices and the impelled migration of some 200,000 suburban-dwellers to the region's center cities. In a Sept. 22 editorial in the  San Jose Mercury News,  MTC Board Members Jim Spering and Bill Dodd called 15% targets "extreme" and a "gross overreach." These concerns have been echoed by representatives of the Building Industry Association, which has supported SB 375 from the onset but has expressed reservations about the targets.  At the Sept. 23 ARB meeting, however, MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger explicitly refuted Spering's and Dodd's claims, saying that the MTC board overwhelmingly supported ARB staff's recommended targets and that achieving the targets would require nothing resembling draconian measures. He insisted that recent modeling and the likely implementation of a wide range of land use and transportation demand management (TDM) techniques would make the 7% targets viable. Whatever the actual numbers, both sides are quick to point out that SB 375's GHG goals are just that: goals. The big four MPOs are now scheduled to move forward with their Sustainable Communities Strategies, which will lay out a planning blueprint that will be part of their Regional Transportation Plans and that will, it is hoped, guide member cities in their general plan updates. However, the 2035 SCAG targets are essentially placeholders and will revisited in the future, per SCAG's insistence. Until then, the setting of targets represents, to some, a pivotal moment, when the discussions over models, stakeholders, and economic impacts give way to actual planning. In fact, even if the finalized targets are, for now, only symbolic, they are a powerful symbol of California's abandonment of  the automobile-dominated suburbia that has been the  the state's dominant pattern of land use since the end of World War II. Even SB 375's critics acknowledge that the state's future lies in more compact development rather than in greenfield subdivisions. Whether this planning effort will pay dividends depends, in large part, on a host of economic factors, Bishop, whose organization is a SCAG subregion, said that communities in his area may be eager to grab SB 375's "low-hanging fruit," such as transportation demand management schemes to reduce VMTs via carpooling. "Those seem to be a little easier to grab on and not as controversial as the two more hyped-up strategies for SB 375 and that's transportation and land use," said Bishop. "The transportation and land use changes are going to come over time." Especially in a relatively sprawling sub-region like Riverside County, the big infrastructure- and development-heavy strategies that could create denser, less auto-dependent communities, will not happen with the strike of a gavel, Bishop said.  But now that the discussions about the targets have ended for the time being, the work begins in earnest on implementing SB 375. SANDAG is the first MPO scheduled to release its Sustainable Communities Strategy, which is due in July of next year, as the first regional plan of its kind. Contacts Rick Bishop, Executive Director, Western Riverside Council of Governments (951) 955-7985 Stuart Cohen, Executive Director, TransForm Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, SCAG (213) 236-1800 Richard Lyon, Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Building Industry Association of California (916) 443-7933 Ron Loveridge, Mayor, City of Riverside (951) 826-5551 --Josh Stephens

The entire California planning world now seems to revolve around combating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But Proposition 23 – a long-term suspension of the state's climate-change law – is on the ballot this fall. The proposition is behind at the polls – but if it passes – will that be the end of SB 375, Sustainable Communities Strategies, greenhouse gas emissions analyses in environmental impact reports, and the whole industry that has been built up around climate change planning? And even if Prop 23 fails, Republican Meg Whitman could be elected governor. And though Whitman opposes Prop. 23, she has promised to suspend parts of AB 32 until the economy gets better. So could she kill SB 375 and the whole climate change planning effort if she wanted to? The answer appears to be no. And the fact that the answer is no represents an important lesson in how policies that emerge in response to a law quickly become embedded in the fabric of our governmental structure. AB 32 calls on California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly – by 25% or so as soon as 2020. This target has triggered all kinds of other policies and actions on the part of the state, including the adoption of the low-carbon fuel standard, increased fuel efficiency standards, stronger building codes, a rethinking of how water is used, and all-but-mandatory requirements that local governments seem to minimize the increase in vehicle miles traveled associated with new development projects. Proposition 23 represents a de-facto repeal of AB 32, because it would suspend the law until unemployment in California dropped to 5.5% for one year. Even in good times unemployment doesn't usually drop that low, at least not for that long. But passage of Prop 23 – or institution of Whitman's executive decision to suspend critical parts of it – won't change the planning landscape much in California. The reason is that climate change planning efforts, while initiated in response to AB 32, are now embedded in not only SB 375 but also SB 97. SB 97 ordered the state to include climate change considerations in the analyses under the California Environmental Quality Act. SB 375, of course, is the law that requires regional planning agencies to draft sustainable communities strategies designed to meet GHG emissions reduction targets set by the state. Although SB 375 gets all the publicity, it is SB 97 that has most affected daily planning practice in California. One typical pattern under CEQA is that a new area of concern – or a new technique – is first identified by practitioners or lawyers, then memorialized permanently through a combination of legislative changes to CEQA and revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, which are done administratively by the Governor's Office of Planning & Research and the Natural Resources Agency. For example, this is how mitigated negative declarations became part of the fabric of CEQA. It's also how greenhouse gas emissions analysis became part of CEQA's fabric. After AB 32 was passed, Attorney General Jerry Brown – who will be the next governor if Meg Whitman loses – sued San Bernardino County, claiming that because of the threat of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions had to be analyzed in the County's General Plan Environmental Impact Report. In a legal settlement reached in August of 2007 < pdf =">pdf"> , the County agreed to incorporate GHG considerations into its General Plan. CEQA practitioners interpreted the settlement as meaning that GHG analyses had to be part of CEQA practice – which, of course, was Brown's whole point in suing San Bernardino County in the first place. Subsequently, the Legislature adopted SB 97, which essentially memorialized the need for GHG analysis in state law and ordered that the CEQA Guidelines be revised to set out requirements and procedures for GHG analysis. It is this law – not AB 32 – that forms the legal foundation for GHG analysis in the state and requires GHGs to be examined in every CEQA action. The point is that even though SB 97 was drafted as a way to implement AB 32, it's now a separate law and therefore not likely to be affected by the passage of Proposition 23. Of course, if 23 passes somebody will file a lawsuit claiming that SB 97 is no longer valid. But it's likely that such challenge would fail because of the nature of CEQA. There is no reason to prohibit lead agencies and their environmental scientists from concluding, on their own, that increased greenhouse gas emissions is a potentially significant environmental issue that must be considered under CEQA. Of course, Whitman – if she's elected – could try to change the CEQA guidelines to weaken the requirement to conduct GHG analysis. But it's unlikely she could get rid of it altogether. Then there's SB 375. The guts of the law lays out the process that the Air Resources Board must follow to create 2020 and 2035 targets for GHG emissions reduction and then the process that the regional planning agencies must follow in creating Sustainable Communities Strategies. But the law is so cleverly written that it can't be tied directly back to AB 32 -- an intentional effort, no doubt, by Tom Adams, the brilliant labor/environmental law who drafted most of the bill. SB 375 has only two references to AB 32, and both are in the preamble. Never does SB 375 say that it is implementing AB 32, even though it establishes processes that would not be necessary for any other purpose. And, at the same time, SB 32 wraps itself around two other legally required processes that regional planning agencies engage in – the Regional Transportation Plan required under federal transportation law and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process required under state Housing Element law. Quite simply, SB 375 seeks to leverage the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve other planning goals required by those other two processes. So there you have it. Proposition 23 or no Proposition 23, climate change planning is a permanent part of the California planning landscape. Meg Whitman can try to weaken this planning effort but it's unlikely that she can get rid of it – and, once in office, she may reveal herself to be a moderate Republican in the Schwarzenegger mold who sees political advantage to keeping environmental regulations strong. And as for Jerry Brown, he tipped his hand in the San Bernardino case: To him, climate change is the clearly cornerstone of California's planning in the 21st Century. --Bill Fulton

Urban Land Institute, it's time you and me had a serious chat about your awards criteria. As the foremost trade group of real estate developers, I find value in many of your publications and programs. And I find it understandable that you would laud large-scale development projects. Making projects is your businesses. But when you give a national award to a very questionable project like LA Live, the entertainment-and hotel complex that covers nearly 20 acres of downtown Los Angeles, it shows that your regard for urban quality comes second place to your round-eyed puppy love for big developers and big plans. LA Live is bad urbanism. This mega-project of retail, restaurants, night clubs and a 53-story hotel-cum-condo tower is a self-contained, inward-looking island. And that's in a major downtown area that has been seeking to promote public life for half a century. LA Live, as I have written before, is a tourist capturing machine. Located near the Los Angeles Convention Center and the Staples Center basketball arena, LA Live also adds a 7,000-seat Nokia Theater for live concerts. (There's a national chain of Nokia Theaters; think of buying naming rights for a national chain!). The developers, Anschutz Entertainment Group, already owns the sports arena. Anschutz is also the second-largest sellers of concert tickets in the nation, and a major promoter of concert tours by big name artists, who can play umpteen Nokia theaters in a row. AEG also manages many of the acts. Talk about vertical integration! But LA Live does not fit inside the existing city in a positive away. Instead, the enormous development literally imposes a wall between itself and busy Figueroa Boulevard. Ostensibly public, LA Live is in fact sequestered from public life. Although nothing like LA Live was planned for in the South Park Specific Plan, LA redevelopment officials were eager to get a convention center hotel, which became the centerpiece of the development. City officials used redevelopment bonds, to be paid off by the developer, to help assemble the enormous site for the $2.5 billion entertainment-anchored leviathan. For planning purposes, city officials simply went back and amended the general plan. What are plans for, if not to be amended whenever a billionaire unfurls the plans to the latest megaproject? Tourists to Los Angeles, finding themselves in unfamiliar territory, will naturally gather in the spectacular courtyard, with its laser lights shows, etc. They will have a drink in a club, maybe catch a show or a game, and turn around, go back to their hotel and text the missus or the boyfriend on what a swell place is Los Angeles. All this, without venturing outside the gilded cage of LA Live. In its statement accompanying the award, ULI mentions that LA Live brings development to a part of downtown that was underdeveloped. In fact, a half-dozen residential towers in the immediate neighborhood. In other words, LA Live does not represent urban pioneering. It's more like a blue whale that opens its jaws, waiting for all the krill (here meaning tourists and concert goers) to swim in. Yum! Phil Anschutz is a business genius who has yet to make a serious misstep. True to form, LA Live appears to be a big success, as I predicted it would be years ago. Business success is not contemptible, but it‘s not the only criterion for good urban design. A sense of public life, continuity with the surrounding city and increasing the level of pedestrian activity throughout the district are at least equally important. On those latter criteria, LA Live is a 1970s-style monster project in a 21 st  Century city. I think LA Live detracts from downtown, and deprives downtown of commercial activity and pedestrians-filled sidewalks.  Merchants and pedestrians both could have benefited from a similar development not conceived on the model of absolute control and privatism. But this enormous project seems to benefit itself only, while adding yet another bunker-like condition to downtown LA. In short, ladies and gentlemen of ULI, LA Live does not deserve an award. In fact, it stinks. --Morris Newman

Property taxes collected by redevelopment agencies provide the largest ongoing source of funding for low- and moderate-income housing development in California – about $1 billion annually. How agencies account for and spend that money may be about to change in light of a state Senate investigation and front-page newspaper stories. I would not be surprised to see 10 or even 20 pieces of legislation introduced in 2011 that concerns the 20% of tax increment revenue that redevelopment agencies must set aside for low/mod housing. I expect to see Democrats introduce legislation that somehow caps low/mod "overhead" expenses. Conversely, there could be Republican legislation that limits or closes down the housing set-aside, as some Republicans have in the past proposed taking money sitting in redevelopment agencies' low/mod housing funds to help balance the state budget. Bottom line: The redevelopment low/mod housing status quo is unlikely to remain. Under state redevelopment law, agencies must spend 20% of tax increment revenue on developing new low- and moderate-income housing, rehabilitating such units, acquiring long-term covenants that restrict occupancy to low- and moderate-income households, subsidizing rents and maintaining the existing supply of mobile homes. However, ensuring that agencies actually spend the low/mod money properly has been an ongoing battle for the state and affordable housing advocates, as some agencies have been eager to spend the set-aside on almost anything except actual housing. The state Department of Housing and Community Development, the state controller's office and the attorney general's office have varying levels of oversight. The controller's office and HCD collect annual reports from agencies, with HCD's reports focused on use of low/mod money. From 1998 through 2007, HCD conducted 42 audits of redevelopment agencies, forcing numerous agencies to change illegal or questionable spending practices. Budget cuts forced HCD to suspend the audits. Last year, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Senate Local Government Committee asked the new Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes to examine redevelopment agencies' low/mod housing spending. After a full year of investigation and analysis, the oversight office released a 118-page report on September 30 that found a lack of oversight. The well-documented report is sure to rile up advocates of affordable housing, good government and limiting redevelopment activity. Although investigators compiled data on all 398 active redevelopment agencies, they focused on 12 agencies. Investigators looked at the spending and housing accomplishments over a 13-year period (from fiscal year 1995-96 through 2007-08) for nine agencies that reported the highest levels of low/mod expenditures for "planning and administration" and for three agencies chosen at random for comparison purposes. The findings are unsettling: • The Torrance Redevelopment Agency "reported no affordable housing accomplishments" for the 13-year period. Although the agency subsidized rent for up to 113 senior apartments, it did not build, rehabilitate or acquire an affordability covenant on a single unit despite expenditures of roughly $500,000 a year from the low/mod housing fund. • The Covina Redevelopment used its low/mod housing money "mostly to subsidize homeownership and the rent of senior citizens and victims of domestic violence, as well as to pay the salaries of code enforcement officers and make debt payments." In the final 12 years of the study period, the agency produced only eight new units, despite having $11.3 million in its housing fund in the 2007-08 fiscal year. • The Culver City Redevelopment Agency's low/mod housing fund grew from $3.2 million during the 1995-96 fiscal year to $22.1 million by 2007-08, but the agency built only four new units, rehabilitated 31 and acquired affordability covenants on 12 units – and virtually all of that activity was prior to 1999. During the 2007-08 fiscal year, the agency spent $2.16 million on planning and administration, including $1.5 million to employ workers in 15.2 positions in a neighborhood preservation program. • The Hercules Redevelopment Agency contracts out its affordable housing program to a private company founded by the city manager, who may or may not still own the company. The agency spends exactly $16,666 a month on unitemized "overhead" and paid $800 a month of low/mod funds to a Sacramento lobbyist. • An average of 76% of Monterey Park Redevelopment Agency low/mod expenditures were for planning and administration. During the last 11 years of the study period, the agency rehabilitated six units. • The Pismo Beach Redevelopment Agency existed for 23 years without completing any housing activity. The city deactivated the agency earlier this year. By comparison, the San Leandro Redevelopment Agency (one of those picked at random for scrutiny) spends substantial amounts on planning and administration (on average, 33% of annual expenditures), but the agency produced 155 new units and rehabilitated 153 during the study period. So far, no one has disputed the findings. Nancy Vogel, the oversight office consultant who prepared the report, told me, "It wasn't easy getting that information from the redevelopment agencies." California Redevelopment Agency Executive Director John Shirey interceded on Vogel's behalf when she got stonewalled by some agencies. When I spoke with him recently, Shirey declined to defend any agency that goes more than five years without producing actual housing units. But he was critical of the Senate report for its unrepresentative sample. "These are known agencies of concern. She might even have gotten some of the agency names from us," Shirey told me. He was also unhappy with the report's characterization of planning and administration costs as a percentage of annual expenses, rather than as a percentage of funds available. "There is some unfairness in the way it has been characterized for a long time," said Shirey, who noted that admin costs may appear artificially high for several years leading up to a development project completion. "Agencies for the most part do a good job with their housing programs and are reasonable with their planning and administration costs." All of the agencies singled out in the report are small to mid-sized entities. Christine Minnehan, a legislative director for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said it might have helped to look at a large agency or two that does produce a substantial amount of affordable housing. Vogel conceded it might have been useful to compare and contrast 12 agencies with the highest planning and administrative expenses with the 12 agencies reporting the lowest spending on planning and administration. Still, she stands by the report. The report contains 13 recommendation, among them: Increase redevelopment agency transparency, bring back the HCD audits, improve annual agency audits performed by CPAs, and tighten the law on permissible expenditures. "In some ways, everyone is to blame," Vogel said. One obvious solution would be to place a cap on the percentage of money spent on planning and administration, something the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development does when it provides grants.Catherine Rodman, an attorney with San Diego-based Affordable Housing Advocates who has sued several jurisdictions over their use of low/mod funds, recommended a planning and administration spending limit of no more than 10%. "Because of Proposition 13, and because they don't want to build affordable housing, cities are using the housing money for staff. They consider it a slush fund," Rodman charged. However, the CRA has long opposed a cap as too inflexible, and there is concern that a planning and admin limit would simply lead to accounting trickery by recalcitrant agencies. Minnehan recommended reviving the HCD audits and improving HCD's online data collection system. Those moves would force bad actors to change their ways and educate people in agencies who are trying to do the right thing. Occasional intervention by the attorney general's office would get some attention, she added. However, Minnehan said, any reform or solution must ensure that large agencies with proven affordable housing track records – she singled out San Jose, Los Angeles and San Francisco – are not hindered. The Senate investigative report came out only days before two stories in the Los Angeles Times on the same topic. The Times concluded, "At least 120 municipalities spent a combined $700 million in housing funds from 2000 to 2008 without constructing a single new unit. … In case after, The Times found, cities spend substantial sums for little return" With the assistance of CRA and HCD, the newspaper put together an online database of redevelopment agency low/mod spending over an eight-year period. Some of the bad actors in the newspaper stories are the same ones identified in the Senate report – Monterey Park, Pismo Beach, Hercules. The Times also cited horror stories from cities as varied as Avalon, King City, Grand Terrace and Santa Ana.  Shirey called the Times stories unfair. He was particularly upset with the decision to lead off the stories with a corruption anecdote involving a Temple City redevelopment project gone wrong. "I don't think it's fair to tar redevelopment with the brush of crime and corruption, which she times reporters> times reporters> did in the lead example from Temple City," Shirey said. Although several other anecdotes in the Times stories are years old, the newspaper stories – combined with the Senate report – paint an unflattering picture. Still, it appears that the large majority of agencies are trying to comply with the law. The $700 million that the Times suggests was wasted would amount to only about 10% of the money that redevelopment agencies devoted to affordable housing during the eight-year period the Times examined. Many agencies in the database reported keeping planning and administration costs to 20% to 30% of expenditures, and reported producing, rehabilitating or subsidizing substantial numbers of units. I'm not excusing government waste and corruption. The state needs to do something to ensure all low/mod money is spent to provide actual housing – and not to provide chosen landowners with sweetheart deals or to pay the bills at City Hall. But any real reform will need a careful balance. Oftentimes, reports such as the one from the Senate oversight office and even from newspapers provide the impetus for legislative committee hearings. However, as one Capitol insider told me, hearings are best suited for fact finding and building momentum. The Senate report provides all the facts necessary, and momentum should be easy to generate, my source said. Shirey predicted we will see "12 or 15 pieces of legislation aimed at punishing the innocent. We're going to have an avalanche of legislation come January." Minnehan questioned whether significant reform can get through a Legislature packed with former city councilmembers who sat on redevelopment agency boards. In general, those lawmakers resist anything that increases agencies' affordable housing obligations, or that eases advocates' path to the courtroom, she said. One wild card to consider is the state budget, which is not truly balanced. When the next administration and Legislature go looking for money in 2011 , redevelopment funds could appear to be easy pickings in light of the recent investigations. – Paul Shigley

For all of the Legislature's fretting this year, the consensus in Sacramento is that among the state's overwhelming crises, land use ranked as a low priority this past legislative session. The legislative session that ended Aug. 30 included relatively few land use bills and, of those, they were of relatively minor import. "It was not a big year for planning and development legislation, for any number of reasons," said  Peter Detwiler, staff director of the Senate Local Government Committee. " Probably the $19 billion reason is the hole in the state budget." Peter Parkinson, vice president for policy at the California chapter of the American Planning Association said that this session's quietude may reflect "how dysfunctional things are in Sacramento or how preoccupied the Legislature is with budget issues." A handful of bills did, however, make it to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. The following is a summary of land use-related bills that were signed, plus a few notable vetoes and non-starters. LAND USE PLANNING SB 326  (Strickland). Would require cities and counties to include within the housing needs assessment portion of their housing elements a quantification of their existing and projected foreclosure rates and an analysis of the impact of foreclosures on housing needs. Stalled on Senate floor . AB 602  (Feuer/Steinberg). Would have increased the statute of limitations for bringing suit to fix deficient housing elements from the current 90 days to five years. Schwarzenegger's veto effectively prioritized protecting local governments from "uncertainty" over reducing the uncertainty and reducing the lack of stability millions of families face when they're experiencing homelessness or unable to find affordable rents that fit within their budgets. Vetoed . SB 812  (Ashburn). Requires local housing plans to include an analysis of the specific housing needs of people with developmental disabilities.  Approved. AB 987 (Ma). Doubles the current designation of a transit village development district to one-half mile from one-quarter mile, based on emerging research that suggests that transit-riders are willing to habitually walk up to one-half mile in order to reach a high-frequency transit stop such as light rail or subway.   Approved. SB 1019 (Correa). Extends the sunset date on the procedures for cities and counties to release subdivision performance securities to January 1, 2016. Approved. SB 1042 (Walters). Repeals the 1917 law that allows counties to condemn private property for military bases. Approved. SB 1141 (McLeod). Would have allowed a city in which an airport is located to assume the planning responsibilities of an airport land use commission if, prior to January 1, 2011, the board of supervisors of a county and city council of any city in which an airport was located made a determination that the proper land use planning could be accomplished by the city and other requirements are met. Vetoed . SB 1189 (Correa). Would have required the Southern California Association of Governments, or a delegate subregion as applicable, to follow an alternate specified process for distributing the existing and projected regional housing need to cities and counties. Died in Senate committee. AB 1965 (Yamada). Extends the sunset date on the procedures for lot line adjustments on Williamson Act land to January 1, 2013. Approved. SB 1207 (Kehoe). Would have expanded the fire safety planning requirements in local general plans' safety elements. Vetoed . AB 2425  (Hagman). Would have exempted the City of La Habra Heights from receiving an allocation of the regional housing need during its next housing element planning period. Died in Assembly committee. AB 2530 (Nielsen). Allows counties to shorten Williamson Act contracts, revalue the contracted land, and receive the increased revenues. Approved. AB 2650 (Buchanan). Prohibits medical marijuana establishments within 600 feet of schools statewide.  Approved. HOUSING AB 183  (Caballero). Extends the state's tax credit for homebuyers by another $200 million.  Approved. SB 500  (Steinberg). Would have allowed the state to raise annual revenues for the state's housing trust fund.  Died in Senate committee. SB 662  (Yee). Would have allowed counties to increase marriage license fees to fund domestic violence shelters.  Vetoed . SB 1174  (Wolk).  Would use previously authorized bond funds to create a pilot project to assist counties and cities in identifying and starting to addressing the lack of infrastructure and services provided to disadvantaged unincorporated communities within their areas.  Stalled in Assembly committee. SB 1445  (DeSaulnier). Would allow a fee increase of up to $4 annually on vehicle registration, subject to approval by voters, to fund to regional planning activities by councils of governments, metropolitan planning organizations and other specified local planning entities. Stalled in Assembly committee. AB 1867  (Harkey). Allows a city or county to count against its housing need the conversion of existing homeownership units in complexes of three or more units to affordable rental housing.  Approved . AB 2293  (Torres). Would have assisted stalled Prop. 1C housing and infrastructure projects. Vetoed . AB 2536  (Carter).  Would have allowed the state's emergency and transitional housing program to fund supportive-home developments. Vetoed . AB 2579  (Evans).  Would establish an Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission charged with developing and recommending a plan to the governor and Legislature that provides for financing, building, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of Californians up until 2050. Stalled in Assembly committee. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH SB 959 (Ducheny). Would have reestablished the Office of Planning and Research's permit assistance duties.  Vetoed . AB 2754 (J. Perez). Would have granted civil service status to the Office of Planning and Research's clearinghouse and planning staff, and designates OPR as the state's military liaison. Vetoed . REDEVELOPMENT AB 1641 (Hall). Clarifies that public housing may be included within redevelopment project areas. Approved . AB 1791 (Monning). Would have allowed redevelopment agencies to subsidize commercial development on vacant land at the former Fort Ord. Vetoed . AB 2531 (Fuentes).  Would have allowed redevelopment agencies to pay for business development and job programs until January 1, 2018. Vetoed . LAFCOS & BOUNDARY CHANGES AB 419 (Caballero). Will mesh state election laws with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.  Approved . AB 711 (Calderon).  Will appropriate $45,000 as a loan to the East Los Angeles Residents Association to pay for the proposed city incorporation proceedings. Approved . AB 853 (Arambula). Would have expanded planning for, and expedited city annexations of, disadvantaged communities. Vetoed. SB 1023 (Wiggins). Will create expedited procedures to convert Resort Improvement Districts and Municipal Improvement Districts into Community Services Districts. Approved . CONSERVATION/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION/CEQA SB 51  (Ducheny). Establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Council as a state entity within the Natural Resources Agency to implement preferred alternatives outlined in the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program. Approved. AB 301  (Fuentes). Would have required businesses licensed to bottle or sell water for human use from private water sources to report annually the total volume of water bottled or distributed, the source of the water, whether the source is privately or publicly owned, and the county of that source. Vetoed . SB 346  (Kehoe). Phases out copper from automobile brakes by 2025 to remove the single largest source of toxic copper in our urban waterways. Approved. AB 499 (Hill) . Would have made clarifying amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to ensure that all parties with a direct interest in a CEQA case are aware of a pending lawsuit and parties with no direct link to the case are not unnecessarily dragged into litigation. Vetoed. AB 737  (Chesbro). Would have diverted more waste from landfills and reduced waste by requiring all commercial waste generators to establish recycling programs. Vetoed. SB 1006  (Pavley). Clarifies the Strategic Growth grant eligibility list to include JPAs, MPOs, special districts and other local government organizations, in light of the demonstrated performance of JPAs and special districts in green projects. Approved. SB 1124  (Negrete/McLeod). Will ensure that San Bernardino County fulfils its obligation to protect lands it purchased with state bond money from Proposition 70 passed in 1988. The County purchased the land two decades ago and promised to protect the land with easements. However, the easements were never placed. Approved . SB 1142  (Wiggins). Creates a track within the Department of Conservation's California Farmland Conservancy Program to fund agricultural easements that can provide secondary conservation benefits such as flood protection and habitat preservation. Approved. SB 1365  (Corbett). Allows the Department of Toxic Substances to test for lead and to enforce the federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to ensure public safety. Approved. AB 1405  (De Leon/M. Perez). Would have established a Community Benefits Fund to direct a portion of revenues from AB 32 implementation to help Californians who are least able to confront the expected impacts of the climate crisis at the local level. Vetoed . SB 1433  (Leno). Would have adjusted ceilings for air pollution violations with inflation so the real value of statutory air penalties does not further decline. The ceiling for the most commonly used category (strict liability) has not been increased since 1982. Vetoed . AB 1581 (Torres). Would have allowed big box stores to move into a vacant storefront and begin operating without environmental review detailing the implications arising from the stores presence, i.e. increased traffic and diesel pollution from delivery trucks.   Died in Assembly . AB 1963  (Nava). Improves the pesticide poisoning prevention program to protect farm workers who handle pesticides.  Laboratories will be allowed to send test results electronically to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, providing state officials with the necessary information to monitor the existing pesticide poisoning prevention program and protect farm workers. Approved. AB 2289  (Eng). Enacts critical updates to California's Smog Check program that will save money for consumers and the state and boost the emission benefits of the smog check program, removing 70 tons of pollution per day. Approved. AB 2398  (J. Perez).  Creates increased demand for recycled carpet products in California by increasing the state's recycled content requirement for carpet bought by the state (from 10% post-consumer recycled content to 25% post-consumer carpet content). Requires carpet manufacturers to prepare a carpet stewardship plan to meet the recycling targets.  At request of the industry, the bill requires the plan to include a self-assessment mechanism that will allow the industry to finance its activities to increase recycling of carpets. Approved. BUILDING CODES/GREEN BUILDINGS  AB 1405 (De Leon). Would have diverted 10% of fees levied on businesses under AB 32 regulations to Environmental Justice advocacy groups. Vetoed.  SB 1427 (Price). Requires a governmental entity, prior to imposing a fine for a property owner's failure to maintain a vacant property acquired by foreclosure, to provide the owner of the property with notice and an opportunity to correct the violation. Approved . AB 1693 (Ma).   W ill modify the code adoption cycle and extend it to an 18-month process, adding three months to the interim update process.   Approved . AB 2670 (J. Perez).  Would have mandated certain state buildings be evaluated using a private green building program without recognizing the state's own green building code . Vetoed.   DISADVANTAGED COMMUNINTIES SB 194 (Florez). Would have extended the Community Development Block Grant system to large "entitlement communities" and attempted to ensure the representation and participation of citizens of disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Vetoed . BUDGET TRAILER BILL: REDEVELOPMENT, WILLIAMSON ACT SB 863 ( Budget Committee). Would change Community Redevelopment Law to benefit two specific agencies. F irst, the Centre City Redevelopment Project in San Diego will be allowed to issue an unlimited amount of debt to fund a new $800 million football stadium, without having to comply with existing law. This law requires that older agencies seeking to increase their "debt cap" document remaining blight, spend the additional revenues to remove this blight, increase the percentage of funds set aside for housing to 30 percent, and focus these funds on homes affordable to lower-income households. Second, the Richmond Redevelopment Agency would gain a special reprieve from potential penalties for failing to make payments to schools required under last year's budget, because the agency's revenues dropped by 20% in 2009-10. It also provides "bridge" funding for counties that have given up Williamson Act subvention funds due to the provisions of SB 2530, which diverts some funding to the state.  Awaiting action by Governor .

It's no secret that car sales are down these days, and that this downturn is causing a problem for cities in California. But based on a panel I participated in on Friday at the Westside Urban Forum in Los Angeles, I'd say the problem facing cities is a little more nuanced than I thought. And it suggests that, with a rapidly changing retail market, cities have to move into a whole new generation of thinking not just about car dealers but about retailers generally. So far the problem has seemed pretty simple, as I laid out in a Governing column a while ago : Auto malls used to be fortresses, just like regional malls. But declining sales and the restructuring of the industry has begun to wipe out some auto malls because the number of brands and dealerships is on the decline. (Again, just like regional malls.) So cities have to make a fundamental decision – just as they did with regional malls. Do they circle the wagons or do they let the malls fall apart and start over again. I shared the Westside panel with Santa Monica City Councilmember Terry O'Day and Geoff Emery, the head of Beverly Hills Porsche and owner of several other high-end dealerships on the Westside. Admittedly, the Westside is atypical. There aren't really any auto malls. Dealers are still mostly located along arterials. And because land is unbelievably expensive, the dealerships are more willing to take up less space than elsewhere. Still, it was a stimulating morning – especially because of Emery, a very smart and sophisticated guy who just finished getting a new Audi building approved in Santa Monica. Here are a few wrinkles that may change my thinking about auto dealerships, auto malls, and retailers in the months ahead: -- The problem with the brands and dealers shrinking is temporary and largely confined to American brands. High-end brands such as the German brands Emery sells are doing fine, especially because of the leasing phenomenon. Solid Japanese brands such as Honda and Toyota (despite its problems) are doing fine too. And there's a whole new rush of brands coming from Asia, such as Tata from India. -- Yes, buyers browse on the internet now and not at the auto mall. But they still wind up at the dealership. This means two things: First, that dealers still need actual physical locations, and second, that they still need a big inventory (every brand, every color so you can look at the exact car you want to buy). What's not known is whether these dealers need to be grouped together anymore or not. -- Here's one thing we always forget: Big retail companies – autos manufacturers and others – exert a lot of control over their stores. So, as Emery says, he gets stuck between the desires of local cities that want to individualize the stores and the requirements of his manufacturers in Germany, who are not willing to budge. It's pretty clear that cities need to understand the internal workings of retailers' decision-making about location and design far more than they do. -- Finally, one last analogy to regional malls: I'm guessing that the car market will bifurcate, just like the retail market has. There'll be fancy high-end dealerships; and then there will be bare-bones operations selling Tatas for cheap. They may not need to be – our want to be – in the same place. Maybe Porsche will want to be next to Nordstrom and Tata next to Wal-Mart. -- Bill Fulton

California appellate courts have recently published two opinions regarding attorney's fees in land use cases. Not surprisingly, the party that won on the merits in the first case also won attorney's fees, while, in the second case, the party that lost on the merits was not awarded attorney's fees even though the losing party argued that it deserved the fees. An environmental group and a citizens organization won attorney's fees in  Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino , which involved the approval of an open-air composting facility in the Mojave desert. The trial court determined that the environmental impact report was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act because the report did not adequately discuss project alternatives and water supply. The court further ruled that the Center for Biological Diversity and the group Help Hinkley were entitled to attorney's fees. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling earlier this year (see  CP&DR Legal Digest , June 1, 2010) but published the portions of the opinion relating to attorney's fees only last month. Project proponent Nursery Products, LLC, which defended the lawsuit, appealed the grant of attorney's fees on three grounds: (1) an important right was not enforced; (2) the decision did not confer a significant benefit; and (3) the amount awarded was too high. Before discussing the merits of Nursery Products' arguments, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, first emphasized the broad discretion granted to a trial court when determining the amount of attorney's fees. The trial court's decision will be overturned only if it is an abuse of discretion. The Fourth District quickly dismissed the first two arguments regarding an important right and significant benefit. The court cited several prior cases holding that enforcement of CEQA's procedural requirements satisfies the requirements for an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, the private attorney general statute. The majority of the appellate court's discussion focused on the amount of the attorney's fees – $240,000 – which the appellate court upheld. Nursery Products' main argument was that the amount covered the litigation of all issues, although petitioners were successful on only two of the claims. The court rejected the contention. "While a court has discretion to reduce fees in a CEQA case based on degree of success, it is, of course, not required to do so," Presiding Justice Judith McConnell wrote for the court. Ultimately, the court ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion and upheld the fees. Additionally, the appellate court held that the project opponents were also entitled to additional attorney's fees for the appeal and remanded that issue back to the trial court to determine the amount. The second case was  Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection . In this case, the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal faced the question of whether a petitioner that had lost its suit could still claim successful party status for purposes of attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. Two environmental organizations – Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch and Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center – had challenged three Tuolumne County timber harvest plans approved by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) for Sierra Pacific Industries. Although the environmental groups won at the appellate court level, that decision was overturned by the state Supreme Court (see  CP&DR Legal Digest , July 2008). The environmental groups argued that although the Supreme Court ruled the timber harvest plans at issue were sufficient, the court's opinion "clarified the law regarding CDF's authority and duty to analyze herbicide use." Based on the groups' logic, they were a "successful party" under § 1021.5. Refusing to extend the definition of "successful party" to the limits urged by the environmentalists, a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth District held that the groups were not entitled to attorney's fees. According to the court, the groups failed to win on any of their primary contentions regarding the timber harvest plans, even if the Supreme Court's opinion on the merits resulted in clarification of the law. "When the Supreme Court's agreement statements are read pragmatically and in context, they do not support the conclusion that plaintiffs succeeded on any significant issue in the litigation that achieved some of the benefit they sought in bringing suit," Presiding Justice James Ardaiz wrote for the court. In a dissent, Justice Betty Dawson wrote that the environmental groups deserved an award of attorney's fees because the litigation caused the state Supreme Court create new law regarding CDF authority and the scope of timber harvest plans. The litigation also forced CDF to become more publicly accountable for reviewing the impacts of herbicide use, according to Dawson. First Case: Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino , No. D056648, 185 Cal.App.4th 866. Originally filed May 25, 2010. Ordered published in full, June 23, 2010. The Lawyers:For Center for Biological Diversity: Helen Kang, Golden Gate University Environmental Law & Justice Clinic, (415) 442-6693. For Nursery Products, LLC: Lisabeth D. Rothman, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, (310) 500-4600. Second Case: Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , No. F058062, CITE. Filed August 10, 2010. The Lawyers: For Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch: Thomas W. Lippe, Lippe, Gaffney, Wagner, (415) 777-5600. For the state: William N. Jenkins, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5527. For Sierra Pacific: William M. Sloan, Morrison & Foerster, (415) 268-7209.

The Cal Bears scored a victory in a recent legal challenge to a planned expansion of athletic facilities near the historic University of California football stadium in Berkeley. The project opponents' playbook included a long list of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violations allegedly committed by the University of California (UC) Board of Regents. The blue and gold had a solid game plan. The regents used a tiered Environmental Impact Report (EIR), carrying forward relevant CEQA analysis from the first tier to a later document and providing detailed, site-specific analysis in the later tier. The UC campuses utilize "long range development plans." The Berkeley campus 2020 long-range development plan and companion EIR were approved in 2005 (see  CP&DR Public Development , June 2005;  CP&DR In Brief , July 2005). To implement the plan, the university initiated an EIR for the "Integrated Projects" located within the southeast quadrant of the master plan area. These projects composed about 20% of the new gross square footage and 24% of the proposed new parking contemplated by the long-range plan. Contained within the Integrated Projects was a three-phased stadium project. Phase I involved a new athlete center. Completion of Phase I would accommodate relocation of sports facilities away from the stadium, at which time seismic repairs and upgrades to the stadium would take place as phases II and III. At the time of EIR certification, only Phase I was presented to the regents for approval. On November 14, 2006, the full Board of Regents, sitting as the Grounds and Buildings Committee, recommended approval of the athlete center. Two days later, the board adopted the recommendation. On December 5, the Grounds and Buildings Committee (then consisting of 11 of 26 regents) certified the EIR, adopted a statement of overriding considerations because some project impacts could not be fully mitigated, and gave final approval to the athlete center project. Various groups and individuals filed suit alleging violations of the Alquist-Priolo seismic safety act, and CEQA. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller granted a preliminary injunction preventing the athlete center from proceeding. After soliciting expert declarations from both parties addressing the building plans and the Alquist-Priolo Act claims, the court found for the project opponents on three of their Alquist-Priolo contentions and one CEQA claim. Tailoring a remedy to fit the violation, the court then ordered the regents to suspend approval of phases II and III until (1) the board either withdrew its proposal to increase the number of special events, or developed the evidence to support the conclusion that the impacts were significant and unavoidable, and (2) the board suspended approval of the athlete center until it could demonstrate the stadium alterations totaled less than 50% of the stadium value. The regents quickly responded by eliminating the additional special events and the alterations to the stadium. Satisfied, the court dissolved the preliminary injunction, permitting construction to begin. Meanwhile, in the judicial equivalent of instant reply, the opponents filed a motion for a new trial and to set aside the judgment. This motion resulted in an amended judgment. The opponents then appealed, seeking an interim stay of construction, a request denied by the appellate court and California Supreme Court. On all Alquist-Priolo Act and CEQA issues, the First District Court of Appeal ruled favorably for the regents. The Alquist-Priolo Act restricts construction activity on faults, including alterations to existing structures located on earthquake faults. The 77-year-old Memorial Stadium sits directly atop the Hayward fault. Although the athlete center would be physically separate from the stadium, the center's locker rooms and weight training facilities would be an integral part of future stadium activities. On an appeal of the trial court's procedure, the First District weighed the trial court's consideration of extra-record evidence to determine the question of Alquist-Priolo Act compliance. The extra-record evidence, via the declarations of experts, assisted the trial court in reviewing plans. Because there was no formal proceedings dealing with the issue of Alquist-Priolo Act compliance, the appellate court concluded that this was the type of informal or ministerial decision recognized by the Supreme Court in  Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court  (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, wherein extra-record evidence would be permissible because facts were in dispute. On the merits, the appellate court agreed with the trial court by ruling that the regents were not required to look at all three phases when determining whether or not the cost of the alteration exceeded 50% of the stadium's value – a Alquist-Priolo Act limitation on modifying structures located on faults. The alleged CEQA violations ran the gamut: description of baseline geologic conditions, failure to recirculate the draft EIR, failure to disclose expert disagreement, project description, statement of objectives, adequacy of project alternatives, impacts to archaeological resources, biological impact analysis, findings, adequacy of the statement of overriding considerations. The opponents also challenged the sequencing, arguing that the regents approved the athlete Center prior to certifying the EIR. And opponents disputed the regents' delegation of EIR certification to the Grounds and Buildings Committee. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld all UC actions. In so doing, the appellate court applied a deferential standard of review, noting that perfection was not required. Not only did the EIR include analysis of required issues, the EIR employed the conservative practice of concluding that impacts were significant and unavoidable where there was meaningful potential for debate, a practice that served the university well on a number of arguments. The appellate court concluded the regents were not required to recirculate the draft EIR based upon comment letters from the California Geological Survey and United States Geological Survey that recommended additional study, and ruled the letters did not constitute evidence contradicting the administrative record's geologic reports. Considering the various comment letters, Justice Martin Jenkins wrote, "Given the comprehensive public exchange regarding these impacts, we believe the underlying purposes of CEQA were adequately served even without additional public review of the EIR." The project description was a challenge to the EIR preparers. This was a project EIR for the Integrated Projects, although less specificity was known as to the later elements. The court found that the minimal requirements for the project description (CEQA Guidelines § 15124) were met, and that additional detail could be inferred from the various topical discussions, such as those found in the transportation chapter. With respect to the later phases of the Integrated Projects that were less precisely stated, the EIR included a commitment to subsequent EIRs should the project description later prove to be inadequate – a strategy the appellate court accepted. The appellate court disagreed with opponents' contention that the project objectives were too vague. While some components were broadly stated, the objectives were, in the opinion of the court, sufficient to permit meaningful development and consideration of alternatives. As to alternatives, the court upheld the regents' approach of looking at alternatives to the Integrated Projects as a whole, and noted the use of a matrix that compared the various alternatives. The court also upheld the procedure for project approval. The regents had formally adopted rules regarding project approvals. As defined by these rules, approval took place on December 5, 2006, when the committee approved the project design, not on November 16, 2006, when the full board approved the project budget. The court upheld the process, largely based on the previously adopted rules. On the final procedural issue, the appellate court again deferred to the regents' rules that define the committee as the approving agency. As such, it was appropriate for the committee to certify the EIR, the court ruled. The final issue for the appellate court was a review of the trial court's award of $51,000 in costs to UC for preparing the record. The trial court approved the costs but reduced the charge for the paralegal and adjusted the recovery to reflect the regents' degree of success on the merits (85%). The appellate court found no basis for modifying or reversing the award. The Case: California Oak Foundation v. The Regents of the University of California , No. 122511, 2010 DJDAR 14143. Filed September 3, 2010. The Lawyers: For California Oak Foundation: Stephan C. Volker, (510) 496-0600. For University of California: Kelly L. Drumm, UC Office of General Counsel, (510) 987-9800

The state Capitol is one weird place. Sometimes, I'm not sure if it's even of this earth.  At the moment when you think major redevelopment "reform" is on the horizon, state lawmakers instead rewrite inconvenient laws that were getting in the way of San Diego's desire to use redevelopment financing to build a football stadium, including a law requiring increased funding for affordable housing. To step back just a bit: On September 30, the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes (a fairly new investigative entity) published a report titled "Where Does the Affordable Housing Money Go? Administrative Spending by Redevelopment Agencies Lacks Accountability." I'll be writing about the details of the report in coming days, but the investigation's message is obvious. Some redevelopment agencies are shirking their state-mandated responsibility to provide low- and moderate-income housing, and the state isn't doing anything about it. The very next day, the Los Angeles Times ran the first of two stories detailing alleged redevelopment abuse by agencies all over the state. Both the Times and the Senate office documented how some redevelopment agencies – quite a few, but by no means a majority – were spending a large chunk of the 20% of redevelopment revenue that must be dedicated to low/mod housing on planning and administration, and not on actual housing units. A few other newspapers followed up with unflattering reports on their local redevelopment agencies.  The well-documented revelations had to please affordable housing advocates who have long complained that some redevelopment agencies do everything possible to avoid providing housing. On the other side, limited government advocates who have long complained that redevelopment is one giant sham had to be equally pleased. Either way, you would think that redevelopment reform – carefully crafted or the butcher block variety – would be the Legislature's immediate response. You would be wrong. Instead, in the dark of the night (actually it was the early hours of Friday morning, October 8), the Legislature approved SB 863 with no public review at all. The bill does two unrelated things for redevelopment. First, it eliminates the dollar limit on the amount of tax increment that San Diego's Centre City Redevelopment Corporation may receive. (The CCDC is the city's downtown redevelopment agency.) The provision lifts the cap on the amount of debt that the CCDC may issue. With the cap gone, the agency is free to finance a football stadium for the San Diego Chargers, a stadium that could easily cost $1 billion. Apparently, the agency also has plans to finance a convention center expansion, additional downtown trolley lines and new parks. Now, existing law permits redevelopment agencies to extend their life spans by 10 years – and, therefore, increase their revenue and finance limits – if the agencies are able to make new findings that blight cannot be eliminated without the extension, and if the agencies agree to increase the tax increment revenue set-aside for low/mod housing from 20% to 30%. San Diego city officials were in the midst of a study to document the remaining blight. But the last-second legislation lets the CCDC bypass both of those restrictions. No new blight findings, no increased housing set-aside. A second provision in SB 863 concerns agencies that did not make payments required by the Legislature's shift of $2.05 billion from redevelopment agencies to school districts and the state over the 2009-10 and 2010-11 fiscal years. A handful of agencies did not make the first payment, which was due May 1 of this year. The legislation says that those agencies – so long as they notified the state Department of Finance in advance and saw property tax increment drop by at least 20% last fiscal year – may spread their payments over the next 30 years. It appears that only Richmond's redevelopment agency meets these qualifications. It's unclear whether Richmond may use low/mod housing money to make the payments. Senate Bill 863 passed both houses of the Legislature with the requisite two-thirds vote for urgency legislation during the all-night session that concluded with passage of a 2010-2011 state budget. Although the San Diego redevelopment exemptions had been floating around for a while, even the savviest affordable housing lobbyists did not know the exact details of SB 863 until after lawmakers had already voted. What do these redevelopment maneuverings have to do with the state budget? Nothing, other than they were part of the vote trading necessary to gain approval of the budget. Democrats apparently offered this to get Republican votes. The CCDC generally gets high marks for its role in transforming downtown San Diego into a vibrant urban place. The agency has invested in infrastructure and many development projects, including the baseball stadium for the San Diego Padres – a stadium that did its job of triggering private investment in a blighted neighborhood. A downtown football stadium, an even bigger convention center, more trolley lines and more parks sound great. But if they truly are great, why do they need exemptions from state law approved with no public review? And at the very moment when people are asking hard questions about redevelopment.  Concern about redevelopment abuse is not going away. Somebody better grab the baby before the bathwater starts flying. - Paul Shigley

In the ongoing quest to reclaim open space in the City of Los Angeles, no feature has been worried over more than the Los Angeles River and adjacent parcels. It is, by some accounts, one of the world's most un-natural waterways. The city's Los Angeles River Master Plan has long called for greening and the removal of concrete banks, but debate has raged over whether it even qualifies as a true river. This summer, that debate was resolved. In July the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that the river qualifies as a "traditionally navigable waterway" – rather than a flood control channel – and therefore subject to protection under the Clean Water Act. This decision qualifies the LA River to receive more federal funding, stricter anti-pollution regulations, and greater protection of its tributaries. Local environmentalists also hope that it will lead to a transformation of some of the moribund industrial sites along the river. The decision also takes ultimate authority away from the Army Corp of Engineers, whose main concern regarding the river has always been flood control. According to critics, the Corps has allowed the river to languish under its claim in a 2008 hearing that only four of the river's 52 miles were navigable. Beyond funding and protection, the EPA's decision seems important for a much stigmatized and even derided body of water. Though the concrete remains, the ruling might confirm for anyone who was in doubt, despite appearances, The Los Angeles River is indeed just that, a river. One group that has never been short on imagination regarding the river over the years is the nonprofit, Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR). Shortly after the EPA decision in July, FoLAR released a new vision plan for a 125-acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad formerly called the Piggyback Yard. The yard, which is scarcely a mile from downtown Los Angeles is the largest privately owned portion of riverfront property in the city. Currently inaccessible to the public, the Piggyback Yard is unique for a number of reasons besides its size and location.  It lies within the footprint of the California High Speed Rail project and could provide much needed water detention to help with flood control downstream in cities such as Bell, Maywood, and Long Beach. This has made the Piggyback yard a playground of sorts for planners, landscape architects, and environmentalists who envision an oasis literally in the middle of the city. FoLAR has solicited pro bono work from several firms, including  Perkins and Will architects, landscape firm Mia Lehrer and Associates, and Michael Mazatlan Architecture. "In the end what we wanted to accomplish most was, number one, river restoration and ecological restoration and number two, storm water detention," said Leigh Christy of Perkins and Will. "One proposal stresses restoring habitat in the bed itself while the other pushes maximum detention. But for both plans the second priority was always the other one." Carol Armstrong from the city's River Project Office who also contributed points out, the firms may have  been "likely much more inclined to participate because of the economic downturn." Landscape architect Mia Lehrer said that the planning process was freeing. "By not having a real client, we were able to be much bolder in the constraint, we weren't beholden to anybody," said Lehrer.  "It was like a graduate seminar class," says Shelly Backlar, the executive director of FoLAR. "There were so many presentations and after every one it was always, OK, now let's distill this into something that can meet these broad strokes we've just discussed." Starting from the issues of land use, access and the river itself, with open space versus development being of particular concern, the vision that emerged for the Piggyback Yard projects a greener, more cosmopolitan, almost unrecognizable version of what is currently mostly industrial space. It includes wetland habitat restoration on 130- acres of parkland with water treatment facilities as well as considerable water detention. Mission Boulevard would become a major connecter to downtown with mixed-use development including shops, offices and different priced levels of housing opportunities looking out onto the park. A pedestrian bridge across the river would link the Los Angeles State Historic Park, and an arts campus would be built adjacent to the Brewery Art Colony on East Main St. At the same time that it attempts to make the city greener, the vision also takes into account the continued presence of the railway. Project supporters say that heavy industry and functional open space can co-exist. "There was room for multiple levels of programming. We didn't only have to restore; we could also detain. We didn't only have to build; we could also carve," said Christy. "We didn't have to get rid of rail altogether, we could look at how it could be condensed and accommodated." Much of this meant folding rail into the plan and finding solutions of where to put the existing routes. Accommodating the rail lines is crucial if the project is ever to be practicable. Of all the many steps it would take to start construction on what the PBy Group has proposed, or some version of it, it seems that the  agreement from Union Pacific is the bottom line. "It's not like the railroads are going, ‘C'mon, this is wonderful, let's make a plan!'" Backlar said. "They're aware of the plan, we've had history in the past, it's going to be a process for sure." In the last ten years negotiations with rail have happened though, primarily at the Cornfield and Taylor Yard, both close by. In fact, the full completion of the city's Taylor Yard project hinges on acquiring another Union Pacific piece of land, the  42-acre G-2 parcel, which is unique in its ability for ecosystem restoration potential and that would connect the existing Rio de L.A. State Park to the River. As of yet, the Piggyback Yard plan has received no formal approvals. Los Angeles City official Councilmember Ed Reyes, who heads the council's River Ad-Hoc Committee and for whom the LA River has been primary focus since taking office, said the next step is community outreach. "Many of these plans also need to be part of the consensus-building process," said Reyes. "That requires bringing in people who live in Lincoln Heights, Boyle Heights, the downtown residents, the people who are impacted on a day-to-day basis." Reyes said an investigation into the Taylor Yard Corridor started at a similar grassroots level—in 1993. Now though the project is, according to Reyes, 80% complete. "The Piggyback Yard plan is a great start but now need to start folding in the layers of stakeholders and interest groups," said Reyes. "If we start structuring it based on funding we can move a lot faster on these projects. The Piggyback Yard can start around those lines as well." Whereas previous transformations of the L.A. River came from federal funds funneled through the Corps, funding sources for the river's restoration are neither as robust nor as clear. Christy suggests a mix of private development and public funds. "There's Prop O that can pay for water quality and prop K that can fund parks and recreation," said Christy. "Or an opportunity that Metro or Union Pacific—whoever came on the site to build a maintenance yard—could fund whatever goes on top of it. Depending on where the funding came from, there could be changes to the plan." Ultimately, the PBy group hopes to generate excitement and give stakeholders a sense of the dramatic transformation that could take place along the river. "We wanted someone to look at the plan and say ‘this could actually happen' which is weirdly what we found happening," said Christy. Contacts: Shelly Backlar, Executive Director, Friends of the Los Angeles River , 323.223.0585 Leigh Christy, architect, Perkins+Will Architects ,  213.270.8438 Mia Lehrer, Mia Lehrer+Associates ,  213.384.3844 Ed Reyes , Councilmember, Los Angeles City Council,  213.473.7001

Typically it's the developers who worry about cap rates and the environmentalists who worry about preserving ecologically sensitive lands. That tradition could be upset, however, if a recent proposal to restrict the investments of nonprofit land trusts is approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. The California Endangered Species Act allows for developers and other landowners to set aside sensitive lands and receive incidental take permits in exchange. These lands are typically preserved in perpetuity, using the investment income from endowments that the landowner sets aside. Currently, land trusts hold and manage CESA endowments on their own, with relatively little oversight by DFG. DFG's proposal, however, would mandate that all endowment monies be pooled and managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a nonprofit typically associated with the protection of federal lands. The DFG chose the NFWF because it "manages a program tailored to mitigation endowments," according to a DFG memo. "This is mitigation in perpetuity and we want to make sure that the funding is available to carry out the management," said Tina Bartlett, chief of the DFG's Habitant Conservation Planning Branch. DFG began allowing third-party land trusts to hold CESA mitigation lands and endowments only last year, with an initial program that called for interested trusts to apply. This approach contrasts with land trusts' usual strategy, which is to acquire land that it deems valuable from willing sellers, rather than holding them for government agencies. However, the DFG is now considering a policy that would deny the trusts control of the endowments attached to mitigation lands. "The department doesn't want to hold these lands themselves," said Darla Guenzler, president of the California Council of Land Trusts. "They trust (land trusts) to hold the land, but they don't want to trust them to hold the money. So this is really a dysfunctional relationship." In reviewing these third parties DFG officials said that they were overwhelmed by the variability in the trusts' management schemes and admitted that the agency did not have the expertise or personnel to oversee the endowments properly. "We received numerous applications and substantial interests expressed not only by land trusts but also by businesses….and entrepreneurs expressed a lot of interest that we didn't expect," said Bartlett. "To be honest, we were struggling with how to review the financial health and responsibility of the organizations." DFG hosted discussions throughout the summer on the proposal to keep endowment funds with NFWF, with protests from representatives of interested land trusts. Many of them complained that the policy was drafted and proposed with little input from them and that the stakeholder meetings came later than they should have. In fact, uncertainty about the proper relationship between land trusts and DFG has persisted despite several legislative attempts to clarify it. Last year Assemblymember Anna Caballero introduced AB 444, which was intended to head off the current disagreements. AB 444 passed through both houses before being vetoed by the governor. According to Caballero, the veto was at the behest of DFG. "The whole purpose of it was to be able to efficiently utilize the money to benefit the land as opposed to, in my mind, in favor of a bureaucracy," said Caballero. "(Land trusts) are just closer to the properties and closer to the work that's being done. We wanted to take away the bureaucratic part of it that keeps things from getting done." The proposal, if implemented, would apply only to new endowments held by nonprofit groups. Mitigation endowments held by the state have been, and will continue to be, held in the state Special Deposit Fund. Barlett said that the agency issues roughly 30 incidental take permits per year but noted that not all of those permits require mitigation endowments. DFG officials say that this plan would both ensure that the monies were managed properly and conservatively and that it would give DFG greater oversight over the endowments. The plan would apply to land acquired because of CESA requirements or by land bankers, which acquire land and sell conservation credits to developers. While the DFG insists that it trusts NFWF because of its ten years of experience as well as congressional oversight, representatives of land trusts say that such a plan constitutes overkill. Guenzler referred to Washington, D.C.-based NFWF as a "completely unrelated organization to the ownership of the land to hold the endowment." "It actually increases the risk to have an overwhelming proportion of these endowments held by a single entity…the bigger you are does not necessarily insulate you from problems," said Guenzler. By contrast, she said that land trusts are, "in most cases quite sophisticated nonprofits that are used to handling millions of dollars." Many land trust officials say that the policy, even if it did insulate endowments from the vagaries of aggressive investing, would all but ensure a slow death. For that reason, some land trusts may hesitate to take on CESA mitigation lands if this policy goes into effect. "If an organization… cannot monitor it, they might not want to make the deal," said Nita Vail, CEO of the California Rangelands Trust. "We don't have that kind of control if an organization like NFWF is the endowment-holder." Vail added that her organization has pending projects involving CESA mitigation that "might be affected" by DFG's decision. Land trust officials see an alternative scenario that is not merely likely but is in fact predictable: the pooled monies might fail to generate the income needed for the endowments to keep up with inflation and spin off funds for maintaining the endowed lands. They say that far from being profligate, individual land trusts are far better able to determine the amount of investment income that they need and to make sound investments accordingly. For its part, DFG is worried in part about catastrophic endowment losses and was spooked by the failure of The Environmental Trust in San Diego, which filed for bankruptcy and forced the state to take back eight properties in 2005 (see CP&DR Vol. 20, No. 1 Jan. 2006  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-323 ). The Environmental Trust's failure came long before DFG started allowing land trusts to hold mitigation endowments, but DFG officials are still wary. "I think that's added to our level of concern but we have some examples of failures that make us take pause," said Bartlett. At a July 9 stakeholder meeting, several land trust representatives urged DFG not to set a policy based on that one failure. Moreover, the trusts fear that if they cannot accurately predict the cap rate – the rate of return, minus fees, adjusted for inflation – then it will be difficult to estimate the amount of endowment needed in the first place. As a result, said Guenzler, developers will be wary of committing to deals while trusts will worry that easement lands will not come with sufficient funding. "When endowments are calculated with extremely conservative return on investment numbers…the endowments becomes so expensive that it could stop development entirely or result in less on-the-ground mitigation being accomplished," said Nicole Byrd, executive director of the Solano Land Trust. The proposal could have adverse effects on developers as well. Guenzler said that developers seek certainty and want a predictable amount of endowment that they will have to set aside. Additionally, if land trusts are unwilling to absorb lands that could turn into financial burdens, then developers who want to encroach on endangered species' habitats will have one less tool with which to strike mitigation deals. Land trusts hold a tiny percentage of land set aside because of CESA requirements. Likewise, such lands and their attendant funds occupy a relatively small portion of land trusts' portfolios. Yet, some fear that this policy – on a relatively obscure issue – could set an unwelcome precedent. Guenzler speculated that if CESA endowments are restricted then DFG could start restricting other endowments, such as those set aside under CEQA. "DFG says it's going to relate very few projects," said Byrd. "But what we're hearing is that it will set precedent and become the standard for how mitigation is done." Contacts: Tina Bartlett, Branch Chief, Habitant Conservation Planning Branch, California Department of Fish and Game , 916.445.0411 Nicole Byrd, Executive Director, Solano Land Trust , 707.432.0150 Anna Caballero , Assemblymember, 28th District (Salinas), 916.319.2028  Darla Guenzler, President, California Council of Land Trusts , 916-497-0272 Nita Vail, CEO, California Rangelands Trust , 916.444.2096

Much has been written about the economic potential of alternative energy. So the proposal to build a 7,000-acre solar farm in Riverside County near Blythe struck me as notably promising. The new plant would be capable of generating 1,000 Mw, or more than all the photovoltaics that have been so far installed in California, according to a recent New York Times  article .  Here's another wrinkle in the idea of photovoltaics as land use: Reusing brownfields as solar energy farms. That's the proposal put forward by a pair of Northeastern companies, who claim that formerly shunned lands can be profitably reused as "surface area" for fields of photovoltaic panels. This strategy would create a vector of two forward-looking causes in land use: Finding new uses for contaminated and unproductive (translate as "non-tax-generating") real estate while finding adequate acreage for photovoltaics to soak up the natural goodness of sunlight and make it into cheap (or at least competitively priced) electricity. The proponents are Opel Solar, Inc. of Shelton, Ct., and Truenorth Solar & Environmental, L.L.C. of Toronto, Ontario. Some eye-opening numbers from the companies' press release (warning: I have not independently verified these numbers): "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that site cleanup revenue, for the companies doing the clean-up, can amount to approximately $6-8 billion annually as experts forecast that there may be as many as 4,000 brownfields in the United States, roughly the equivalent of 30,000 football fields. Add in Superfund sites and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sites and the total jumps to more than 14 million acres that could be redeveloped as renewable energy sites." I have some dollars-and-cents questions for Opel Solar Chairman Leon Pierhal. (I've put out several requests for an interview, and I‘ll file a follow-up report when I get a better sense of how the whole thing "pencils out.") For the time being, here are some of my basic questions/quandaries: Do we need to clean up these sites before reusing them as solar energy farms? That costs money. The commonest and, arguably, most easily remediate type of contamination in soil is petrochemicals (I.e. old gas stations, underground storage tanks and drilling rigs, etc) which can cost up to $25 per square foot to clean up. That's a reasonable cost for high-end development such as regional malls, big hotels, and Class A office buildings that can reliably throw off a lot of cash down the road. In some cases where the stuff is really awful, such as carcinogens, developers can sometimes "encapsulate" the crud by laying a sandwich of sand and asphalt on top of it. Add to that the cost of land, or the cost of leasing it. So, this is my simplistic formula: Profit must be equal to, or greater than, (the cost of remediation) +  ( cost of PV equipment) + (cost of land). Granted, those numbers will likely vary widely from place to place. Hopefully, those numbers would work in Arizona, where we could blanket the entire state just to make enough energy to keep air conditioners humming in Southern California. Northern California, for its part, could use Nevada for similar purposes. It's a win-win-win-win! (Just kidding….) --Morris Newman Correction Appended.