California has a yet another seismic threat to prepare for, thanks to a set of new maps that depict a ferocious line of water that may, if earth moves in just the wrong way, someday surge inland along the state's coastline. Experts are saying that these new maps should be used to plan for emergency evacuations, not changes in land use planning. In at least one case, however, the Coastal Commission is already considering policies that would take tsunamis into account when approving developments. Approximating maximum inundation for a worst-case scenario tsunami, the line washes over all of Newport Bay and Marina del Rey, wipes out parts of downtown Santa Cruz, and makes half of Seal Beach disappear.  Some of the state's most fabled real estate from La Jolla to Malibu to Montecito would wash out with the tide.  It would yet again pummel Crescent City, itself the victim of the nation's most destructive and deadly recorded tsunami, a 20-foot wave that struck on Good Friday, 1964. A n Unpredictable Threat Hardly an inch of the state's 1,200-mile coastline is shielded from tsunamis, which can be triggered by local events -- earthquakes and underwater landslides -- or by those that occur almost anywhere in the Pacific basin. "Earthquakes are pretty localized," said Rick Wilson, engineering geologist with the California Geological Survey. "But for distant tsunamis that come across the Pacific, we're dealing with our entire coastline in California." The 130 maps , which cover over 90 percent of the state's populated coastline, culminate a multi-year collaboration between the California Geological Survey, the University of Southern California Tsunami Research Center, and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, to marry the most current seismic data with precise measurements of offshore bathymetry and coastal topography. The maps assign to the tsunami threat a visual element that is absent from the prediction of earthquakes.  Contrary to this discomfiting picture, however, researchers and state officials alike caution that the maps' projections in no way mean that the state's coastal communities and nearly 1 million coastal residents should permanently decamp for higher ground. Memories of the 2004 south Asian tsunami -- and of the statewide warnings that were sounded after the February 25 Chilean earthquake -- make clear the destructive threat of  tsunamis. The maps were prompted by recommendations in a 2005 risk assessment report published by the state Seismic Safety Commission. That report, which was prompted by the south Asian event, noted that roughly 80 tsunamis have struck California over the past 150 years and that two of them were destructive. Overall, the report concluded that tsunamis represent a "significant threat to life and property in California." But tsunamis' infrequency and unpredictability render them, according to the current research, too speculative a threat to warrant changes in coastal land use patterns for the foreseeable future. "These maps were not produced for land use planning and we don't suggest they be used for that," said Aggeliki Barberopoulou, engineering professor at USC and co-leader of the mapping project. "There is no time factor in these maps in the sense that this is not a 50- or 100-year occurrence like we have with flood maps.  Maps used for land use planning purposes would have a time factor." Worst-Case Scenario Since their unveiling in December, the maps have been distributed primarily to county emergency management agencies, which, in turn, have distributed them to their coastal communities.  The maps' sole explicit function is to help those agencies craft emergency management plans, including notification systems, signage, and evacuation routes. California's warnings come mainly from the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, run by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. "I consider these maps a prerequisite for evacuation planning and adequate response on the part of cities and counties on the coast," said Jim Goltz, Earthquake and Tsunami Program Manager at the California Emergency Management Agency. "It's up to to develop evacuation maps, evacuation plans, places where people are safe, and to post signs to indicate where there is a tsunami hazard." "We are focusing on them purely as emergency management tools," said Susan Asturias, senior emergency services coordinator for San Diego County. "We know they're not legal documents for land use." The maps apply data from complex models to GIS maps, drafts of which were sent to local officials for their review before the final drafts were published.  The result, Goltz said, is a much more refined picture than the state has ever had before. But even precise maps do not present a clear prescription for emergency management. "They come at different directions, different levels of magnitude, and each particular location along the coastline is different in its topography and its bathymetry," said Dan Larkin, Director of Emergency Services for Humboldt County.   "The whole subject is so complex that it's extremely difficult to come out with a one-size-fits all evacuation plan." Though the maps' inundation lines can be viewed as an unbroken whole, the chance of a tsunami striking the entire state at once are essentially zero.  Typically, tsunamis will strike in localized areas, so while the maps may be geographically accurate, they make no claims about frequency or the extent of a single event. "I don't see these particular maps as being applicable to land use planning because they present a worst-case scenario of the maximum run-up of a tsunami should we get the Big One, or somebody else gets the Big One and we get the run-up," said Sidnie L. Olson, interim director of community development for the City of Eureka. "That's like Humboldt County trying to plan for a magnitude 10 earthquake.  If we were planning for that, we wouldn't allow anyone to live there." Previous to these maps' publication, the north coast counties of Humboldt and Del Norte had relied on locally generated maps and have developed intensive response strategies in light of their historic experience with tsunamis. The Cascadia subduction zone -- a particularly active tectonic plate boundary stretching from Northern California southern British Columbia -- makes the north coast, according to Goltz, a relative "magnet for tsunamis," which can arrive from such quake-prone areas as Alaska's Aleutian Islands. However, Southern California too has seen its share of tsunamis, including four that hit Newport Beach in the 1930s and one that hit Santa Barbara in 1812 with such ferocity that it compelled local Native American to move uphill, according to Wilson, of the CGS. "We knew that in some areas, say, Orange County and L.A. we were going to see very large inundations from worst-case scenarios that would impact a lot of homes," said Wilson.  The key here is that we don't really know how often these large events occur." Whether, and when, a major threat will arise remains for the next round of maps and studies to assess. These additional maps and studies will attempt to assign probabilities to tsunamis of different sizes and locations by, in part, delving into the geological record to assess the frequency of prehistoric tsunami events.  The state's Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, adopted in 1991, requires that the state catalog all seismic dangers to the extent that technology and funding allow.  Until researchers can assign credible time horizons to potential tsunamis should planners, any efforts to retard development in potential inundation zones would be overly cautious. "To a certain degree, we're going to get down to an exercise of acceptable risk," said Baskin. "Do we plan for an event that happens every three or four hundred years or do we accept that that's just beyond our time horizon?" Nevertheless, some north coast officials are particularly attuned to the threat of tsunamis and their implications for long-term planning.  To them, the maps, however unclear their time frame may be, represent a threat that should not be ignored. "These maps might be a starting point to have a discussion as far as critical facilities that we consider how we want to deal with them," said Olson, of Eureka.  Olson said that currently, the maximum inundation zone includes Eureka's sewage treatment plant, a stretch of Highway 101; "our entire industrial waterfront would be wiped out," she said. Land Use Policy Avoiding such a wipeout in the first place is already influencing policy in the region.  The Coastal Commission has recently proposed local policies for Del Norte County that would direct planners to take tsunami risk into account.  Working off of maps devised at Humboldt State University – maps which are, according to Larkin, in close agreement with the new statewide maps – the commission's North Coast Office has recently suggested modifications to its policy for Del Norte County that would anticipate tsunami risk. "There are specific policies in there that are addressing the creation of new units by subdivision that would be prone to tsunami risk," said Jim Baskin, coastal planner with the California Coastal Commissions North Coast Office.  "If they can't show that their floor elevation couldn't be shown to be one foot higher than inundation risk, that might be grounds for disapproval." These policies would not necessarily sway the coastal permitting process singlehandedly, as tsunami inundation zones are likely to be environmentally sensitive in the first place and therefore subject to heavy scrutiny regardless of tsunami danger. "Just by virtue of their low-lying terrain, more than likely they're going to be corresponding with water courses or wetland factors or stream course characteristics that would just in the matter of course be environmentally sensitive areas," said Baskin. Moreover, even if tsunami risk does not warrant reduction in development per se, emergency planners insist that development plans and approvals should still take into account the need for emergency-response infrastructure, such as evacuation routes and staging areas. "Certainly if there was a development in an area that was inundation-prone, that development would need to include in terms of its permitting some sort of tsunami safety plan," said Baskin.  "For example, the occupants of a hotel they need to be aware of the evacuation routes and high ground." In order to bring continuity to these efforts and coordinate efforts between land use officials and emergency management officials, CalEMA officials intend to engage planners in their effort both to explain the maps' limitations and to anticipate the next round of research, which may, upon completion bear on coastal development in certain parts of the state.  Wilson said that, pursuant to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the next stage will be to assign probabilities and timeframes to the maps in order to give land-use planners proper context.  The state intends to involve planners in that discussion and, in the meantime, make efforts to educate the planning community about the implications of the current maps. "Over the next year our plan is to have a workshop with the land use planning community to not necessarily unveil the existing maps but to explain why and what we'll be doing in the next several years to make a better set of maps for their use," said Wilson. Contacts & Resources: Aggeliki Barberopoulou, USC Tsunami Research Center (213) 740 5129 Jim Baskin, California Coastal Commmission North Coast Office (707) 445-7833 Jim Goltz, Earthquake and Tsunami Program  (link to maps) Manager, CalEMA (916) 845-8510 Rick Wilson, California Geological Survey (916) 445-1923 -- Josh Stephens

Upholding a 27-year-old California Supreme Court determination, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that local agencies may impose a fee for the filing of an administrative appeal of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) decision. In the case at hand, the City of Glendora Planning Commission adopted an addendum to a negative declaration, stating that the project could cause no significant impacts, and approved a 125-bed assisted living facility on February 12, 2008. Glendora resident and project opponent Erica Landmann-Johnsey wanted to appeal the commission's decision to approve the project without an environmental impact report to City Council, but she was required to pay a $2,000 appeal fee. She went ahead with her appeal and paid the fee under protest. The City Council subsequently denied her appeal. In response, Landmann-Johnsey and the organization Friends of Glendora filed a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, that the city violated CEQA when it assessed the $2,000 fee. The city demurred on the ground that the complaint was filed outside the 120-day statute of limitations from the date the City Council instituted the fee for such appeals; the fee, imposed for a variety of appeals, began in 2004. The city also argued that charging such a fee was in compliance with CEQA pursuant to the California Supreme Court's decision in Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Commission , (1983) 34 Cal.3d 412. The trial court ruled for the city, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. In conducting its analysis, the Court of Appeal reviewed Sea & Sage Audubon . In that case, the petitioners appealed to the Anaheim City Council a city Planning Commission decision to certify an environmental impact report and approve subdivision maps for a community development project. The petitioners contended the EIR was inadequate. The petitioners, however, did not pay an appeal fee to the city, and the city rejected the appeal (the opinion is conspicuously vague on whether the reject was due directly to the absence or the lateness of the fee � or both). The petitioners filed a writ of mandamus to compel the city to vacate the approval of the project. The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that petitioners never officially filed an appeal with the city and therefore failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. After losing at the trial court, the petitioners appealed on the ground that the city's fee for filing the administrative appeal was invalid. The California Supreme Court rejected that argument, citing Government Code � 66452.5, which authorizes a city to permit interested persons to appeal a decision of a planning commission, and Government Code � 66451.2, which authorizes cities to establish reasonable fees for procedures associated with the processing of maps and other local ordinances. In an attempt to distinguish her case from the Sea & Sage Audubon case, Landmann-Johnsey argued that Public Resources Code � 21151, subdivision (c) � which creates the right to appeal a lead agency's CEQA document � does not indicate a fee is required to make such an appeal. Thus, she argued, the city may not impose a fee for administrative CEQA-based appeals such as hers. The Second District rejected this interpretation, instead finding that the California Supreme Court did not require a specific statutory authorization under CEQA for the appeal of a planning commission decision to the city council. The court of appeal also found that a section of CEQA (Public Resources Code � 21083.1) did not prohibit agencies from imposing reasonable fees for filing administrative appeals of decisions. The law must be construed in a practical and common sense way, the court concluded. The Case: Friends of Glendora v. City of Glendora , No. B215114, 2010 DJDAR 2010 DJDAR 3134. Filed March 1, 2010. The Lawyers: For Friends of Glendora: Cory J. Briggs, (909) 949-7115. For the city: D. Wayne Leech, (626) 443-0061. --Katherine J. Hart

The old saying in government is that in order to understand what's going on, you've got to follow the money. In local planning throughout California, that's becoming increasingly easy to do. Local government revenues � property tax, sales tax, development fees, redevelopment funds � are in steep decline. Cities and counties are laying off planners, canceling or truncating planning contracts, and punting as much work as they can into the future. Increasingly, the money to plan the future of California's communities is flowing from the state and federal governments. At the federal level, the troika of agencies charged by the Obama Administration with promoting "sustainable communities" � HUD, Transportation, and EPA � are seeking additional funds from Congress and ramping up new programs. Meanwhile, the state's general fund is all but bankrupt. In the near future, then, virtually all of California's planning efforts will depends on bond money. As of February, the state had authorized $151 billion in general obligation bonds, $48 billion of which has yet to be issued. Much of that money will affect planning, directly or indirectly. In the immediate future, there's Proposition 84, the 2006 water quality bond issue which still has some $60 million earmarked for local planning for elements such as parks and natural resource protection. About a third of the money will be given away this year. (Some money has already been meted out to regional planning agencies � known as metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in federal transportation lingo � to fund improved computer modeling of growth scenarios.) And in the longer term, there's the both state and federal money for the California High Speed Rail system � more than $10 billion so far � much of which is sure to be peeled off to plan the areas near the high-speed rail stations. On one level, the Prop. 84 and High Speed Rail funds may save planning in California by providing "bridge" funding to keep planning projects going until the economy recovers. But on another level, these funds may well shift planning priorities in California away from local governments to the regional agencies and Sacramento � which will inevitably mean less focus on conventional planning and more focus on planning transit station areas and planning for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Prop 84 funds are in the hands of a newly formed state entity called the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) � a collection of four Cabinet secretaries, plus the director of the Governor's Office of Planning & Research, and one public member appointed by the governor, former Gap executive Bob Fisher. (SGC is staffed, for now, by OPR, though that agency may be eliminated as part of the next round of budget cuts.) Proposition 84 originally contained planning money intended mainly to promote the conservation of resources, such as air and water quality, agricultural land, and energy efficiency. Recently, however, the law that created SGC (Insight, Vol. 23, No. 3, Mar. 2008) has specifically broadened Prop 84's mandate to include greenhouse gas emissions reductions pursuant to AB 32. The Strategic Growth Council spent most of the fall and winter figuring out how to dole out the $65 million in funds � debating, for example, whether to tie the funds closely to SB 375 implementation or, alternatively, whether to give local governments wide latitude to pursue whatever plans they wish. The final guidelines for the planning grants are scheduled to be adopted in mid-March, with proposals due to SGC by the end of May. The allowable grants range in size from $100,000 to $1 million. (SGC recently adopted final guidelines for a separate pot of money for "urban greening" grants, and those proposals are due at the end of April.) In its final draft guidelines, the Strategic Growth Council came down kind of in the middle of the state-vs.-local debate � still leaning toward supporting local planning, but earmarking some funds for regional purposes as well. One thing is for sure, however: there's a definite AB 32/SB 375 slant to the Strategic Growth Council's guidelines. The proposed final guidelines include three focus areas: Local "sustainable" planning, including things like general plans, climate action plans, and zoning codes. In this round, these efforts will get about $14 million statewide. Regional planning that supports the efforts of regional planning agencies in implementing SB 375, such as blueprint or sustainable communities plans. SGC has earmarked $4 million in this round for these efforts. Regional planning involving multiple players � not just the regional planning agencies but also other agencies as well. This could include innovative efforts such as regional carbon offset programs, blueprint programs for rural areas, or climate action plans that include whole counties and/or multiple agencies. Some $2 million has been earmarked in this round for these purposes. These specific categories mark a change from the draft guidelines that were issued last fall, which were much broader in scope and did not call out different focus areas. When the draft guidelines were first issued, the feedback generally fell into two categories. The first was a suggestion that most of the money � even money to do local plans � should flow through the regional planning agencies, which are responsible for implementing SB 375. This suggestion came, not surprisingly, from the regional planning agencies themselves, who are increasingly driving planning in the state by a series of "smart growth" grant programs. The second was a suggestion from smart growth advocates that the program focus on down-and-dirty implementation tools such as form-based codes, rather than on broad planning documents. In the end, SGC mostly stuck to its original game plan of earmarking the money for local governments to do local plans, rather than turning the money over to the regional planning agencies. But it did so with a strong focus on climate change � and at least an implicit guideline that the local plans should support SB 375 and planning for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. And can $14 million make a difference? In the big picture, it's not that much money. It will pay for maybe 10-15 general plans or, possibly, 30 or so specific plans or zoning overhauls. It really all depends on whether the Strategic Growth Council is truly strategic about distributing the funds. In ordinary times, this kind of grant money would probably flow only to those cities and counties highly motivated to do something different � a new kind of plan, or one focused on climate issues. In desperate times, the money is much more likely to flow to localities that wouldn't otherwise be thinking about these issues but that are willing to give them a look for the sake of qualifying for a grant. These localities that could serve as unusual test cases for innovative planning. --William Fulton

If California cities are truly running out of money, how can some of them afford to maintain the yard police? That's what I kept thinking when I read the new stories about the City of Orange prosecuting homeowners who replaced their lawn with drought-tolerant plants and bark. Most of the newspaper and television stories have focused on the fact that an Orange couple, Quan and Angelina Ha, were busted for removing the grass from their front yard. I agree that it's absurd for an arid city, in which only about 12 inches of rain falls during an average year, to insist on turf in someone's front yard. But the Orange code doesn't mandate grass per se. It only requires that 40% of a front yard be landscaped predominately with live plants. How do you measure that 40%?  I'm sure the answer is somewhere in landscape architecture textbooks. The more salient question is this: How can Orange afford to go around enforcing a landscaping ordinance against responsible homeowners? Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of code enforcement. If somebody builds something without a permit, bust 'em. If a homeowner has stacked up the remains of cars and appliances in the side yard, bust 'em. If a slumlord won't maintain his rental properties in a safe fashion, string 'em up. But if you saw the Has' front yard , you could tell the couple was not shirking responsibility. The fence they erected after the city first complained is very nifty. These new parents are simply trying to do the right thing environmentally and financially (news alert: water really does cost money). They told the L.A. Times that removing the lawn reduced their water consumption by 80%. That's worthy of a City Council commendation, not a code citation. Last week, after the Has' landscaper planted 70 additional drought-tolerant shrubs and trees, the city relented and dropped its two-year-old enforcement campaign and a misdemeanor charge against the couple.  That's good news, since the city won't have to spend money keeping the Has in the slammer -- at a safe distance from their law-abiding, water-hogging neighbors.  Orange City Hall is closed every other Friday, presumably to save money. Yet the City of Orange has enough cash not just to hassle people trying to do the right thing, but also to prosecute them for an alleged crime. And we're supposed to believe that local governments are broke? – Paul Shigley

In yet another California Environmental Quality Act case involving whether an agreement between a tribe and a city constitutes a "project," the First District Court of Appeal has held that the law did not apply to an agreement requiring a city's formal support of a proposed casino in exchange for the tribe's funding of undefined city services and improvements. To ensure that an agency does not stray from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the agency must first ask itself in relation to any action: "Is it a project?" Only "projects" are subject to CEQA; if something is not a project, no environmental review is necessary. In this case, the city determined in 2006 that a municipal services agreement between the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and the East Bay city of San Pablo did not constitute a project and CEQA did not apply. Various neighborhood and environmental groups brought a writ of mandate challenging the city's determination. Case Background The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians is a landless tribe that intends to establish its casino in San Pablo in lieu of building one on territory that it controls directly. The Scotts Valley casino would be located near an existing casino in San Pablo operated by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. In this case, the agreement required the Scotts Valley Band to make payments for fire, police and public works services, while the City of San Pablo in turn agreed to support the tribe's fee-to-trust application submitted to the federal government. The agreement specifically stated that it would not result in any physical changes to the environment and that the city would comply with CEQA at a future date for any project requiring environmental review. The petitioners, led by Parchester Village Neighborhood Council, asserted that the following components of the agreement constituted a "project" under CEQA, and, therefore, that the court should void the agreement and require environmental review: 1) the proposed construction of the casino; 2) the city's support of the fee-to-trust application; 3) fire improvements; and 4) transportation improvements. The court, however, held that the agreement did not constitute a project because the city had no authority over the casino and the remainder of the agreement merely involved funding mechanisms and did not involve alternations to the built or natural environments. Court's Decision The court began its discussion by quoting Public Resources Code � 21065, which defines a project: "An activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following: (a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. (c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." Agreements between federally recognized tribes and municipalities relating to the acquisition of trust lands for the construction of casinos have a history of CEQA litigation. Although the courts have determined that, because of tribes' semi-autonomy, the acquisition of the lands and the construction of the casinos are not governed by CEQA, the agreement itself may require environmental review if the agreement commits the agency/municipality to a specific action. In County of Amador v. City of Plymouth , (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1089, the court ruled an agreement was a project because the city had to vacate a city road and remodel a fire station (see CP&DR Legal Digest , August 2007). In Citizens to Enforce CEQA v. City of Rohnert Park , (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1594, the court decided the agreement was not a project because it merely authorized a funding mechanism (see CP&DR Legal Digest , October 2005). In relation to the petitioners' contentions regarding the casino and the city's support of the fee-to-trust application, the court cited previous decisions concerning agreements with tribes and, consistent with those cases, found that the agreement does not constitute a project. The agreement gave the city no authority over the fee-to-trust application or casino construction. And, although the federal government must consult with the city as it considers the tribe's application, this consultation does not give the city any power regarding whether the application is granted, according to the court. Additionally, the court held that the agreement's requirement that the city support the tribe's proposed application and casino did not change the fact that the city had no authority over the tribe's proposed actions. As to the agreement's provisions regarding fire services and transportation, the court determined that those provisions only provided funding mechanisms, which were too speculative to constitute a project. Petitioners specifically asserted that the agreement required the establishment of a fire protection and emergency response agreement (by which the city would respond to emergencies at the casino), which would result in the construction of fire facilities and the addition of turn lanes or other traffic mitigations. According to petitioners, both of these requirements committed the city to specified actions. The court disagreed, finding that the potential construction of fire facilities in the future was too speculative to constitute a project. The court stated: "As a practical matter, we find it difficult to conceive of how an EIR could be used to sensibly evaluate a project that has not yet been assigned a physical location." In regards to the traffic improvements, the court noted that most of the mitigation items came out of the federal environmental impact statement process, and none of the traffic improvements would be within the city's boundaries. Therefore, the city had no immediate authority over either the planning or implementation of these improvements. If, as the petitioners asserted, the city becomes the agency to build or accept the improvements, then the improvement may constitute a project. However, according to the court, the possibility that the city would be involved in the improvements was speculative at this time. The court concluded that the city's mere demonstration of support for the tribe's proposed casino, and the tribe's agreement to pay the city for certain future services, did not fit into the definition of a project under Public Resources Code � 21065. The Case: Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond, No. A123859, 2010 DJDAR 2830. Filed February 24, 2010. The Lawyers: For Parchester Village: Stephan Volker, (510) 496-0600. For the city: George Yuhas, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, (415) 773-5700.

CP&DR's regular roundup of legislation pending in Sacramento. CEQA • ABx8 37 and AB 1805 (both Calderon and Nestande) and SBx8 42 and SB 1010 (both Correa and Cogdill). Creates the CEQA litigation protection pilot program that would permit the administration to exempt 100 projects over four years from judicial review based on CEQA. Economic Development • AB 2044 (Caballero). Requires the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BTH) to rank enterprise zones, with the apparent intent of eliminating the lowest-ranking zones. • AB 2428 (Buchanan). Expands the definition of an enterprise zone to include green technology zones. • AB 2518 (V. Manuel Pérez). Requires the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to create a local assistance program to provide technical support to small and rural communities seeking funding. • SBx8 52 (Correa). Creates a special enterprise zone in the City of Fremont, where the NUMMI auto plant is closing, and authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to create 10 additional special enterprise zones. Finance and Infrastructure • AB 1716 (Torlakson). Currently a spot bill regarding school impact fees, this legislation is expected to reduce or eliminate the ability of school districts to charge "level 3" fees. These higher fees apply when state funds run short. • AB 2579 (Evans). Creates the 11-member Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission. • AB 2642 (Nestande). Authorizes the City of Riverside to form an infrastructure finance district to fund construction of a medical school on city property. • SB 10 (Leno). Authorizes counties to seek majority voter approval of increased vehicle license fees for general fund purposes. • SB 194 (Florez). Modifies how cities and counties spend Community Development Block Grant funds. • SB 684 (Cogdill). Provides a greater share of future property tax revenues to Alpine, Lassen, Mariposa, Plumas, Stanislaus and Trinity counties, all of which receive less-than-average shares of property taxes. • SB 1023 (Wiggins). Expedites the procedure for converting archaic resort improvement districts into more useful community services districts with similar powers and service areas. Napa County is behind the legislation, which could be used to advance redevelopment of Lake Berryessa resort and housing facilities (see  CP&DR Public Development , October 2006 ). • SB 1048 (Hancock). Authorizes use of Mello-Roos bonds to finance green building measures. • SB 1299 (Torlakson). Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to implement a pilot program to determine the issues involved with levying a vehicle-miles-traveled fee on motorists. Housing and Housing Elements • AB 761 (Calderon). Permits a mobile home park owner subject to local rent control to raise the rent on a new tenant to market rate or double the previous rent, whichever is less. • AB 1823 (Torres). Permits the expenditure of money in the state mobile home park purchase fund for relocating a park to a new site within the same jurisdiction. • AB 1867 (Harkey). Expands the definition of "substantially rehabilitated" units that a city or county may count toward meeting its affordable housing obligation. • AB 2085 (Saldaña). Authorizes the state auditor to audit the Proposition 1C infill incentive and the transit-oriented development grant programs, and the housing-related parks program. • AB 2425 (Hagman). Exempts the City of La Habra Heights from the next regional housing needs assessment. • AB 2508 (Caballero). Changes the definition of "suburban" to include jurisdictions of up to 175,000 people for the purpose of determining regional housing need. • AB 2709 (Blumenfield). Authorizes the California Housing Finance Agency to make loan guarantees to nonprofit housing developers and local public agencies. • SBx8 28 (Yee). Revises criteria for awarding $87.5 million in unallocated Proposition 1C funds with an emphasis on "shovel ready" projects that could create jobs. • SB 326 (Strickland). Requires a city or county that fails to identify adequate sites for affordable housing required in its housing element to identify and zone additional sites in the next housing element update. • SB 812 (Ashburn). Requires cities and counties when updating their housing elements to analyze housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Local Planning • SB 518 (Lowenthal). Permits cities and counties to adopt an ordinance to reduce or eliminate subsidies for parking. The measure would also establish a voluntary system in which the state Air Resources Board would award points to jurisdictions that adopt measures to reduce free parking. Jurisdictions that achieve a certain number of points would be eligible for carbon reduction credits through a cap-and-trade program and for air board loans and grants. • SB 959 (Ducheny). Establishes a streamlined system for project applicants who need state agency permits.  The bill would also require cities and counties to coordinate project reviews and decision-making through a "single administrative entity," and require the Office of Planning and Research to prepare guidelines for cities and counties to use for streamlining permit processing. • SB 1174 (Wolk). Requires cities and counties to address in their general plans the presence of unincorporated islands, fringe communities and "legacy unincorporated communities" near city borders. • SB 1207 (Kehoe). Revises the general plan safety element requirements for very high fire hazard severity zones and territory protected by CalFire. Similar bills have been voted each of the past two years. Redevelopment • AB 1791 (Monning). Exempts the Fort Ord Reuse Authority from having to make blight findings before exercising certain redevelopment powers on vacant lands. • AB 1870 (Norby). Currently a spot bill carried by longtime redevelopment opponent Chris Norby, this measure could contain restrictions on redevelopment activities. • SB 2043 (Torrico). Authorizes redevelopment agencies to loan up to $75,000 to reduce the principle mortgage balance of homeowners participating in the federal home affordable modification program.  • AB 2050 (Fong). Permits redevelopment agencies to finance green technology facilities and capital equipment. • AB 2759 (Nestande). Authorizes redevelopment agencies in contiguous cities to create a joint powers authority for the purpose of pooling housing set-aside fund to pay for emergency homeless shelters. • SB 530 (Dutton). Attempts to expand the redevelopment pass-through reporting and repayment requirements that were in last year's state budget to all redevelopment project areas. • SB 1374 (Kehoe). Modifies the information a redevelopment agency must provide to the legislative body when the agency seeks a 10-year time extension. Transportation • AB 266 (Carter). Requires the California Transportation Commission to develop an assessment of transportation funding and needs every five years. • AB 726 (Nielsen). Specifies that local road rehabilitation projects are eligible for regional project funds under the State Transportation Improvement Program. • AB 744 (Torrico). Authorizes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to create a "Bay Area express lane network" of high-occupancy and toll lanes. • AB 1375 (Galgiani). Creates the Department of High-Speed Trains within BTH, and specifies that the governor shall appoint the department director. • AB 1747 (Galgiani). Encourages the High-Speed Rail Authority to consider California job creation when awarding major contracts or purchasing trains. • AB 2658 (Conway). Creates a short-line railroad program to improve goods movement. • SB 409 (Ducheny). Attempts to increase oversight of the High-Speed Rail Authority by requiring Senate approval of the governor's appointees to the authority board, requiring the authority to submit an annual funding plan to the California Transportation Commission, and requiring BTH to prepare a five-year rail connectivity plan. • SB 1245 (Simitian). Ensures that existing toll-free high-occupancy vehicle lanes remain free to high-occupancy vehicles. Other • AB 2530 (Nielsen). Funds Williamson Act subventions to counties with fees collected from Williamson Act contract cancellations. • SB 715 (Wolk). Gives local government more authority for enforcing Williamson Act contract compliance and conditioning the subdivision of land under contract. • SB 1042 (Walters). Repeals the authority of counties to take property by eminent domain for the purpose of conveying the land to the federal government for military uses.

Hey you, Mr./Ms. Conventional Apartment Developer! Yes, you. Don't attempt to ignore me by rolling up your construction�loan documents and sticking them in your ears. Open those eyes, tightly shut as the credit market for new luxury condominiums, and take a look: A 42-unit rental complex for low-to-moderate income households in Chula Vista has put you to shame, by building what appears to be the greenest building possible, and on a stringent budget. Known as Los Vecinos, the year-old project has earned a Platinum LEED rating, and boasts the highest-ever score among all the housing types evaluated by the national green-building group. So, Mr./Ms. what's your excuse now for not going green. True, Los Vecinos, which opened last year, was able to tap subsidies unavailable to commercial builders � but so do all other low-income developments. So don't let the presence of subsidies fool you: This project is money-smart. After tax credits and rebates from the city, state and federal agencies, the net increase in cost for green materials, including extensive photovoltaic panels, was only about $235,000. That's less than 2 percent of the $17.7 million development cost. How were these economics possible? The answer, according to a Wakeland Housing Development Corp., the San Diego-based non-profit that built Los Vecinos, was primarily the homebuilder's willingness to embrace green-building standards in the first place � the rest takes care of itself, to a large extent. "The amazing part of the going-green process was how simple it turned out to be," says Wakeland's executive director, Ken Sauder. "Many of the decisions were common sense," he adds. Green materials are also falling in price, as demand slowly steps up. Further, the non-profit homebuilder, which plans to continue owning Los Vecinos, can achieve continuous savings in maintenance costs through the use of sustainable materials, which are also highly durable. In short, sustainable construction is an investment in long-term fiscal soundness of a low-income housing development, by lowering costs without damaging the living standards of working�class renters. In fact, the lives of many renters may likely be improved by living in an environment that is adequately heated, cooled, and ventilated. As in nearly all low-cost housing developments, Los Vecinos had many funding sources. Here's how the numbers work: Those include $9.44 million in tax credit equity, a $1.9 million permanent loan from the California Community Reinvestment Corp., $228,000 of deferred development fees, a $263,234 solar-power rebate from the local utility, $167,000 in business investment tax credits and a $5.6 million subsidy from the city. In addition to the solar rebate mentioned above, Los Vecinos also benefitted from other incentives that the state offers to builders of low-income housing. The total project cost of going green, before subsidies and incentives, was $568,000, or $13,537 per unit. Those costs include the added price of green construction materials, plus about $50,000 for a LEED consultant. TCAC lowered that cost by $275,962 by awarding Los Vecinos a 4 percent increase in its basis cost, qualifying the project for a higher level of tax credit equity. In other words, the project's overall tax credit increase in value, making the project even more attractive to investors, who often want to buy up as many credits as they can. The homebuilders also project $10,000 in expected rebates from San Diego Gas & Electric. When the arithmetic is done, the total increase in cost above that of conventional construction is only $328,088, or $7,907 per unit. Sauder, the homebuilder, admits that he was nervous when first contemplating green construction. "I knew there were higher costs involved," he said. Currently, Wakefield appears committed to sustainable, energy-saving projects. The non-profit recently completed the 77-unit Parkside complex in downtown San Diego, which qualifies the homebuilder likes to describe as transit-oriented (it's within walking distance of the San Diego trolley.) and a positive example of urban infill, like a bright new dental plate in an old mouth. This new project is aiming for a LEED Gold certification. Of course, when the budget is tight, and the developer is paying a premium for green materials, something has to give. In this case that something is architecture. This shortcoming shows up most glaringly in an undistinguished, unadorned fa�ade. Even so, the exterior scores minor points by breaking up the bulk of the building into a set of vertical masses that resemble a row of two-story townhouses from a distance. Up close, the minimal detail unintentionally seems to broadcast this is a "project." In an ideal world, that is, one with bigger budgets, beautiful design would crown the achievement of inventive sustainability. But austerity of design does not detract from the significance of Los Vecinos. It's might not be as fancy as a high-end market-rate complex, but in a world on the bring of environmental catastrophe, what would you rather have: lavish design or lower heating costs? Let's get back to hectoring the conventional homebuilder, the one who says all this green stuff is too expensive and too complicated. She is no longer allowed to say, "I'd like to build sustainably, but gosh, I just can't afford it. It's the market holding me back, you know." (At least, I'd like to stop hearing those excuses.) The market, of course, and not idealism will be the means to induce apartment developers do the right thing, i.e. when investors start asking for those amenities. That brings us to a cultural issue: that is, the culture of real estate investment. The value of apartment buildings, like other kinds of commercial real estate, is based on the income they produce after expenses. Unfortunately, money saved on maintenance and energy costs rarely figure into such calculations, because building owners often pass along utility costs to their renters. In addition, construction lenders, who are often not imaginative people, dislike the idea of extending more on construction loans without a corresponding increase in rental income. (This myopic, penny-wise-pound-foolish attitude is apparently common throughout the industry: I have heard of property managers who balk at paying more for energy-saving light bulbs, even though those bulbs demonstrably last longer and save money in the long run.) Until investors awaken to the dollar value of sustainability, developers should equip themselves with spreadsheets to show their lenders that lower utility costs make the developer a better loan prospect. Meanwhile, apartment developers should set aside their excuses, and find a way to build their projects as well as a low-income complex in Chula Vista. --Morris Newman

In planning, as with anything else, the mere flow of time does not bring progress. The enthusiasm and ideas that swept over these pages in the first decade of this century -- smart growth, downtown revitalization, AB 32, SB 375, and all the rest -- are now met with delay, deferral, and, in some cases, bankruptcy. And yet, even in mellow times, any moment can be a crucial moment in planning. Buildings may take their time, but deals, laws, and policies can be enacted at any time and yet have long-reaching, sometimes unforeseeable effects. (Just ask Suzette Kelo, or the authors of CEQA.) Development, deterioration, and even stasis can mean triumph -- or tragedy -- for many people. One neighborhood group cries victory, while another is condemned to live in the shadow of something awful. Such are the stories of land use, albeit at their most melodramatic. The prospect that California will never run out of land use stories -- a prospect so axiomatic as to hardly require mention -- has held firm ever since CP&DR started chronicling them 25 years ago. Cities, in fact, are on the rise, and planning is heeding the call to manage larger populations while conserving resources. But, as I assume editorship of this publication, what is far less certain is the future of journalism. Planning and journalism share a potent relationship. All of us who write, blog, and otherwise muse on land use enjoy the juxtaposition between the ephemeral nature of media and the permanence of the things that we cover. Stories come and go (and sometimes plans do too), but, roads, buildings, and communities remain. This permanence requires that we get our stories right the first time (and hundredth time as well, depending how many CEQA suits get filed). Though all journalists draw satisfaction from their role in the democratic process, rarely is the connection between reporting and the real world so direct as with land use. Buildings cannot hide, but they sometimes require journalists to help them speak. Good stories -- well researched, clearly written, objectively recounted -- can inspire the ideas, revelations, debates, and even protests that can make or break plans and developments. We journalists, and we at CP&DR, believe that in the aggregate we will leave an indirect, but distinct, legacy not in our words themselves but in the betterment of a great, if challenged, state. Even as California considers selling a kidney to replenish its coffers, the regeneration of the built environment (as well as the despoilment of the natural environment) will continue. A generation ago, cities were the ones facing their demise while the morning paper ran memorable headlines about rivers catching fire and presidents telling them to "drop dead." Now both papers and cities have reversed their courses, each having heeded the call of history to now head in the opposite direction as they were before. Indeed, whether they prefer downtown lofts or Barbie's Dream House, people will always need places in which to live, work, and dream. But lately it seems that they may consider journalism expendable. My arrival at CP&DR comes at the pivot of journalistic history, from ink to bytes, and, to an extent, from professionalism to amateurism (the latter of which can indeed be excellent). You can't build a mixed-use, transit-oriented temple to New Urbanism without a few bricks, but you certainly can certainly disseminate information, analysis, and opinion without paper. What serious journalists cling to, absent the financial and editorial bulwarks that used to surround print media, is the conviction that objectivity, originality, clarity, expertise, eloquence, balance -- and all the other hallmarks of our profession -- will persevere in the digital era and that readers will respond accordingly. I have written my share of blogs and other informal pieces, and I will continue doing so on the CP&DR website. But a fundamental difference separates blogging from reporting. As a friend of mine, New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore, trenchantly pointed out in an article several years ago: "If every newspaper went out of business tomorrow, blogs would have nothing to blog about." And that's where CP&DR comes in. We may not hit the pavement on broadsheet for a million daily readers, but we will always strive to publish original, high-quality news pieces that give our readers something to muse over, act upon, and, indeed, blog about. Sometimes we will fall short, but, we hope, sometimes we will hit our mark. This is the motivation that brings me to these pages. Succeeding Paul Shigley, whom I admire greatly, I believe that journalism has a future, and I believe that focused publications like CP&DR can have a tremendous impact, especially now that the stalwarts of our industry are struggling. Whether a locally focused article reaches a small group thoughtful, active people with an intense interest or whether something else flows off our pages, gets swept into the main current of the Internet, and gets blogged, tweeted, and posted throughout the cloud, we hope to do justice to both our topics and our profession. As for what CP&DR will cover under my tenure, we know that plenty of familiar themes and topics will recur -- just as they did in the decade that Paul Shigley covered. But, most likely, the best stories will be the unexpected ones -- the ones that come out of nowhere or, better yet, come from you, our readers, and our network of sources and supporters on the ground. One of the great things about covering someplace as vast and diverse as California that we will never run out of stories to tell. Ultimately, my inspiration stems from California itself. On that topic, I disclose my bias. It is one of the world's great sub-national entities, and it deserves publications like CP&DR. The land use community here is most obviously bound up in common laws and policies, and less obviously in common styles, cultures, and politics. Above all else, we are bound in common by a spirit of aspiration. I write this greeting, incongruously, from a lecture hall in Cambridge, Mass. It's a fine, if drizzly, place. But, with a heyday reaching back three centuries, it feels different from California. Hopes and dreams really are drawn to California, and they need a worthy landscape in which to flourish. It is an exceptional place, and in the volumes to come, I look forward to capturing a few of its crucial moments and seeing a few of its dreams come true.

With yet another $20 billion deficit looming, the State of California government appears to be on the verge of a complete meltdown. Dealing with this situation would be trying under any circumstances, but everything is made more difficult by two things: Proposition 13, and voters' failure to understand the consequences of Proposition 13. During the last few weeks, I had separate conversations with two people – one a Republican and the other, I assume, a Democrat – with many years of experience in public service and the private sector. Neither conversation started with Proposition 13 or tax policy, but both discussions ended up there. All of us lamented the public's lack of understanding. What the public doesn't understand is that a law that passed handily in 1978 hasn't made the state any more efficient or anyone – except for commercial property owners and a few immobile homeowners – any richer.  Then came the results of the latest Field Poll , which disheartens me further. I'm not necessarily talking about people's opinion for solving the State of California's latest budget crisis. (Half of the respondents would rely mostly or totally on spending cuts.) I'm talking about this: 63% said state government is not responsive to voters' needs, yet 75% said constitutional changes are not needed if state lawmakers would simply work together. Essentially, the poll respondents said the system is fine, but the participants are failing. Obviously, state lawmakers from both parties should work together more cooperatively. But that's only a prerequisite; it's not the solution. I think the poll is one more indication that the public does not know what the state government does or how it spends its money. Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo told the San Francisco Chronicle that respondents' solution to the budget problem "may be a pipe dream." So let's lay this out. The 2009-10 state budget is $109.7 billion. Estimated expenditures in 2008-09 were $118.1 billion, and actual expenditures in 2007-08 were $129.7 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. Of the current year's $109.7 billion budget, $25.1 billion lies in "special funds," the majority of which is dedicated to transportation. The big problem is the general fund, which is budgeted at $84.6 billion this year. That's down about 17% from two years ago. What does the state spend the general fund on? Health programs account for 19% of the general fund, and social services and criminal justice (mostly prisons) are about 10% each. Meanwhile, 40% goes to K-12 education, and 12.4% goes to universities and community colleges.  Why does the state spend such a large proportion of its money on education? Proposition 13. When voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978, they limited property taxes to 1% of assessed value, the effect of which was to cut local funding for school districts by about two-thirds. At that time, the Brown administration and the Legislature could have shrugged and said, "OK, if that's what you want..." School districts could have laid off two-thirds of their teachers, and those remaining would have had 90-student classrooms.  But Sacramento recognized that response would have been an utter disaster. So the state stepped in and, using money from its general fund, made up for the shortfall in local revenues. Almost overnight the state became the majority funder of K-12 and community college education. When the Deukmejian administration inched toward cutting these state education funds, voters responded by approving Proposition 98, which now guarantees education a percentage of the state general fund – thus enshrining education funding in the state's budget the exact same way that voters enshrined the 1% property tax limit through Proposition 13.   Do voters understand all this funding mix? Not at all. People think that prisons or welfare make up the majority of state spending. A Public Policy Institute of California poll recently found that only 16% of respondents – one out of six! – could identify K-12 education as the biggest piece of the state budget. The other 84% don't know where to begin to balance the budget. My Republican friend, who served several years in the Schwarzenegger administration, says she grew frustrated with the public's determination that the budget deficit could be solved by slashing the state bureaucracy. You could lay off half of the State of California's employees, she says, and the budget still wouldn't be balanced. That's because what the state does primarily is funnel money to school districts and counties. It's a result of Proposition 13. But Proposition 13 was passed 32 years ago. Easy enough for it to slip out of the state's collective memory – except that there are reminders everywhere you look.   Not long ago, my wife and I chatted with friends who are moving from an unincorporated area to a city. They wondered how their property taxes would change. We explained that under Proposition 13, their taxes would be 1% of assessed value, and that amount could increase no more than 2% annually thereafter. My wife and I then asked what was on their tax bill now. Any bonds or special assessments? Our explanation and questions met with blank stares – even though our friends are college graduates, California natives, longtime homeowners and old enough to have voted for Proposition 13. They don't have a clue what's on their tax bill or where the money goes. The only thing they are sure of is that "the government" wastes most of it. I don't intend to sound like one of those pointy-headed intellectuals, because I ain't. I do wonder, however, about California's policy options when voters understand so little about the system they have created. – Paul Shigley

A Los Angeles native and longtime journalist, Josh Stephens has covered planning, land use, and architecture as an editor and freelance journalist for the better part of a decade.  He succeeded Paul Shigley as the third editor of the California Planning & Development Report in February 2010. He is now a Contributing Editor of the publication. Stephens previously edited T he Planning Report and Metro Investment Report , monthly newsletters covering, respectively, land use and infrastructure in the Los Angeles region. As a freelance writer Stephens has been a regular contributor to  CP&DR , and he contributes frequently to, among others,  Planetizen.com, Next American City, Sierra, InTransition ,  Planning  Magazine, and  Volleyball  Magazine.  He also writes for Planetizen's Interchange blog and serves on the editorial board of The Planning Report .     Stephens holds a bachelor's degree in English from Princeton University and a master's in public policy from the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.  He formerly taught high school journalism, English, and AP Geography at the Archer School in Los Angeles and served on the board of the Westside Urban Forum from 2005 to 2008. He also served on the Brentwood Community Council.

First it was the climate crisis. Then it was the economy. Now the experts are sounding the alarm over... the future of the American suburbs? This time, you pointy-heads, you've gone too far! You can't have my tranquil, SUV-lined streets! I'm telling Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Inhofe about this. You'll be sorry. But wait! There may be some substance to the concern about the potential decline of the suburbs, according to William H. Lucy, Professor of Urban Planning at University of Virginia, and author of "Foreclosing the Dream: How America's Crisis Is Changing Our Cities and Suburbs." A press release from the American Planning Association, the publisher of "Foreclosing the Dream," describes the book as the first to "look beyond the financial manipulations to understand what truly fueled the foreclosure crisis and what it means for the future of suburbs and cities." Among Lucy's findings: "The number of households in the 30 to 45 age group has declined by 3.4 million since 2000." (Our question: This is a compelling number, but doesn't this reflect falling fertility rates, more than a cultural shift away from suburban living?) "Higher rates of foreclosures in new suburbs and exurbs compared to lower rates in cities show that increasingly people want to live in cities." (Our question: Huh? Is foreclosure being treated here as a sign of consumer preference?) "The stereotypical �white flight exodus' from central cities has been reversed in most large metropolitan areas." (Our question: We need to learn more about your dataset. It sounds, without seeing it, that conclusions are being drawn purely from ethnicity numbers, rather than income, age, household size, etc. In light of the high number of condominiums and apartments, both newly built and rehabbed, in major downtown areas, it is not surprising that the influx of college-educated office workers into downtown areas would offset "white flight" numbers. I would like to see statistics, however, regarding the number of young couples who move back to suburbia when they have children and seek high-quality public schools.)  --Morris Newman

California Environmental Quality Act lawsuits may be the next victims of the state's ongoing recession. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation that follows up on Gov. Schwarzenegger's call to exempt 100 projects from judicial challenge based on the environmental law. Citing the ongoing recession, both supporters and opponents of the idea say this just might be the year that lawmakers are willing to take a bold strike at CEQA. Lawmakers produced hundreds of bills during the days leading up to the February 19 deadline for introducing legislation. The new bills, as well as some bills leftover from 2009, touch on a wide variety of topics, including housing elements, redevelopment, permit streamlining, parking, mobile home parks, the Williamson Act, and high-speed rail. Many new bills remain in "spot" form, meaning they contain few details and little meaningful language. No land use legislation appears more important than the "CEQA litigation protection pilot program" contained in ABx8 37, AB 1805, SBx8 42 and SB 1010. The measures would permit the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BTH) secretary to select up to 25 projects annually for four years for exemption from judicial review based on CEQA. In other words, no one –  not an environmental group, a landowner, the attorney general or another public agency – could challenge the environmental impact report for the project in court. The legislation was introduced with bipartisan support in both houses, as Democratic lawmakers Assemblyman Charles Calderon of Montebello and Sen. Lou Correa of Santa Ana are co-authors along with Republican lawmakers Assemblyman Brian Nestande of Palm Desert and Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto. Proponents of the bills, who include the governor (see CP&DR Insight , January 1, 2010 ), cast the CEQA legislation in economic development terms. The California Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Properties Association (CBPA) back the bills, and other business and development interests are likely to sign on. "This is an opportunity for us to make some reforms in this arena as we try to pull ourselves out of this recession," said Rex Hime, president and chief executive officer of the CBPA. The state simply needs to consider jobs and economic development when it imposes environmental regulation, he said. "CEQA has gone through amorphous changes over the years. Anything that tries to ensure the process isn't used in an abusive manner is an important thing," Hime said. Tom White, chief of staff to Assemblyman Calderon, called the bills "pretty modest." The legislation would not exempt projects from ordinary CEQA review. It would only prevent lawsuits over a project's environmental impact report – litigation that White characterized as "abuse." The California Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) has not yet taken a position on the bills but is likely to oppose the legislation, according to its lobbyist, Sande George. She said the planning organization may instead offer alternative CEQA reform, such as expanding SB 375's CEQA exemptions or streamlining for infill projects. Pete Parkinson, APA California's vice president for policy and legislation, expressed frustration with the bill's approach to CEQA because of the potential for political manipulation and because the legislation does not attempt to separate legitimate CEQA challenges from bogus lawsuits. "I understand where the impulse comes from," Parkinson said of the CEQA bills. "CEQA litigation can be a black hole for projects. EIRs have become more and more costly, and sometimes there is nothing you can do to avoid litigation. And sometimes the litigation has nothing to do with the environmental impacts. It has to do with money or it has to do with jobs or something else." Still, Parkinson said, the state should not ignore real deficiencies in environmental analyses. "There are jurisdictions around the state that don't take their obligations as seriously as they should," he said. Attorney E. Clement Shute, Jr., of Shute Mihaly and Weinberger, said proponents' argument about frivolous or abusive CEQA litigation is an old saw of developers – and one that arises every time California's economy goes south. Shute, who has represented environmentalists and public agencies in numerous high-profile CEQA cases since the 1970s, said the proposed legislation is beyond "modest" because the existing statute relies on citizen enforcement. "Without recourse to the courts, CEQA would be a meaningless, empty statute," Shute said. "If the attorney general or citizens don't have that right (to go to court), EIRs would become 20 pages and be worthless documents." Although the legislation is likely to evolve, it currently does not specify what sort of projects would be eligible for the exemption. The administration would apparently have a great deal of authority to choose projects. Looking forward, a Brown administration probably would exempt very different projects than a Whitman administration would pick. White said Calderon is thinking first about large infrastructure projects, such as a component of the proposed high-speed rail system. The CBPA's Hime also pointed first to public works projects. However, nothing in the bills limits the exemption to public projects, and the model for the program is special session legislation approved last fall that exempts a private 500-acre stadium and commercial complex in Industry from judicial review (see CP&DR Capitol Update , October 15, 2009 ). Housing-only projects appear to be outside the program's likely scope. "I envision it being pretty big projects – a road project, an energy facility," Hime said. "In Sacramento, maybe something that applied to revitalizing the rail yards or downtown or Cal Expo." The legislation permits exemptions for 10 projects each year in Southern California, five projects in the Bay Area, five in the Central Valley from Sacramento to Kern County, and five elsewhere in the state. Only projects with certified EIRs would be eligible, and the BTH secretary would have to conduct a public hearing before granting an exemption. Up to 25 projects could receive exemptions each year from 2011 through 2014. Although the legislation would sunset after the pilot period, it could be extended in the future. "It's important to see that it works, and that it won't be abused," Hime said. Although Republicans and business interests have taken numerous runs at CEQA over the years, ranging from minor amendments to gutting the statute, they have never gotten far. However, there is a sense in Sacramento that 2010 is the year to "do something" about CEQA. No lawmaker wants to get on the wrong side of jobs legislation in a year when one-in-eight Californians is out of work – and in a year with pivotal elections. "It's a little bit more scary this time," Shute said of the legislation, "because this recession is so severe and the state is just about bankrupt." Hime declined to characterize the legislation as "CEQA reform." He insisted that the usual CEQA analysis and public review process would remain in tact. The only change would be that environmentalists or business competitors who do not like a project could not resort to CEQA litigation to stall development for years on end, he said. Proponents introduced the bills into the Legislature's eighth extraordinary session, which the governor called to deal with the current year's budget deficit, and into the regular session, which concludes August 31. If lawmakers approve the extraordinary session legislation, the measures would take effect more quickly. Contacts: Tom White, Office of Assemblyman Charles Calderon, (916) 319-2058. Rex Hime, California Business Properties Association, (916) 443-4676. Pete Parkinson, California Chapter American Planning Association, (707) 565-1925. E. Clement Shute Jr., Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272. Land Use Legislation For 2010 CEQA • ABx8 37 and AB 1805 (both Calderon and Nestande) and SBx8 42 and SB 1010 (both Correa and Cogdill). Creates the CEQA litigation protection pilot program that would permit the administration to exempt 100 projects over four years from judicial review based on CEQA. Economic Development • AB 2044 (Caballero). Requires the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BTH) to rank enterprise zones, with the apparent intent of eliminating the lowest-ranking zones. • AB 2428 (Buchanan). Expands the definition of an enterprise zone to include green technology zones. • AB 2518 (V. Manuel Pérez). Requires the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to create a local assistance program to provide technical support to small and rural communities seeking funding. • SBx8 52 (Correa). Creates a special enterprise zone in the City of Fremont, where the NUMMI auto plant is closing, and authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to create 10 additional special enterprise zones. Finance and Infrastructure • AB 1716 (Torlakson). Currently a spot bill regarding school impact fees, this legislation is expected to reduce or eliminate the ability of school districts to charge "level 3" fees. These higher fees apply when state funds run short. • AB 2579 (Evans). Creates the 11-member Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission. • AB 2642 (Nestande). Authorizes the City of Riverside to form an infrastructure finance district to fund construction of a medical school on city property. • SB 10 (Leno). Authorizes counties to seek majority voter approval of increased vehicle license fees for general fund purposes. • SB 194 (Florez). Modifies how cities and counties spend Community Development Block Grant funds. • SB 684 (Cogdill). Provides a greater share of future property tax revenues to Alpine, Lassen, Mariposa, Plumas, Stanislaus and Trinity counties, all of which receive less-than-average shares of property taxes. • SB 1023 (Wiggins). Expedites the procedure for converting archaic resort improvement districts into more useful community services districts with similar powers and service areas. Napa County is behind the legislation, which could be used to advance redevelopment of Lake Berryessa resort and housing facilities (see CP&DR Public Development , October 2006 ). • SB 1048 (Hancock). Authorizes use of Mello-Roos bonds to finance green building measures. • SB 1299 (Torlakson). Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to implement a pilot program to determine the issues involved with levying a vehicle-miles-traveled fee on motorists. Housing and Housing Elements • AB 761 (Calderon). Permits a mobile home park owner subject to local rent control to raise the rent on a new tenant to market rate or double the previous rent, whichever is less. • AB 1823 (Torres). Permits the expenditure of money in the state mobile home park purchase fund for relocating a park to a new site within the same jurisdiction. • AB 1867 (Harkey). Expands the definition of "substantially rehabilitated" units that a city or county may count toward meeting its affordable housing obligation. • AB 2085 (Saldaña). Authorizes the state auditor to audit the Proposition 1C infill incentive and the transit-oriented development grant programs, and the housing-related parks program. • AB 2425 (Hagman). Exempts the City of La Habra Heights from the next regional housing needs assessment. • AB 2508 (Caballero). Changes the definition of "suburban" to include jurisdictions of up to 175,000 people for the purpose of determining regional housing need. • AB 2709 (Blumenfield). Authorizes the California Housing Finance Agency to make loan guarantees to nonprofit housing developers and local public agencies. • SBx8 28 (Yee). Revises criteria for awarding $87.5 million in unallocated Proposition 1C funds with an emphasis on "shovel ready" projects that could create jobs. • SB 326 (Strickland). Requires a city or county that fails to identify adequate sites for affordable housing required in its housing element to identify and zone additional sites in the next housing element update. • SB 812 (Ashburn). Requires cities and counties when updating their housing elements to analyze housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Local Planning • SB 518 (Lowenthal). Permits cities and counties to adopt an ordinance to reduce or eliminate subsidies for parking. The measure would also establish a voluntary system in which the state Air Resources Board would award points to jurisdictions that adopt measures to reduce free parking. Jurisdictions that achieve a certain number of points would be eligible for carbon reduction credits through a cap-and-trade program and for air board loans and grants. • SB 959 (Ducheny). Establishes a streamlined system for project applicants who need state agency permits.  The bill would also require cities and counties to coordinate project reviews and decision-making through a "single administrative entity," and require the Office of Planning and Research to prepare guidelines for cities and counties to use for streamlining permit processing. • SB 1174 (Wolk). Requires cities and counties to address in their general plans the presence of unincorporated islands, fringe communities and "legacy unincorporated communities" near city borders. • SB 1207 (Kehoe). Revises the general plan safety element requirements for very high fire hazard severity zones and territory protected by CalFire. Similar bills have been voted each of the past two years. Redevelopment • AB 1791 (Monning). Exempts the Fort Ord Reuse Authority from having to make blight findings before exercising certain redevelopment powers on vacant lands. • AB 1870 (Norby). Currently a spot bill carried by longtime redevelopment opponent Chris Norby, this measure could contain restrictions on redevelopment activities. • SB 2043 (Torrico). Authorizes redevelopment agencies to loan up to $75,000 to reduce the principle mortgage balance of homeowners participating in the federal home affordable modification program. • AB 2050 (Fong). Permits redevelopment agencies to finance green technology facilities and capital equipment. • AB 2759 (Nestande). Authorizes redevelopment agencies in contiguous cities to create a joint powers authority for the purpose of pooling housing set-aside fund to pay for emergency homeless shelters. • SB 530 (Dutton). Attempts to expand the redevelopment pass-through reporting and repayment requirements that were in last year's state budget to all redevelopment project areas. • SB 1374 (Kehoe). Modifies the information a redevelopment agency must provide to the legislative body when the agency seeks a 10-year time extension. Transportation • AB 266 (Carter). Requires the California Transportation Commission to develop an assessment of transportation funding and needs every five years. • AB 726 (Nielsen). Specifies that local road rehabilitation projects are eligible for regional project funds under the State Transportation Improvement Program. • AB 744 (Torrico). Authorizes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to create a "Bay Area express lane network" of high-occupancy and toll lanes. • AB 1375 (Galgiani). Creates the Department of High-Speed Trains within BTH, and specifies that the governor shall appoint the department director. • AB 1747 (Galgiani). Encourages the High-Speed Rail Authority to consider California job creation when awarding major contracts or purchasing trains. • AB 2658 (Conway). Creates a short-line railroad program to improve goods movement. • SB 409 (Ducheny). Attempts to increase oversight of the High-Speed Rail Authority by requiring Senate approval of the governor's appointees to the authority board, requiring the authority to submit an annual funding plan to the California Transportation Commission, and requiring BTH to prepare a five-year rail connectivity plan. • SB 1245 (Simitian). Ensures that existing toll-free high-occupancy vehicle lanes remain free to high-occupancy vehicles. Other • AB 2530 (Nielsen). Funds Williamson Act subventions to counties with fees collected from Williamson Act contract cancellations. • SB 715 (Wolk). Gives local government more authority for enforcing Williamson Act contract compliance and conditioning the subdivision of land under contract. • SB 1042 (Walters). Repeals the authority of counties to take property by eminent domain for the purpose of conveying the land to the federal government for military uses.