The $99 billion 2003-04 state budget signed in August by Gov. Gray Davis contained almost nothing to cheer the planning and development community. The budget added another layer to an already complicated system of funding local government, shifted money away from redevelopment agencies, cut funding for some land use programs, and appeared to delay many of the toughest decisions for at least a year.
In response to a new state law that mandates the easier regulatory processing of second units, cities and counties across California have been revising their regulations. Most jurisdictions are relaxing their rules, although some cities and counties appear to be adding performance standards that could discourage second-unit development.
In the course of only a few years, Indian casinos have grown into a major land use concern for counties across California. But now a matter that has been a land use issue mostly in rural areas is coming to urban areas, as tribes look for casino sites near population centers and as some public officials start to view the casinos as economic opportunities.
With negotiations over the 2003-04 state budget ongoing, it appears that redevelopment agencies will avoid the major financial hit proposed in January by the Davis administration.
Adjustments to the current 2002-03 budget did move $75 million from redevelopment agencies to school districts. However, a Davis administration proposal for the state to take all unencumbered housing funds from redevelopment agencies went nowhere in the Legislature.
Major efforts are under way to provide money to upgrade and expand infrastructure in California, but even some backers of the funding proposals appear skeptical that state lawmakers will approve anything major this year.
There are two approaches in Sacramento these days. One would make it easier for local government to raise revenue by reducing the two-thirds voter requirement for special taxes and local bonds. The second approach relies on state bonds.
Although Sacramento is short of money these days, the state capital does not lack for policy initiatives that directly or indirectly affect land use.
In fact, veteran lobbyists say they can remember few years when legislators introduced so many policy bills.
In a landmark ruling, the state Supreme Court has made clear that maps recorded prior to 1893 do not create legal, developable lots for today's purposes. And the court at least hinted that maps recorded between 1893 and 1929 might not be valid unless a city or county somehow exercised discretion in approving the map.
The budget crisis in Sacramento has led Gov. Gray Davis to propose a wide-ranging set of spending cuts, tax increases and revenue shifts — including reductions in redevelopment funds and tax revenue allocated to cities and counties — that could have a significant effect on land use planning.
Although the Davis administration does not appear to be making deficit-reduction proposals based on their land use implications, there is no doubt the recommendations would have a major impact on the state's growth
Planning practitioners who are perplexed about how to handle certain projects in light of a recent court decision regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines should not feel alone.
In an election with the typical mix of results, the pro-growth side won 19 of 32 easily classifiable local land use ballot measures on November 5. However, in votes regarding large, well-defined projects, the slow-growth side prevailed most often.
