NAIOP/SFBA Weekly Legislative Update

Seven weeks into the new fiscal year and the budget that runs the governmental infrastructure for the world's sixth largest economy still hasn't been passed. In a, uh, courageous move, however, the state assembly was finally able to debate the budget on the floor last Sunday evening. In a predictable outcome all Democrats present, except one, voted for the budget, all Republicans present, except one, voted against the budget. And the beat goes on ...

Assemblymember Nicole Parra (D-Hanford) was the only member of the majority party that did not vote for the budget and her punishment was swift. Parra, one of the most business-friendly Democrats in the Capitol, has vowed not to vote for a budget until a deal on water is approved. Because the water bond continues to languish due to strong opposition from environmental groups to surface storage and conveyance, Parra lived-up to her word. The next morning when she showed up to work, her Capitol office was locked and her stuff was being moved to a small office across the street from the building.

In an oddly inexplicable practice, although there is no enforceable deadline for passing a state budget, there is one for legislation that is always observed and respected. Friday is the last day for any bill to pass the legislature and be sent to the governor, or it is dead. This deadline causes a huge push in the last two weeks of session to move the large number of bills that have made their way through the process. Hundreds upon hundreds of bills are "debated" this time of year and many last-minute amendments are slipped into bills, sometimes making major policy shifts without public discussion.

A bill that attempts to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by mandating regional planning and making new construction more difficult, which had been bottled-up in the process, has received a boost of momentum in recent days. SB 375 (Steinberg; D-Sacramento) sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the League of Conservation Voters, has taken more than two years to wind its way through the legislative process. Until recently it has faced stiff and unified opposition from a large business coalition that included both residential and commercial developers. However, recent amendments to the bill included some enticements to homebuilders that not only removed their opposition but brought them into support of the measure, which has allowed the author and sponsors to claim industry support for the measure.

The bill aims to reduce GHGs by requiring local governments to alter zoning rules and transportation planning to force development into certain areas approved by a regional plan. The remaining opposition coalition (including CBPA, CalChamber, retailers, grocers, manufacturers and a host of transportation interests, among others) has identified several serious policy issues in the new version of the bill. The coalition is trying to either get the bill fixed this year or at least get a commitment to come back and do it next year. Issues identified include impacts on transportation projects and funding, unequal CEQA benefits depending on project type, the need to remove litigation "hooks," and the need for the bill to provide a "safe harbor" from AB 32. At the core of the bill is a fundamental disagreement on land use planning.

Capitol Weekly's annual legislative rankings have been released. Although not a scientific study of voting trends, the rankings do tend to underscore what most political observers see on a daily basis. The California Legislature is a polarized partisan entity that is prone to operate on group-think autopilot. Below are the five members from each party in each house that received the most "moderate" rankings (a score of 0 is a perfect "conservative;" a score of 100 is a perfect "liberal."). As you can see there is a huge chasm between the scores of the most moderate Reeps and most moderate Dems. Many people lament this lack of an ability for policymakers to "operate in the middle" as an impediment to better public policy.

Assembly Middle 10
Audra Strickland (R-Camarillo) 16
Paul Cook (R-Yucaipa) 19
Bill Emmerson (R-Redlands) 19
Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton) 19
Shirley Horton (R-San Diego) 22

Cathleen Galgiani (D-Tracy) 51
Nicole Parra (D-Hanford) 52
Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) 60
Juan Arambula (D-Fresno) 64
Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto) 82

Senate Middle 10
George Runner (R-Lancaster) 7
Robert Dutton (R-Inland Empire) 7
Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) 10
Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) 12
Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) 20

Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) 47
Michael Machado (D-Linden) 67
Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) 67
Dean Florez (D-Shafter) 72
Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) 73

A recent poll commissioned by the AB 32 Implementation Group tested voters' attitudes about California's landmark AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act). The poll found that while voters initially support AB 32 goals, that support dips sharply when they consider the price tag of billions of dollars in extra costs for electricity, gasoline and food, as well as higher taxes and fees. Here are some of the key findings:

· California voters are pessimistic and there is a high level of distrust in government in general;

· Issues related to the economy are voters' top-of-mind concerns;

· Voters are largely unaware of AB 32, but they initially support its goals. Support for the bill   significantly decreases as voters are given more information, particularly about the costs of   implementing the bill;

· Most voters say they, as consumers, will bear most of the costs associated with implementing   AB 32; and

· Voters are supportive of a more market-based approach that is coordinated with other western   states and a national climate change program.

Click here to read more details about the AB 32 poll.

Speaking of high cost of implementation for tough environmental rules, Dan Weintraub explores the impact of the new diesel rules going into effect on the construction industry.

Mike Shaw didn't want to be caught by surprise when the state starting cracking down on diesel engines. He owned more than 100 of them – powering the scrapers, graders and bulldozers that are the backbone of his San Diego construction business. So he paid close attention when the state's air pollution regulators wrote new rules requiring the owners of diesel-powered equipment to clean up their fleets. And as he thinned the oldest, dirtiest engines from his stock, Shaw thought he was well on his way to satisfying the state's requirements. Then he ran the numbers. The state's calculator showed that he still was not even close... Click here to read the full story.

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has proposed a major change for certified wood in its LEED Rating System, according to an article by Building Green. Previously, LEED awarded credit to projects that used wood certified to the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for half of their wood-based materials. Now, USGBC has broadened the credit, recognizing any forest-certification program that meets certain criteria. This is good news for California companies that are considering pursuing LEED certification. New construction and tenant improvements have been hampered due to the fact that most California grown wood currently does not meet LEED standards because the certification most companies have are not included in the standards. Click here to read more details about this proposed change.

For more information about the legislative action committee of NAIOP/SFBA, please contact Legislative Chair, Phil Wang, or Lisa Brown