What a difference a year can make. During the final days of the 2006 legislative session, a package of bills intended to force better coordination between flood control and land use planning in the Central Valley and Bay Delta region died amid a deluge of acrimony. This year, however, state lawmakers approved six bills similar to measures that failed last year. What changed? Certainly the wording and policies of the bills were at least a little different this year. But maybe more important was the careful, behind-the-scenes work of legislative staff members, lobbyists and a few lawmakers. The result is a collection of bills that, for the most part, has the support of local government, planners, developers, environmentalists and flood control experts. "It's a huge deal," said Sande George, lobbyist for the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. The flood bills appear to be the most important land use measures approved by the Legislature, which concluded its regular session in mid-September. (The governor has since called for a special session on health care and water.) Unlike recent years, lawmakers approved few significant housing bills in 2007, although they did approve one controversial bill that could at the very least make housing element compliance more difficult for some cities. A bill that focused on regional planning and greenhouse gas reduction (SB 375) stalled in the final weeks and is likely to return in 2008. After the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005, many people urged California lawmakers to take action in 2006. They did place $4.1 billion in bonds on the ballot to upgrade flood control systems, but they left land use policy unchanged. Part of the problem last year was that numerous lawmakers tried to take the lead and they did not coordinate their efforts adequately. In the final days of the 2006 session, Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden), possibly the Legislature's more important player on flood matters, blew up everything. After the 2006 session ended, Machado met with numerous interested parties and continued to negotiate even after he introduced his cornerstone bill, SB 5, at the beginning of the new session. By increasing the level of flood protection required for urban and "urbanizing" areas, the bill could limit areas for new construction — something builders have not been able to accept. Machado kept talking, however, and was apparently aided by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) in negotiations with the California Building Industry Association (CBIA). In the end, the CBIA endorsed SB 5, primarily because its stricter flood control standards do not take effect until 2015 and there is no moratorium in the meantime. In addition, planners and local government officials conceded that they could no longer ignore the fact that levees on which much development relies are known to be inadequate. The Machado bill contains a number of provisions. Among them are these: • The Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (nee State Reclamation Board) must provide cities and counties with preliminary flood plain maps and the state agencies must adopt a Central Valley flood protection plan by 2012. • Every city and county in the Central Valley must incorporate the new flood protection plan's data, policies and implementation measures into general plans within two years, and amend zoning ordinances as necessary during the following year. • Local government may not approve new development in areas that do not have 200-year flood protection unless adequate progress is being made to achieve that level of protection. All areas of new development must have 200-year protection by 2025. • Cities and counties are authorized to prepare local flood protection plans that include strategies for increasing flood safety, funding strategies, flood control maintenance, and emergency response. Local governments accepted the legislation because it requires the state to provide the sort of information that local planners and engineers have lacked in the past. Builders accepted SB 5 because it provides a level of flexibility in how local governments achieve the mandatory level of flood protection. Machado's bill is part of a package of other bills that work together. Assembly Bill 5 (Wolk) overhauls the Reclamation Board and requires DWR to undertake numerous efforts to improve and distribute data. SB 17 (Florez) renames the Reclamation Board as the Flood Protection Board and expands the panel to nine members. AB 156 (Laird) provides for better mapping of area protected by levees and improved coordination for maintenance of the levees. AB 162 (Wolk) requires cities and counties statewide to integrate flood safety into general plans. The Schwarzenegger administration did not participate actively in any of the Legislature's flood policymaking. Not part of the package but definitely related is AB 70 (Jones), which makes local governments partially liable when property is damaged during floods. The liability provisions apply to newly developed areas protected by state levees. The intent of the bill is to make local governments more accountable for approving development in areas with questionable flood protection. An Assembly committee bill analysis frames the situation this way: "The question, in short, is simple: When a devastating flood hits the Central Valley, who should be responsible for the ensuing property damage: the state-level actors who failed to provide adequate levees, the local actors who increase the state's liability by locating new developments behind suspect levees, or both to the extent culpable? This bill answers that both should pay a fair and equitable portion." Unlike other flood bills, AB 70 has a great deal of opposition, especially from local government. In the area of housing, the most controversial bill from a planning standpoint is AB 414 by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento). The bill allows cities and counties to count only 50% of the housing units possible in commercial zones for the purpose of meeting fair-share affordable housing numbers. The intent of the bill is to prevent local governments from counting for purposes of the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) all of the housing units that could potentially be built in commercial zones where housing is allowed. Planners and local government advocates said the bill is contrary to infill development policies and will encourage greenfield sprawl. "It's just bad planning. It only applies to affordable housing, so it sends those units out to the hinterlands," said Bill Higgins, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities. "The bill doesn't strike the right balance between encouraging housing and protecting the environment. It's a housing-only bill." But Brian Augusta, a lobbyist with the California Housing Law Project, said Higgins and planners are making way too much of a "very narrowly crafted" bill that does little more than codify the Department of Housing and Community Development's current practices for reviewing housing elements. The problem, said Augusta, is that some cities use dual zoning — mixed-use zoning or commercially zoned areas where housing is permitted — to meet all of their affordable housing obligation. However, the zoning itself contemplates that much of the land will be used for non-housing purposes, Augusta said. If cities want to ensure residential infill, they can zone for residential development or adopt mixed-use zones that require a residential component, Augusta said. "The notion that we are somehow driving development out to the greenfields is overreaching," said Augusta. "It's a specious argument. I think they've run out of good arguments." Another housing bill that received approval this year is SB 2 (Cedillo). It requires cities and counties to identify a location for at least one emergency housing shelter, and to identify zones where shelters are allowed with or without permits. In addition, the bill exempts permitting of emergency shelters from the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill also prohibits cities from imposing additional restrictions on supportive or transitional housing. In its final version, SB 2 reflected extensive negotiations among housing advocates, planners and cities, and all sides appeared satisfied. However, the Department of Finance remained opposed, calling by-right approval of emergency shelters infeasible. Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill last year and a veto appears possible again this time. What could have been the most important land use bill in many years, Steinberg's SB 375, came to a halt during the last two weeks of the session when the author agreed to make it a "two-year" bill, as requested by numerous interests. The bill sought to tie together regional growth scenarios with transportation planning and funding, with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill passed the Senate and appeared headed toward the Assembly floor when Steinberg pulled the plug for the year. Exactly why he did so was unclear, but it appeared that arguments that the bill could become a "no-growth" tool held some sway. Bills approved by the Legislature during 2007. Flood Control • AB 5 (Wolk). Assigns new duties to the Reclamation Board and the Department of Water Resources. • AB 70 (Jones). Makes local governments partially liable for damage caused by Central Valley flooding in newly developed areas. • AB 156 (Laird). Provides for better mapping of areas protected by state levees and improved coordination among the state and local districts for levee maintenance. • AB 162 (Wolk). Requires all cities and counties to integrate flood safety into their general plans. • SB 5 (Machado). Requires the state to prepare a Central Valley flood protection plan and requires local general plans and zoning to comply with the plan by 2015. Requires a 200-year level of flood protection for areas of more than 10,000 people. • SB 17 (Florez). Renames the Reclamation Board the Flood Protection Board and expands its membership to nine. Housing • AB 414 (Jones). Restricts cities and counties' reliance on commercial zones for meeting regional fair-share affordable housing obligations. • AB 641 (Torrico). Prohibits cities and counties from requiring payment of development fees prior to the certificate of occupancy stage, so long at least 49% of the units in a project are very low- or low-income units. • AB 763 (Saldaña). Increases notice that must be provided to residents prior to a conversion of rental property to condominiums. • AB 1019 (Blakeslee). Establishes a process for reallocating a portion of a county's fair-share housing numbers when a city annexes unincorporated territory. Signed by governor . • AB 1058 (Laird). Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Building Standards Commission to adopt standards for "green building." • AB 1259 (Caballero). Extends by one year until June 30, 2009, the housing element update deadline for jurisdictions in the Monterey Bay Area Governments region. • AB 1542 (Evans). Amends the Subdivision Map Act to impose new requirements on the conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owned subdivisions. • SB 2 (Cedillo). Requires cities and counties to identify specific sites for homeless shelters and prohibits special restrictions on transitional and supportive housing projects. 2006 housing bond allocations • AB 1053 (Nuñez). A last-minute bill that makes Anschutz Entertainment Group eligible for $50 million for public improvements in the L.A. Live project in downtown Los Angeles (see CP&DR Places , April 2006). • AB 1091 (Bass) Alters criteria for awarding $300 million for transit-oriented developments. The projects now must be located within a walkable half-mile route of a transit station, rather than within one mile. • AB 1460 (Saldaña). Requires HCD to give preference in the multi-family housing program to infill projects and those using sustainable building practices. • SB 77 (Ducheny). Allocates $95 million for the transit-oriented development program. • SB 586 (Dutton). Allocates $100 million for "innovative housing," including $5 million for a construction liability insurance reform program. Redevelopment • AB 987 (Jones). Requires redevelopment agencies to record affordability covenants specifying the date on which the affordability restriction expires. • SB 437 (Negrete McLeod). Requires redevelopment agencies to specify their project areas' time limits in annual reports and five-year implementation plans. Signed by governor . • SB 698 (Torlakson). Cleans up 2006 legislation regarding eminent domain procedures, with the intent of providing greater protections for property owners. Other • AB 373 (Wolk). Overhauls the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District law and the school facilities improvement district law. • AB 1260 (Caballero). Clarifies Proposition 218's notice and protest procedures for property-related fees. • AB 1322 (Duvall). Requires Caltrans, when acquiring property by or under threat of eminent domain, to provide the property owner with copies of all appraisals. • SB 103 (Cedillo). Requires local agencies to prepare a report, conduct hearings and post information on their websites regarding any economic development subsidy worth at least $100,000. • SB 162 (Negrete McLeod). Requires local agency formation commissions to consider environmental justice when they decide on boundary changes. • SB 343 (Negrete McLeod). Increases requirements for the distribution of background materials prior to public meetings and mandates that information be posted on local government websites.

Just as a well-aimed bowling ball can be expected to knock down all ten pins and boost a bowler to a top score, many planners believe that a well-written zoning ordinance can steer the housing market toward socially beneficial ends. There is a difference between a bowling lane, however, and a downtown area. A bowling lane is a simple configuration, and a downtown area is an unfathomably complex network of financial, political and human factors. A bowling ball traveling down a lane has a predictable result. The result of trying to influence the real estate market with incentives is far less certain. Take for example the issue of density bonuses. The city councils of both San Diego (in March) and Los Angeles (in August) have both adopted new, improved, more-for-your-money density bonuses. In both cases, the cities have hewed closely to a model ordinance prepared by the state Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). In both cities, the new laws are intended to stimulate the production of affordable housing by offering developers the chance to make a bigger profit on the market-rate side than otherwise, if those developers are willing to tuck a couple or three units of low-cost housing into the mix. The bonus rewards the developer for taking on extra risk of a larger project. Both cities require developers to set aside at least 10% of their units as low-cost housing. In San Diego, developers can receive a bonus for setting aside only 5% of their projects for very-low income families. For that set-aside, the developer can now expand his project by 20%. By adding even more space for low-cost housing, developers can expand their projects by 35%, thus building a project 135% of the size permitted by the base zoning. The zoning ordinances of both cities, however, share a significant feature: Both laws allow a developer to enlarge a residential building without limiting the number of units that can be built in the project . This is very important: Most zoning codes for housing typically cap the number of units on a particular piece of land, while zoning on commercial property is usually limited by size (the formula is the familiar floor-area-ratio, or FAR, meaning the ratio of square-footage under roof to the square-footage of the site). Although the difference may appear trivial to non-housing weenies, this is a major change in policy. Clearly, the goal is to encourage developers to squeeze as many units, ideally low-cost ones, onto the site as possible. In Los Angeles, housing officials spoke openly of their desire for developers to build many very small units, some as tiny as 200 square feet, or roughly the size of the living room of my modest house in the San Fernando Valley. Los Angeles and San Diego are two very different places. Why did the two cities, then, adopt two very similar ordinances? Both cities are experiencing a surge of high-end condo construction and conversion in their downtown areas. San Diego needs many new units of low-cost housing to keep pace with the production of new, market-rate units, and Los Angeles needs even more. In fact, San Diego has been producing a steady number of affordable units since 2001, when the boom in downtown housing first gained traction. Currently, downtown San Diego has about 9,100 units, of which about 17% were affordable in 2006; the city hopes to boost that ratio to 20% by the end of this year. In downtown Los Angeles, the percentage of affordable units is 40%, much higher than in San Diego, largely because the city's redevelopment agency built nearly 9,000 units of low-income housing during the decades prior to downtown condomania. Currently, however, the development of market-rate and luxury units far outstrips affordable housing construction. Since 1999, when an adaptive-reuse trend ignited downtown LA's housing market, only about 1,200 affordable units have come to market, while nearly 6,000 market-rate units have reached completion. Some observers are troubled by the emphasis on very small units. Such units make sense for only single adults, such as the many immigrant men who work in L.A. and send money home. The danger is overcrowding if relatives or live-in lovers become permanent guests. The very worst scenario is that entire families move into the mini-apartments, and efficiency apartments spiral into overcrowded slums. Insofar as policing of housing (as opposed to planning regulations) is extremely lax in Los Angeles, the worst case is not unthinkable. Prejudice can also rear its ugly head. The density bonus can become a turn-off to middle-class renters and condo buyers. One developer that has included several low-cost condominiums in one of its downtown Los Angeles buildings, Forest City Enterprises, told reporters in 2005 that it had lost several sales due to the anxiety regarding the inclusion of the low-cost units. Apparently some condo buyers equate low-cost housing with crowding and criminality, rather than a chance to live among teachers, journalists, students, licensed practical nurses and their ilk who cannot afford market-rate homes. For all this hand-wringing and blinking of tearful eyes about increased density, the irony is that the density bonuses may not be powerful enough to produce many units. The cost of construction is rising, which is one reason why multi-family developers can only make their projects pencil at comparatively high prices and high rents. Plus, bonuses may not appear attractive when the market is strong and developers can lease or sell entire buildings at market-rate prices. Add the credit crunch to that, and affordable units may take a while in arriving. We will see in coming months if the new zoning ordinances succeed in spurring the construction of new units for low- and moderate-income renters and home buyers. It all seems very uncertain to me. Meanwhile, I'm going back to the bowling alley, where all you need is a steady aim, all the results are predictable, and the only incentive is a pitcher of beer.

The second and final phase of the Playa Vista development in Los Angeles is on hold again after a state appellate court in mid-September rejected the environmental impact report. "We conclude that the EIR was deficient in its analysis of land use impacts, mitigation of impacts on historical archaeological resources, and wastewater impacts," the Second District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished opinion. One of the most controversial and closely watched developments in California, Playa Vista is planned to have about 5,800 housing units and 3.5 million square feet of office and retail space. Most of the residential component in phase one is complete. Nearly half of the residential units and 250,000 square feet of office and retail space are planned in phase two. Although environmentalists were elated at the ruling, Playa Vista developers vowed the press forward. The case is City of Santa Monica v. City of Los Angeles , No. B189630. Ruling in the first round of litigation over University of California's long-range development plan for the Santa Cruz campus, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick strongly urged the warring parties to mediate their dispute. Burdick ruled for the City of Santa Cruz in its lawsuit over the environmental impact report for the long-range plan, finding that the university failed to adequately address water, traffic and housing. But Burdick made clear that neither side is winning and that the city and university should work on a settlement before they continue spending time and money fighting each other in court. Santa Cruz and UC have been at odds for years over campus expansion. The conflict reached new heights last year, when the city sued over the long-range plan and then voters approved two ballot measures aimed at blocking university building plans (see CP&DR Public Development , December 2006). San Luis Obispo landowner Ernie Dalidio has sued two organizations that ran and funded ballot measure campaigns against his proposed development along Highway 101 at the south end of town. Dalidio sued the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association and a group called Responsible County Development, alleging the groups were involved in racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering, unfair business practices, anti-trust and campaign funding irregularities. In November 2006, San Luis Obispo County voters approved Dalidio's ballot measure for a shopping center, hotel, office complex and 60 houses on 130 acres. County voters' approval in 2006 followed city voters' rejection of the project during a 2005 referendum election (see CP&DR , December 2006 , June 2005 .) The groups sued by Dalidio were involved in both the 2005 and 2006 campaigns. Other organizations have since sued over the approved Measure J, which they contend goes farther than legally allowed for a citizen initiative. A state auditor's report gave the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Housing Finance Agency good marks for administering housing bonds approved by state voters in 2002 and 2006. Both agencies have awarded funds in a timely manner and generally complied with bond funding requirements, the auditor determined. However, the auditor reported that HCD's "monitoring of entities to whom it awarded funds (awardees) has been inconsistent." The auditor reported that in three of 18 instances tested, HCD permitted awardees to receive funding advances greater than permitted by HCD's standard agreements. The auditor also found that HCD's ongoing oversight is lacking in the Emergency Housing and Assistance and CalHome programs, as the department "does not currently have processes for conducting site visits of sponsors or otherwise verifying program compliance during the period following final payment of funds by the state." The department said it would take steps to implement the auditor's recommended procedures within six months. In a separate report , State Auditor Elaine Howle recommended that the state either adequately fund a grade separation program or drop it and invite local agencies to seek other monies for separating railroad crossings from roads. Administered by Caltrans, the grade separation program provides funding to local agencies to eliminate at-grade crossings, which can be hazardous and induce congestion. At-grade crossings are increasingly a problem in urban Southern California because of trains hauling ever-more imports flowing through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Yet the annual budget allocation for the program has remained stuck at $15 million since 1974, even though the cost of the average project has increased tenfold since then from $2.5 million to $26 million, the auditor reported. Although more than 50 eligible projects have been on a priority list in recent years, local agencies often end up not pursuing the projects because they cannot raise the additional funds necessary to finish the job. The 2006 state transportation bond, however, included $250 million for grade separation projects. Howle recommended that, once the bond funds are expended, the Legislature either increase the annual program budget and individual project allocation limits, or close down the program and let "local agencies compete with a broader range of projects for funding available to them through other programs such as the state transportation improvement program." Both of the recent auditor's reports are available at www.bsa.ca.gov The City of Glendale has approved two 16-story residential towers for downtown. Intracorp plans to develop the 200-unit project at Wilson Avenue and Orange Street. The towers are the first major residential project approved since the city adopted a new downtown plan in 2006.

Only weeks after one round of relatively noncontroversial updates to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines officially took effect, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research has been charged with a far more ambitious task: amending the Guidelines to account for global warming. The agency is apparently putting together a schedule and process, and the first meetings with interested parties could occur before the end of the year. The process of revising CEQA Guidelines is typically laborious and contentious. This time, the process may be overtly political, as well. Officials at the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) said they are not authorized to discuss this round of Guidelines revisions and directed CP&DR inquires to Gov. Schwarzenegger's press office. A spokesman for the governor said the process is still being worked out. He was unable to answer questions about timing, who would be involved and issues that would be addressed. For two months this summer, Republican lawmakers blocked adoption of the state budget in part because of concerns about whether and how global warming should be considered an issue for CEQA purposes. Manufacturing, development, petroleum and other interests urged lawmakers to keep global warming issues out of environmental reviews for land use plans, transportation plans, development projects and anything else that could be a "project" under CEQA. Their concerns stemmed from recent litigation over the lack of global warming considerations in environmental impact reports, including a suit (since settled) that Attorney General Jerry Brown filed over San Bernardino County's updated general plan (see CP&DR , July 2007; In Brief , September 2007). As part of the budget settlement, the Legislature approved SB 97 (Dutton), which exempts transportation and flood control projects funded by the 2006 state bonds from global warming considerations. However, the bill concedes to environmentalists on the primary point: global warming is a CEQA issue. The bill directs OPR to prepare "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." The bill gives OPR a July 1, 2009, deadline, and mandates that the Resources Agency adopt the Guidelines by January 1, 2010. The legislation further requires OPR to update the Guidelines periodically based on state Air Resources Board (ARB) information and criteria. Russell Lowery, chief of staff for SB 97's author, Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) said the Guideline amendments are necessary because of today's overwhelming uncertainty about the issue. "The sooner the Guidelines are out and ready, the sooner judges will have something on which to base a decision," Lowery said. " can deal with regulations. What they can't deal with is uncertainty in litigation." The exact language of SB 97 — specifically the phrase "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions" — does raise an issue, because CEQA and the Guidelines have never previously prescribed mitigation. Besides dealing with potential mitigation measures, the new Guidelines will likely need to address standards of significance, and a project's baseline for evaluation. The state's greenhouse gas reduction law (last year's AB 32) speaks to reducing emissions to the 1990 level by 2020. Thus, it is conceivable that 1990 should serve as the baseline for environmental reviews, said Terry Rivasplata, a former state CEQA clearinghouse director now with Jones & Stokes. "Every project contributes just a little bit to this global problem," Rivasplata said. "It's awfully hard to argue that a project won't have an impact." But does that mean, he asked rhetorically, that an EIR will be required for every minor subdivision or small office building? The California Chapter – American Planning Association (CCAPA) suggests the answer should be no. A white paper prepared by the CCAPA's Climate Change Task Force contains this recommendation: "The Legislature should require CEQA climate change analysis only for large projects and exempt small and infill projects from this requirement. For instance, limiting the requirement for climate change analysis to projects of statewide, regional or area-wide significance should be used as a starting point for the definition. General plans, general plan updates, regional transportation plans, and specific plans should also be included in the definition of projects requiring climate change analysis." The CCAPA further recommends exempting LEED-certified "sustainable" developments, and projects that are consistent with a local or regional plan that includes climate change strategies. Environmental organizations, however, may be reluctant to accept CCAPA's "streamlined" approach. They are more likely to agree on the CCAPA's call to recognize that the impacts of climate change on a project — such as increased flood risk and reduced water supply — also should be considered during environmental review. Like California, other states are only beginning to wrestle with greenhouse gas emissions as a land use issue. In September, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's Community Development Council adopted regulations for awarding Community Development Block Grant planning funds. The regulations require that plans analyze greenhouse gas emissions from the housing, transportation, commercial and industrial sectors, and include policies for reducing the emissions. In Massachusetts, the state has started conducting climate change analyses for state building projects. Of course, the new CEQA Guidelines will not be in place for more than two years. In the meantime, OPR has been advising people preparing environmental documents to use whatever quantification tools are available, acknowledge that there are no standards of significance, and simply make a good faith effort to address climate change. Rivasplata had a different view of the interim period: "You get chased around by the attorney general and you get sued by other interests." Adopted Guidelines Meanwhile, Guideline amendments based on recent statutory changes went into effect in late July. The amendments reflect things that lead agencies should already have been doing, according to practitioners. Among the statutory charges were new definitions for exempting certain infill projects, farmworker housing and affordable housing from environmental review. There has been confusion over exactly how far those exemptions reach, explained Terry Roberts, director of the state CEQA clearinghouse. The new Guidelines also take into account 2001 legislation regarding water supply studies for large subdivisions, and the mandate for the preparation of urban water management plans. The fact that those laws have been in place for years but were not reflected in the Guidelines created some confusion, Rivasplata said. Contacts: Terry Rivasplata, Jones & Stokes, (916) 737-3000. Russell Lowery, Office of Sen. Bob Dutton, (916) 651-4031. CCAPA climate change white paper: www.calapa.org Updated CEQA Guidelines: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/

Morris Newman's June Deals column, "Disney Spins Negative Fantasia About Housing," is off the mark, citing misinformation and wrongly taking Disney to task on Anaheim housing issues. As the former director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and now as President and CEO of the Orange County Business Council (OCBC), I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record. California communities are required by law to create long-range general plans with extensive public input, hearings, expert advice and ultimately a vote of elected council members, so that residents and businesses know where future homes, businesses and parks should go. The general plan is a blueprint folks can rely upon for their own individual and business planning, reflecting future demographics that are a city's destiny. General plans should stand for something, particularly in a time when population growth and job growth are predictable with reasonable certainty. In 1994, the City of Anaheim approved its general plan and, as part of it, created the Anaheim resort area — only 5% of the city's land area — turning a blighted area into a world-class resort destination. Relying on that plan, millions of federal, state, local and private dollars were invested in 2.2 square miles, an area that contributes nearly 50% of the city's annual revenue. Further, implementation of that plan resulted in the Anaheim resort area becoming the fastest growing market in the country for hotel occupancy. Transient occupancy taxes, paid by resort visitors, have more than doubled, from $33 million in 1994 to $80 million in 2006. As to housing, Anaheim's planning and implementation of its general plan appear to be just as successful, as indicated in OCBC's recently released Workforce Housing Scorecard 2007 Inaugural Edition. After a year's research and academic peer review, we concluded Anaheim is a county leader in workforce housing production — including low- and very low-income housing. Anaheim's housing matches its jobs generation and will likely continue to do so. If only other Orange County cities could be as forward-thinking! The report can be found at www.ocbc.org . Orange County has lost almost 15% of its 25 to 34 year olds in the last five years. They cite the inability to find a home to start their families as a top issue. They're not just moving inland, but out of state to Las Vegas, Phoenix and Austin. Daily commuters into Orange County are expected to grow to 600,000 by 2025. We risk becoming a county of aging boomers with ever-increasing traffic congestion for the young who will be forced to travel to "service" us, and we face a county brain drain of well-educated talent to fill high-paying jobs. OCBC contends that to solve this, each city's general plan must be implemented consistent with its approval. Good planning has to mean something. On August 21, the Anaheim City Council responded to the collection of thousands of signatures by Anaheim residents demanding a public vote be taken to overturn the council's previous position allowing non-resort uses in the lucrative resort area. OCBC contends that "a deal is a deal;" that the 3-2 City Council wrongly ignored its general plan and agreements with the business community; and Anaheim voters should overturn the decision when they head to the polls June 3, 2008. Anaheim should stay the course because it's working. Keep the resort area as planned, and continue to put housing where the long-range plan says it should go. - Lucy Dunn, Orange County Business Council

The smart growth crowd has weighed in on global warming, suggesting that more compact development patterns could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7-10%. Why? Because there's significant evidence that compact development patterns reduce vehicle miles traveled; and without the introduction of cleaner-burning fuels, the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles is to reduce driving. But this is not likely to happen without more tough regulation that links emissions with land use. At least that's the argument contained in a new report called "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change." And it's a sobering argument as California seeks to implement AB 32. The report has received a lot of publicity because it was issued by the Urban Land Institute. But it was really a collaborative effort between ULI, the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland, Smart Growth America, and the Center for Clean Air Policy. The authors included such familiar smart growth names as Reid Ewing, Don Chen, and David Goldberg. The report doesn't present any new research results. Rather, it re-packages a lot of existing research on smart growth and compact development in the context of climate change. Nevertheless, a lot of it is interesting. The report drives home the point that the greenhouse-gas emissions issue is really not very different from any other air pollution. The report concludes that any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is likely to be offset by an increase in driving – pretty much the same thing that has happened, at least in California, with carbon monoxide emissions over the last 40 years. And the report's main policy recommendation is to create a greenhouse-gas emissions conformity provision for regional transportation plans. This would be the same conformity requirement that currently exists for other air pollutants. So there you go: This is just another air pollution problem. And California faces the same tough choices on greenhouse gas emissions as we have faced for decades on other emissions. Except in this case, the goal isn't to curb the increase in emissions. The goal is to reduce emissions – by a lot. Which means any solution is going to force radical change in the way we live.

It's undeniable: California is in the worst housing bust since the early 1990s. Sales have dropped by a third compared with last year. Prices are stable for now, but nobody knows what will happen once all those bank repos hit the market. And it's pretty clear that developers all over the state are sitting on their entitlements. Nobody's building anything unless they absolutely have to. Which means all those condo and mixed-use projects that planners are crowing about will not get built anytime soon. But does that mean they won't get built at all? No. In the long run, the shift toward a more urban California – especially in the coastal areas – will continue. Land won't get a whole lot cheaper, and construction materials will probably still go up in price. But the urban transition may not happen as fast as we thought, and it might look a little different than we expected. This is the fourth real estate bust over the last 35 years in California. The other three have all followed a pattern – the bust is long, and then it is followed by a boom of slightly shorter duration characterized by huge price increases. Last time, prices bottomed out during 1991 or 1992, then stayed flat until 1997 or '98, then tripled between '98 and '06. (Evened out over the 15-year period, this actually represents about 8% annual appreciation.) But there are some differences. The last bust occurred mostly as a result of Southern California's aerospace-led recession. Lots of people were losing their jobs in factories and on military bases, or were shifting over to jobs that didn't pay as well – or they were just plain nervous about getting laid off. It's fair to say that the early '90s bust was an honest-to-God recession. This time, the bust can probably be viewed much more as a "correction" – an inevitable downturn in an overheated real estate market fueled at least in part by easy credit. Sales are slow partly because those 100%-plus, low-initial-interest-rate mortgages just are not around anymore. (The 65% fixed-rate mortgage is doing just fine.) This will not have much effect on prices – unless those subprime mortgage holders default on their loans or have to sell at a bargain-basement price, which is already happening in some market segments. So it is reasonable to assume that prices will drop some. The question is how much. Five percent? 10? 20? No one really knows. A lot depends on the extent to which both the feds and the Fed decide to step in and bail out the subprime mortgage lenders with refinancing opportunities and lower interest rates. The bottom line question in planning and development goes more or less like this: Will housing continue to be the driving force in the real estate development business, as it has been over the last decade? And, if not, can other sectors of the real estate industry attract enough capital to keep the development business going? You can't build too slowly during a recession; and you can't build too fast during a boom. Developers downsize during a bust. But they also keep pushing for entitlements, so they can come out of the bust ready to build. What will they try to entitle during this bust? California's push toward urbanism during the last decade – and, more to the point, smart growth and new urbanism – is attributable mostly to housing prices. All kinds of high-density, urban-style projects pencil out for developers when condos go for $400,000 instead of $150,000. Demand has been strong enough, especially in the built-out coastal counties, that condo developers willingly delivered retail and lots of other mixed-use components to cities in exchange for permission to lay the golden egg of housing. The condo egg isn't so golden anymore – but wherever prices land, they are still likely to be far higher than they were back at the end of the '90s. That would suggest we shall see more high-density projects entitled in the future. But it's also an article of faith that in bad times, developers stick to the knitting. So maybe we'll see residential developers sticking with residential projects and not venturing so readily into mixed-use projects – even when planners push them in that direction. But the developer is only half of the entitlement equation. The other half is the investor. And whereas developers stick to what they know – residential developers like to do residential projects – investors are fickle. They'll put their capital wherever they think they'll get a return. They're also lemmings, following the latest fad. This can affect the planning and development business in two ways. First, it's possible that the overall amount of capital flowing into real estate development will decrease considerably. Investors tend to regard real estate and stocks as "countercyclical" – that is, when one goes down, you should invest in the other because it's going to go up. This trend is often a self-fulfilling prophecy, as prices in either sector rise simply because more investment money is being shoveled toward those investments. It's no surprise that real estate went up during the late '80s when the stock market went down. The reverse happened in the early '90s; and the trend reversed again around 2000. Right now both real estate and stocks look fragile, but it may well be that capital flows from real estate into stocks over the next year or two. The other possibility is that capital will flow to other types of real estate. It's been easy to forget this during the recent housing boom, but the truth of the matter is that investment in different real estate sectors is cyclical and faddish as well. Remember the early 1980s boom in warehouses? The late '80s boom in office buildings? The mid '90s boom in entertainment retail? All these were capital-driven booms, as investors threw money at a real estate sector that was hot at the time. And with money being thrown at housing over the last decade, we've got a pent-up demand in some of these other sectors, especially office and industrial. It is entirely possible that in the near future, mixed-use condo projects will be remembered as so-o-o-o 2005 – compared with those shiny new office condos built in 2010.

Director of Community DevelopmentCity of El Cajon, CA Ideally located in Southern California's San Diego County, the City of El Cajon (pop. 97,000) is seeking a visionary Community Development Director. Just minutes from downtown San Diego and area beaches, El Cajon is a valley community encompassing 14 square miles surrounded by mountains. The Community Development Department is supported by 18.5 FTEs and an annual operating budget of $1,698,358. The Department is organized across two divisions: Planning (Current and Advanced), and Building and Fire Safety. El Cajon's next Community Development Director will be a proactive big picture leader who is well-versed in contemporary planning principles and practices, as well as economic development and revitalization. The Director will also be knowledgeable regarding building codes. The candidate selected will have the opportunity to influence the specific plan currently being amended which applies to the City's downtown area. At least five years management experience in a similar setting and a Bachelor's degree are required. The closing date for this recruitment is Friday, October 12, 2007 (updated). The salary range is $112,965 to $137,634 plus 5% differential for a Master's degree related to the job, and is supplemented by an attractive benefits package. Detailed brochure and submission instructions are available online at www.tbcrecruiting.com . Teri Black-Brann tel 310.377.2612 Teri Black & Company www.tbcrecruiting.com

A city planner, architect and journalist, Mark Hinshaw is the director of urban design for LMN Architects in Seattle. The American Planning Association recently published his book True Urbanism: Living In and Near the Center . In True Urbanism , Hinshaw identifies a back-to-the-urban-core trend, in which people who have rejected suburban uniformity are choosing to live instead in dense, diverse urban environments. "After decades of decline," Hinshaw writes, "downtowns are coming back, perhaps with a vengeance. And it might also be that the very notion of what constitutes downtown is changing. Most of the downtowns we have examined have acquired, over the last six or seven years, a ring of dense urban neighborhoods in areas that previously were only underused commercial or industrial buildings or parking lots." Hinshaw spoke with CP&DR Editor Paul Shigley in September. CP&DR : What was the genesis of this book? Something in particular? Hinshaw: I write extensively for Landscape Architecture magazine. Often, the editor sent me on assignment to other parts of the country. I've done that for the last 10 to 12 years. And then, with LNM Architects, I get sent on assignments that take me across the country. That has been frequent enough that I started to see things across the country. At first I started thinking it was confined to coastal cities that are considered hip. Then I started seeing it in Dallas and Kansas City and Minneapolis. CP&DR : Cities that are not considered hip? Hinshaw: Yes. I've seen it commented on in real estate pages, but nobody's really commented on it from a national perspective. Then just about the time I had the idea for the book, I happened to be on a panel with Eugenie Birch, the chair of the planning school at the University of Pennsylvania. She had received a grant to look at 44 downtowns around the country. She found that some of them were struggling, but she also found that dozens of them were thriving. So I jumped on her few dozen examples. But I continue to see it cropping up. As I travel more, I see more and more of it. What she didn't identify is that this isn't just happening in big cities, but in inner suburbs and in smaller towns, stand alone towns. Americans love small towns, and that's what the new urbanist group has latched onto. Americans love small towns with their small scale and narrow streets. … People know that what small towns often don't give them is access to lots of other things, not the least of which is well-paying jobs. So what people are trying to do is get the feeling of a small town that is housed in a much larger area. So you have these very dense urban areas — they have parks and public spaces, they have a graciousness to the street and they take on a patina that comes over time. They have quirkiness and an unpredictability. People are not looking for sameness, they are looking for something different. That's where I part company with the new urbanists. They are trying to create this out of whole cloth. I think you need an understory of things that give a place roots. I don't think you can invent that. I don't think that you can design it. It comes from the fact that a number of people get their hands on these places. That's where it becomes magic. You get these shared spaces, this collective attitude. It's not just you and a lot of other people living in an area. It's a shared history of the place. It's a richer array of things that results. It's almost kind of weird because it's so scattered but it's almost spontaneous combustion. There's no school that's called this. It doesn't have a name. Yet it's happening in hundreds of places. Some of it is due to demographic forces that Eugenie identified. There is a whole group of people with disposable incomes who don't have children in the house anymore, and who don't want to live in a big house and mow the lawn. Instead of purchasing a big home, they are buying a neighborhood. And then there is the other demographic — people in their 20s. They grew up in the suburbs and they don't like it. They want edgy. You can't find it in a new urbanist town. They are looking for a place where you can find 100 different things to do every night. … In the inner suburbs, you don't get that, but you get enough of it. It's the places where you get enough of the older style of living, combined with 21st Century access to goods, services and technologies. It's not like people are living in the past and wanting nostalgia. They want things that are real. What's different about this phenomenon from the new urbanism is that folks who are choosing this are not afraid to live in towers as contemporary as possible. These folks want to live in the 21st Century. I'm talking 100 to 300 units an acre. It is not a fearful thing. The new urbanism seems to top out at about 4 stories. It's not a dense enough environment to support a lot of locally produced products and services, and transit. CP&DR : Has the planning system caught up with this trend that you have identified? Hinshaw: I think some places are skilled in their ability to help it happen in a good way. Neighborhoods I've observed around San Diego's downtown seem to have had a good hand. I'm not talking about a redevelopment authority that sweeps in with a master plan, but a way for people to engage. You are not looking for consistency or uniformity, but the exact opposite. What is sought after is variety. It's not uniform housing block after block. There can be two-story buildings next to 30-story buildings. It's not a simple model. I'm not suggesting everybody wants that. But enough people do that it's fueling whole new neighborhoods that didn't exist 10 years ago. They existed only as industrial areas or gray area. CP&DR : You use a number of case studies and examples from California – San Diego, Long Beach, Oakland, others. Where is our state on the trendline? Hinshaw: It's certainly happening in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco. All of those cities have been pretty aggressive about using various tools. It's been pretty rare that it's been a traditional master plan that's done it. It's been specific developments or it's been investment in public spaces, like the Esplanade in San Diego, which spurred tremendous private development. Everyone does it a little differently. Some are using tax increment financing and some are not. Some are using redevelopment and some are not. Sometimes nonprofits make a big difference. The techniques are all over the board. CP&DR : What can a planner learn from these cities? Hinshaw: One singular modal doesn't make sense. That's why I'm not a fan of form-based codes. I think that's a singular model. People need to sit down, come up with what they want to see, and then tailor it to their particular city. It baffles me that people spend so much time on their general plans and specific plans and then use generic regulatory tools. You need to sit down and figure out the best for your situation. It's not following somebody else's template. CP&DR : What has the response of practitioners been? Any of them tell you that you're wrong? Hinshaw: The only thing that I've seen that was sort of a cut was in New Urban News . I don't disagree with most of what they have to say. It just seems like that is the answer to everything now. I think we learned 30 years ago that sweeping pronouncements don't work. Some people have asked me a question — will this last long? And that's a good question. My response is that I think we're just seeing the tip of the phenomenon. One of the groups fueling this is the baby boom, which is just beginning to retire. So this could be a 20- to 30-year phenomenon.

A whole new set of stormwater regulations is about to wash over cities and counties, especially in Southern California. At first blush, these new regulations may seem most onerous on new development, which will probably have to meet very demanding onsite detention and water quality standards. But it might also mean retrofitting older urban neighborhoods – and using existing parks and other open spaces, including cemeteries, to help water quality in those neighborhoods. Bottom line: In an infill setting, every piece of public works – hardscape or softscape – has to serve several different functions. That, at least, was the message from Los Angeles city and county officials at a meeting on water and land use last week. The meeting, attended by about 100 planning and water folks from various agencies in Southern California, was sponsored by the Local Government Commission and held at the offices of the California Endowment adjacent to Union Station in downtown L.A. Paula Daniels, a member of the City of Los Angeles Board of Public Works, spoke specifically to her department's "Green Streets" program, which is learning lessons from Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere to use streets and sidewalks for better percolation. One example is the "bumpout," which cuts into a street and has a vegetative garden that attracts runoff. She said an 11% reduction in impervious surface can reduce in runoff by up to 90%. "Most pollution actually comes from automobiles," she said. "Not only do they drive land use decisions, but they also have air pollution impacts. You know about air pollution. But the same pollutants end up on the streets and end up being carried off into the ocean through the streets, which are a rapid conveyance system for pollution. …These vegetation solutions – the roots, the leaves – they sequester carbon, they take in stormwater, they convert what comes from the automobile into nutrients." Daniels pointed in particular to a green project on Oros S treet, near the interchange of Interstate 110 and Interstate 5 (not far from Dodger Stadium). The Oros Street project marks the first time that the City of L.A. constructed "stormwater gardens" that filter most pollutants running off nearby houses and streets. - Bill Fulton

The eminent domain legislation sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) died on the floor of the Assembly this week when Republicans voted against the measure. Although the sponsors of ACA 8 and its author, Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate), made a late change to add protections for houses of worship, Republicans refused to budge. Because the measure was a constitutional amendment, it needed a two-thirds vote in the Legislature (meaning some GOP members in both houses) before going on the ballot next year. With the legislative year now finished (business officially ended a little after 3 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12) the eminent domain fight shifts entirely to two initiatives — one sponsored by ACA 8's backers, and a more far-reaching proposal sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and apartment owners. Both measures are currently in the signature-gathering phase. Essentially, ACA 8 would have prohibited the acquisition via eminent domain of owner-occupied homes or churches for economic development purposes. The measure, along with its failed companion AB 887, also would have provided new eminent domain protections for businesses with 25 or fewer employees. The initiative has similar protections for homeowners, but it does not speak to churches or small businesses. Republican lawmakers said ACA 8 did not go far enough. They appear to favor the Jarvis initiative, which would block all use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. The initiative would also prohibit rent control. "The only constituency that would have any interest in financing the League's measure are those who benefit from existing practices of eminent domain abuse," HJTA President Jon Coupal said in a written statement issued Thursday. "Simply put, the League's ballot measure was drafted by redevelopment interests for those who profit from the status quo." Meanwhile, CRA Executive Director John Shirey wrote in a legislative update that the organization is considering whether to continue its current signature-gathering effort and is weighing a formal campaign against the Jarvis initiative. That lawmakers failed to act on eminent domain was hardly a surprise. The consensus among observers, lobbyists and Capitol insiders is that 2007 has been one of the least productive years in modern times for the Legislature. Check out Sacramento Bee columnist Steve Wiegand's take on the session here: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/376345.html . The eminent domain bills could return in January, but nobody expects them to go anywhere. With voting scheduled in February, June and November, 2008 is likely to be known as the "year of the election." - Paul Shigley

With lawsuits, referendums and an economic slowdown, it's been a rough few weeks for large-scale development projects. Some updates: The 14,000-housing-unit Placer Vineyards project has been hit with at least three lawsuits. Sutter County, environmental groups and a citizens group filed the court actions over various impacts of the proposed 5,000-acre project in unincorporated Placer County, just across the line from Sacramento County. Litigation was anticipated, although Sutter County's lawsuit over traffic came as a bit of a surprise. The 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands project in unincorporated Yuba County is headed for the ballot. Project opponents led by Supervisor Hal Stocker gathered enough signatures on referendum petitions to qualify for the February ballot. In addition, at least one lawsuit has been filed over the environmental impact report for the project, which is proposed for grasslands between Beale Air Force Base and Spenceville State Wildlife Area. A specific plan adopted by the City of Livermore that calls for 1.5 million square feet of retail space, including a factory outlet center, is the subject of a lawsuit filed by a quarry. A road serving the development envisioned in the El Charro specific plan would cut off access to about 20 acres owned by Rhodes & Jamieson, which operates a rock quarry. The city has proposed a land swap, but Rhodes & Jamieson is apparently uninterested. A Monterey County judge upheld a referendum vote overturning the county's approval of the 1,150-unit Butterfly Village project near Salinas. Developer HYH Corporation argued that the referendum violated a 2001 court order requiring the county to process the proposal. Voters' rejection of the project in June was "not a direct and conclusive challenge to the court's judgment," Judge Robert O'Farrell concluded. Butterfly Village would be part of the larger Rancho San Juan development. The Modesto Bee reported the Florsheim Land Company has abandoned a proposed 1,500-unit, 380-acre project proposed for orchards just south of Atwater, in Merced County. Locals opposed to what they considered to be an incompatible housing development in a rural area filed a lawsuit over the Atwater Ranch project two years ago. Since then, the Central Valley housing market has sunk, which apparently forced Florsheim's surrender. The Bakersfield Californian reported that developer Bryan Troxler has abandoned the proposed 9,000-unit Flying Seven Ranch project. The Californian also suggested that the 16,500-unit Gateway project is also in jeopardy. Both developments are — or were — proposed for farmland on the western outskirts of Bakersfield and would extend the city limits to I-5. Again, the slow market appears to be the driving factor. - Paul Shigley