In passing the state budget on Tuesday, the Legislature agreed to begin resolving issues associated with the California Environmental Quality Act and global warming. As part of the state budget deal, lawmakers passed SB 97 by Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga). That measure: • Requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to prepare by July 1, 2009 guidelines for how CEQA documents should address the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and requires the Resources Agency to adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. • Bars CEQA lawsuits over greenhouse gas emissions from transportation projects funded by last year's $19.9 billion Proposition 1B, or flood control projects funded by last year's $4.1 billion Proposition 1E. Dutton said his legislation ensures that bond dollars are not spent defending lawsuits. "It was clear that billions of dollars approved by the voters were at risk to this type of unnecessary litigation," he said. "I felt it was very important that we get a fix to this problem before the money for these transportation projects was allocated." Significantly, however, the bill implies that global warming is indeed an issue for CEQA consideration. Attorney General Jerry Brown and environmentalists have begun pressing for CEQA documents to address greenhouse gas emissions caused by new development — an effort strongly opposed by business and development interests. Although the bill requires preparation of new CEQA guidelines, the measure does not address concerns about the immediate application of CEQA to global warming issues. Three other potentially significant budget issues for land use: • The approved budget contains Williamson Act subventions to counties. This money is "backfill" for about $39 million in property tax dollars that counties lose due to Williamson Act tax breaks granted to owners of farmland who agree not to develop their land. Although, Gov. Schwarzenegger in May proposed eliminating the subvention, he has reportedly promised not to blue pencil the funding as part of $700 million in last-minute cuts. • The budget cuts $1.3 billion from public transit, partially backfilling the cuts with bond funding. Transit agencies and advocates say the result will be service reductions, fare increases and fewer capital projects. • The budget approves expenditure of $778 million from last year's housing bond (Proposition 1C), as well as $4.2 billion in transportation bond spending.

Almost 30% of Californians name air pollution as the state's biggest environmental problem — far more than any other — and another 10% say the top environmental issue is global warming, which is related to air pollution. Furthermore, a significant plurality say the state government should do something about it, which suggests that there might be political tolerance for air pollution regulation Those were among the findings in the Public Policy Institute of California's annual survey of Californians and the environment, which was released recently. The survey did not ask many direct land use questions, but it did detect a political atmosphere in which the state's residents support additional regulation. About half of Californians say the state is not doing enough to protect the environment, while 67% say the federal government is doing an inadequate job on the environment. The PPIC survey almost always locates inconsistencies. To wit: While 40% of Californians rank air pollution or global warming as the state's biggest environmental issue, and two-thirds say something should be done immediately to counteract global warming, 66% of Californians — and 72% of likely voters — drive alone to work. Who carpools, rides public transit or finds alternative means of commuting? Poor people. Nearly half of people who make less than $40,000 a year do something besides drive alone to work. The PPIC survey also usually locates cluelessness. Thus, while Californians say they are concerned about air quality and global warming, about 70% admit they don't know enough about their regional air quality district to approve or disapprove of the district's activities. Among other findings of interest: • Blacks and Latinos are about twice as likely as whites and Asians to see air pollution as a serious health threat; • 60% of Republicans say immediate action is necessary on global warming; • 60% of Republicans favor more oil drilling off the coast; • Likely voters are evenly divided on whether more nuclear power plants should be built. The PPIC survey is available at http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=760 .

So I've finally had it with Joel Kotkin. Joel Kotkin is, of course, the Los Angeles pundit who loves to be hated by planners. Last week in the Los Angeles Times Sunday opinion section . Kotkin flung around a lot of very selective facts and kinda-truths in order to make the argument that Los Angeles is rushing thoughtlessly and without public debate into "Manhattanization". This article is the latest piece of evidence suggesting that Kotkin's arguments are getting old and tired. Increasingly, it seems that the only thing we can count on him for � in newspaper op-eds, anyway � is to disagree with the conventional wisdom, no matter what it is. In fact, as time goes on, Kotkin � ever the contrarian � seems to spend more and more time disagreeing with planners and commentators who mostly agree with him. Which is too bad, because there was a time when Joel Kotkin really was a fresh voice who brought great insight to the debate over how cities should be shaped. As a longtime business journalist, Kotkin has a rare understanding of the role business and commerce plays in the life of cities. He's especially good at explaining small business, immigrant businesses, and the hidden sources of capital in the immigrant community � important stuff in L.A. that nobody much wrote about before Kotkin began to highlight it. He deserves a great deal of credit for pounding on this theme endlessly in front of planning and development audiences. But in the last few years, he's fallen deeper and deeper into the trap of being a contrarian for its own sake. The Times article was prompted by a variety of recent actions by the City of Los Angeles to promote development downtown, including a new housing density bonus ordinance (which is simply an expansion of the current state-required ordinance), subsidies for commercial development around the convention center (nothing new), and new rules on mini-condos of 250-350 square feet (which are already permitted but have gotten some publicity lately). Mostly, however, the piece was little more than a variation on the current Kotkin stump speech, in which he basically argues that Los Angeles is suburban by nature and anybody who wants to create more density in L.A. is trying to turn it into Manhattan. This, of course, is a classic "straw man" argument. It allows him to characterize advocates of higher density � especially planners subscribing to the New Urbanism � as Neanderthals tethered to the outmoded idea that all cities should be overly dense and mononuclear, as New York was in the industrial age. It's hard to believe that a few thousand condos in downtown L.A. could kick up such a ruckus in Kotkin's soul. After all, it's only a small part � though an important part � of a much more wide-ranging evolution of Los Angeles as an urban place.� What's emerging in L.A. is a�series of downtowns and activity centers of various densities strung across the landscape. And it seems odd for Kotkin to get so exercised about it, because�this seems to be pretty much exactly what Joel himself has been calling for in speech after speech and article after article over the past several years. In fact, this is exactly what the Los Angeles General Plan of the 1970s � the famous "centers concept" plan � called for. L.A. is not so much Manhattanizing as Pasadena-izing. A few years ago, partly as a marketing ploy for a respected planning firm he was working with at the time, Kotkin tried to stake out some ground in the whole New Urbanism/smart growth debate by coining the term "New Suburbanism".� When pressed about what he meant, Kotkin wrote in an article on Planetizen �that he envisioned a future involving "a heavily wired �archipelago of villages,' with relatively compact and economically self-sufficient communities spread across our landscape," and warned against a return to "the dense, centralized, transit-dependent past". There's nothing here for even the most passionate New Urbanist to disagree with. In describing New Suburbanism, Kotkin was just setting himself up up as a 21st Century Ebenezer Howard. Long a fan of smaller cities anyway, he essentially staked a claim to the Garden City. This is no different than most New Urbanists and smart growthers, who understand that most cities are polycentric and that development must be concentrated into a series of villages. Hardly anybody is arguing�that an extremely dense mononuclear city � New York, circa 1930 � is the solution. In fact, when New Urbanists have been criticized (by everybody except Kotkin), the argument has usually been that they aren't really urbanists at all but simply architects who want to build better-designed suburbs. In other words, the rap on New Urbanists is that they are nothing more than New Suburbanists. Yet Kotkin keeps setting up these folks as his straw-man opponents � obsessed with overcentralized overdevelopment in downtown areas and therefore in bed with big-time developers. He can't seem to fathom the possibility that � especially in a metro area that already has close to 20 million people � his archipelago will inevitably contain a few extremely dense, transit-oriented downtowns along with dozens and dozens of less dense and less transit-oriented village settings. Last week's Times article does contain one interesting new twist on the old contrarianism. In reviewing recent development plans for downtown L.A., Kotkin claims to be shocked � shocked! � that powerful developers have undue influence over the planning process these days. His comments on this topic embody a breathtaking naivet� for somebody who has always set himself up as being a street-smart pundit on cities. Instead of sounding like Joel Kotkin, in this new incarnation he sounds a lot like the newly elected president of some San Fernando Valley homeowner association. In the Times article, Kotkin argues that in the good old days, like the 1980s, L.A. city councilmembers like Zev Yaroslavsky and Ernie Bernardi bravely held the line against too much developer influence, and that little guy developers had more of a chance. He lays the blame at the doorstep of term limits, which he claims have forced local politicians deep into the pockets of big developers. It's true that Bernardi � who represented the East Valley on the L.A. City Council for more than 30 years � was always a thorn in the side of the redevelopment establishment. And it's probably true that, 20 years ago, the deck was stacked a little less strongly in favor of deep-pockets developers. But to say that developer influence is stronger than ever because of term limits is ridiculous. Even during Kotkin's good old days of the 1980s, developers had an enormous amount of influence. More than now, downtown developers appropriated large amounts of public money for their projects; and, Bernardi aside, they did so with far less public scrutiny than today. (Bernardi never had many friends on the City Council, and his leveraged derived mostly from maverick lawsuits, not council action.) Up until the late 1980s, it was possible to get approval for a 20-story skyscraper in the City of Los Angeles over the counter. And while Yaroslavsky was vigilant in opposing big development when it backed up to his constituents'neighborhoods, he was shameless � as I pointed out in my book The Reluctant Metropolis � in facilitating such projects when they backed up to a neighborhood represented by some other politician. In other words, Joel seems to have developed a pretty selective memory about this kind of stuff. And the culprit isn't really term limits. The culprit is that L.A. system of enormous council districts � each councilmember represents close to 300,000 constituents � that requires candidate to raise big money in order to run a campaign. If there's one logical theme in Kotkin's recent op-ed ranting, it's a Bernardi-like resentment toward the power of big downtown developers who use political influence to get public subsidies. This is a fair enough complaint, but it's not new. In fact, it's about 60 years old, as historian Robert Fogelson pointed out in his recent book, Downtown: Its Rise and Fall . So Joel can cast himself as the cranky reincarnation of Ernie Bernardi if he wants to. But it's not exactly cutting-edge urban commentary. And it's disingenuous to make the Bernardi argument in the guise of attacking New Urbanists and smart growthers for wanting to recreate Manhattan all over Los Angeles. But when you've based your whole career on being a contrarian pundit, it must be tough to wake up in the morning and face the brutal fact that everybody agrees with you. - Bill Fulton First of three blogs. Read Part 2 here .

The Salton Sea sits likes a time bomb in the desert, serving up a brew of bad smells, turgid waters and the potential to increase air pollution in an area where thousands of homes are planned. But under a proposal making its way through the Legislature, some of the sea's lurking hazards may be stopped. Instead, the Salton Sea may be shrunk to a third of its current 240,000 acres and revived as a recreational lake for sport fish and migrating birds. All it will take is billions of dollars and at least 75 years of maintenance. The sea, created accidentally from an overflowing diversion of Colorado River water 100 years ago, is Southern California's largest body of water. But for the past half century, it has been dying as its water supplies have been cut off and channeled to agriculture and growing cities. The lake will be officially considered dead by 2017, after about 300,000 acre-feet of agricultural runoff that now flows into the sea will be diverted instead to San Diego. This is not the first plan to save the lake, but the plan maybe the final hope. The state Resources Agency in May released a programmatic environmental impact report that has been embraced by stakeholders in the region. Before the end of the legislative year in September, action is expected on a bill, SB 187 (Ducheny), that would approve the plan, provide initial money and chart future steps. The cost � as much as $8.9 billion over 75 years, including millions of dollars a year for maintenance � may prove the most daunting part of the restoration. Only about $200 million will be available if the Legislature acts this session, leaving future outlays to be provided by money from a proposed redevelopment district, federal funding and future state bond measures. The EIR proposes cutting the existing 376-square-mile sea into a horseshoe shaped waterway with a 52- mile-long rock jetty. The jetty would be hugely expensive, costing an estimated $5.7 billion to construct. The northern portion of the lake would be reinvigorated primarily as a recreational lake with fish, while the southern half would be dried out in portions, ringed by a watery shoreline of smaller ponds for fish, plants and migrating birds. The southern half would include 64,000 acres of wetlands that would be stocked with small fish and worms on which birds feed. Cutting the lake in two and, therefore, having a much smaller area to replenish is one aspect of improving the water quality. The primary cause of poor water quality, however, is phosphorus from untreated agricultural runoff, according to Rick Daniels, executive director of the Salton Sea Authority, a local joint-use authority. A project-specific EIR is expected to address how the runoff would be treated. Work needs to be partially completed on the most critical areas by 2017, when runoff from Imperial County farmers that now flows into the lake will decrease because irrigation water will be transferred to San Diego, under terms of a 2003 agreement on the Colorado River among several water agencies (see CP&DR Legal Digest , August 2007; CP&DR , November 2003). "The sea is on its way to dying," Daniels summed up. The sea is dying as it grows more salty and its freshwater sources are cut back. The sea has 44 parts of salt per 1000 today, compared with 43 parts per 1000 in 1999, according to Daniels. In contrast, the Pacific Ocean's salinity is 35 parts per 1000. (See CP&DR Environment Watch , February 2000). That saltiness makes it hard for fish to survive. Eight years ago, for example, the sea was home to such fish as croaker and a sport fish named the corvine. But those fish, Daniels said, stopped reproducing. Today, only the hardy tilapia remains, and it too faces problems. Tilapia came to the sea after being added to nearby irrigation canals to eat vegetation growing there, and it adapted to the saltwater of the Salton Sea, he said. Today there are 200 million tilapia in the sea, but three million a year are dying off due to the increased growth of algae, which is fed by phosphorus in agricultural runoff from the Imperial Valley. And things could get worse. Under the state's preferred alternative in the EIR, a total of 62,000 acres of sea will be dried out, potentially creating more dust and decreasing air quality in the region. Daniels noted that dried up lakes in the Owens Valley have led to huge dust storms that make Owens Valley one of the most polluted air basins in the country. "We're afraid it's going to be worse" in the Salton Sea area, he said, The dried up land is called "exposed playa" in the state's EIR, but it's no day at the beach for future recreationists. The land will be off limits to the public, and it will be planted with salt tolerant vegetation and covered with gravel. The state plan anticipates that dust mitigation will be an ongoing expense. According to Dale Hoffman-Floerke, chief of the Colorado River/Salton Sea office of the California Department of Water Resources, a crust will form on the surface after the water evaporates, minimizing the dust. She disagreed with Daniels' contention that the state proposal will harm air quality. "Our goal is to insure that air quality is not made worse as the result of any restoration activity," she said. Daniels said the Salton Sea Authority continues to work with the state on its plan, but the authority has developed another plan that does not require as much of the sea to be dried up. Meanwhile, development continues in the region. More than 800 homes were built in Salton City, in unincorporated Imperial County, in the past two years alone, Daniels said, and other developers are waiting to start building thousands of approved housing units just north of the lake in Riverside County. Some may wait to see what the future holds for the lake before they begin building. "My belief is, as this progresses, there will be many more houses built there, as the water improves," Daniels said. Money for initial work on the sea is expected to come from $30 million in federal funding, along with $47 million from Proposition 84 bond funds approved by voters in 2006. Those funds will be used to restore and upgrade habitat along the New and Alamo rivers, which drain into the sea from the south in Imperial County. Also, as part of 2003 settlement on Colorado River water, Coachella Valley, San Diego and Imperial Irrigation Districts put $40 million each in a mitigation fund for the Salton Sea. Another $1 billion might come from a $10 billion water bond that State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has proposed. Daniels said there is also talk of creating a redevelopment district around the lake to raise another $1 billion. The Legislature authorized creation of the district in 2000. The redevelopment plan would capture increases in property taxes as land values begin to rise due to improvements to the sea, Daniels said. State officials are also expected to ask Congress to allocate another $1 billion next year, he said. Environmental groups, so far, are in favor of the state's EIR. "It's not perfect," said Kim Delfino, California director of Defenders of Wildlife, which represents a coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society through an organization called the Salton Sea Coalition. But the plan, she notes, does have the basic elements the groups are seeking: habitat for wildlife, and protection of air and water quality. Delfino and Hoffman-Floerke both said a key issue awaiting resolution is who will become the governing body for the sea's restoration. The organization will need to involve state, local and federal officials. Delfino said she is researching whether a partnership being used by state and federal governments to restore Florida's Everglades may be a good model for the sea. But, like Daniels, she said something must be done to restore the sea � and soon. "We're running out of time," she said. Contacts: Rick Daniels, Executive Director, Salton Sea Authority, (760) 564-488. Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife, (916)313-5800, ext. 109. Dale Hoffman-Floerke, Department of Water Resources, (916) 651-7052. Salton Sea EIR: http://www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov

Even Orange County is going urban. The latest evidence is Lennar's "Central Park West" project – almost 1,400 condominiums, plus a little retail and office space, on a 43-acre site just off the Jamboree offramp of the 405 Freeway in Irvine. I visited the construction site on Monday (8/13) as part of an event sponsored by the Orange County chapter of the Building Industry Association. On its own terms, Central Park West ( www.cpwliving.com ) is a pretty good example of emerging Orange County urbanity. The math works out like this: an overall density in excess of 30 units per acre, a smattering of retail (20,000 square feet) and office space (90,000 square feet), as well as more than 4 acres of park space, plus roads and so forth. About 5% of housing consists of affordable ownership units. There's a variety of building types, including two- and three-story buildings; four- and five-story podium buildings; and two high-rises. Even the smallest buildings contain more than 20 units per acre. Most of the units go for close to a million. The market is clear: Young professionals and empty nesters who work in the nearby office buildings and don't want to fight the traffic. (The high-rises have great views of the eternal traffic jam on the 405.) Lennar proudly states that the company has followed all the rules of urban development: walkability, verticality, integrated retail, a community center, and no walls. No walls, at least, within the project itself. In the way it relates to surrounding areas, Central Park West is still what planners used to call a "pod" – completely walled off. The site – the former location of a low-rise manufacturing plant – is surrounded on all sides by high-rise structures, mostly office buildings. But it's bounded by the freeway on one side and by Jamboree and Michelson – very wide arterial streets – on two sides. The fourth side is along a little-used street, but it's basically a wall of parking garages that serve nearby office buildings, and Central Park West is walled off from that as well. There is some talk of building a pedestrian bridge across Jamboree to the nearby retail. And though there's some underground parking, especially for the high-rises, Central Park West pretty much sticks to suburban parking ratios (2+ per unit) and, for the smaller buildings, it sticks to the connection between all parking spaces and the unit itself. This may be a practical reality, but it really boxes in the designers, especially in the smaller buildings. The most luxurious low-rise condominiums have tandem parking spaces, simply because to do otherwise would force the density way down – if you want to maintain a connection between the unit and the parking. Unbundling the parking may work in downtown L.A., but apparently even developers thinking urban are still afraid to do it in Orange County. Then, of course, there's the name. The marketing idea, of course, is mid- and high-rise living overlooking what Frederick Law Olmsted used to call a "greensward". However, the grassy part of "Central Park West" is 2.2 acres. Just for the record, the real Central Park is 382 times bigger than that.

Director, Community, WRO The Urban Land InstituteLos Angeles, CA The Urban Land Institute is searching for a high quality Director, Community Outreach, for its new West Region Office. The incumbent must have strong internal consultative skills. We offer very competitive benefits and matching 401(k). Please send your resume and letter of interest to jobs@uli.org . ULI is proud to be an equal opportunity employer. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES: Work with ULI district council leadership and staff in the Western Region to adopt and adapt community outreach program models like Reality Check, Urban Marketplace, Inner City Advisors, and Smart Growth Alliances, which are underway in other District Councils. Develop and implement community outreach program models in workforce/affordable housing and sustainable development. Work on tasks to support projects funded through Foundation grants. Develop and implement strategies and products to transfer ideas and experiences among district councils, including writing guides, case studies and articles; organizing seminars and forums; and developing web-based communication tools. Develop and implement strategies, which link local district council outreach activities with ULI's national and global priorities and programs. Staff ULI Advisory Services panels. REQUIREMENTS: Masters degree in urban planning, public administration, real estate or a related field. Seven years experience doing comparable work with increasing responsibilities in related fields. Knowledge of and experience in affordable housing, state and local land use policy, smart growth, urban and community development and public/private partnerships, sustainable development. Experience providing technical assistance and outreach to state and local organizations, developing outreach programs to support local housing, urban development, and sustainable development and land use policy programs. Experience in working in membership organizations. Ability to work effectively and collaboratively with others. Strong written and oral communication skills. Must be able to act as an internal consultant. Ability to manage several projects at once. Facilitation skills a plus.

The California Environmental Quality Act has been blamed for holding up affordable housing, economic development, urban revitalization and public works projects. This year, however, marks the first time that CEQA has ever held up the state budget. We reported in July about efforts of environmental groups and Attorney General Jerry Brown to make global warming a consideration during CEQA reviews, and we followed up with a blog entry about how business and development interests were requesting "urgent legislation action" to head off the enviros. Democrats who control the state Legislature have no interest in such legislation, but Republicans apparently do. Republicans in the Senate are refusing to vote for a budget unless there is CEQA "litigation reform." The Republicans insist that global warming should not be a CEQA issue until the state adopts regulations implementing AB 32, last year's greenhouse gas reduction bill. Check out the Republican press release, "CEQA Litigation Reform Protects Taxpayers." Democratic Sen. President Pro Tem Don Perata counters that Republicans are only trying to protect "developers and oil refineries." Check out his press release, "I Will Not Bargain On California's Environment." I haven't a clue who might win this one. Both sides appear to have their heels dug in pretty well, and Gov. Schwarzenegger, who appears more estranged from his party all the time, is not even in town. What is clear, though, is that the sides recognize the stakes. The pro-development side argues that if global warming becomes a routine item for CEQA consideration, the environmental review process is going to get more complicated, longer and more expensive. The pro-environment side argues that such considerations would encourage projects that rely less on automobiles, which generate most of the greenhouses gases in California, and that fewer auto-dominated projects would be a good thing for multiple reasons. Yes, this really is a big deal. Too bad such an important policy consideration is caught up in secret negotiations and party politics. - Paul Shigley

So not everybody thinks downtown Long Beach is a better place than downtown L.A. But at least everybody agrees Fresno has the worst big-city downtown in California. We stirred things up recently when we ranked California's big-city downtowns . People in Long Beach loved us, while advocates of the new urban scene in L.A. were not happy. "How could anyone be so ignorant as to rank downtown Long Beach, which is like a northern extension of suburban Orange County, ahead of the downtown in the country's second largest city?" No one, however, has quibbled with our listing of downtown Fresno as the worst. No one. Poor Fresno. Now CP&DR is taking the next step: We're scrutinizing the downtowns in California's mid-sized cities. These are some of the most enjoyable downtowns anywhere — the sort of districts that planners take photos of while on vacation so they can show their city council back home. Think Santa Barbara and Pasadena. But are the downtowns in those ballyhooed and extremely expensive cities really the best? What mid-sized city might be commonly overlooked? What city is on the right track toward downtown greatness thanks to effective planning and thoughtful development? Conversely, what mid-sized city has a hopeless case for a downtown? Tell us what you think via comments at the bottom of this blog, emails or phone calls. If you speak up now, you just might influence the list that we intend to release in a few weeks. - Paul Shigley

Mathematicians often take delight in Cat's Cradle, the age-old game of making string figures on one's fingers. In the most familiar form of this game, one person starts out with a simple rectangle of yarn or string, and then makes a simple figure by looping different parts of the yarn around his or her fingers. This figure is then passed to the fingers of a second player, who introduces another layer of complexity into the figure before passing the increasingly complex string figure to a third player. And so on, until the figure becomes so complex that it becomes impossible to go further, at least with a two-foot length of yarn. Cat's Cradle is being used here as an analogy, admittedly an artsy one, to describe two different kinds of suburban planning. These two planning types – let's call them the ideal new urbanist village and the "builder vernacular" mixed-use neighborhood — do not look like one another, at least at first glance. The new urbanist village, in the hands of artists like Peter Calthorpe or Stefanos Polyzoides, is often a handsome design. Owing something to the traditions of the French Ecole des Beaux Arts, these designs set up a hierarchy of bigger spaces and major avenues that are broken down into smaller spaces and smaller streets. The intent is to create a sense of pervasive order that, in the minds of the most idealistic practitioners, gets translated into social order. In the builder vernacular version of the urban village, such as the 493-acre Fancher Creek project in southeast Fresno, the site plan would not end up under glass on your wall, unless you were a land developer or a home builder. Elegant it is not. This is the image of land as commodity, even if the land parcels are not subdivided into neat, regular blocks the way the old-time commodifiers did during the 1800s. The red ink-blot on the left-hand side of the plan will be a shopping center, while the pink triangle on the right will be a commercial-industrial park. The squidgy blue parts in the middle are housing; Centex Homes is already developing two subdivisions in Fancher Creek. The yellow rectangles represent schools, one existing and one planned. The pink rectangle at the bottom center of the plan, which is the most promising part of the plan, is a mixed-use shopping district. Although this area has not yet been planned, it might be reasonable to expect some loft housing, perhaps some live-work units, some retail-and-office hybrids and the like. Hopefully, social services—the dentists, doctors, child-care agencies and marriage counselors—may find places to work in this quadrangle. One disappointment of the plan is the relatively small amount of open space – a tiny park that serves as a buffer between an existing school and the mixed-use quadrant, and a second park that serves as a similar buffer between Fancher Creek (the actual waterway) and the existing neighborhood of labyrinthine suburban streets. (One good way to haze a new UPS driver would be to send him on deliveries in this neighborhood.) Another letdown of the plan is the minimal acknowledgement of the natural waterway, which many planners and landscape architects would seize upon as an organizing device, as well as a way to create a linear park that connects to larger parks along the way. Here, the creek serves little purpose beyond providing a natural barrier between new retail development and the existing neighborhood, or providing further separation between the new master-planned development and older housing. Those objections aside, this is a very workable plan that preserves most of the virtues that the new urbanists like to crow about: Residents can walk to shopping and services. Children in a majority of households can walk to a park without crossing a major arterial. (The exception is the baseball/community park, sequestered north of busy Belmont Avenue.) And the "four-corners" intersection of Fancher Creek Scenic Drive and Fowler Avenue would be a great place for a transit station, if one is not already planned. The new urbanist crowd may not be wowed by the curving configuration of residential streets with their many cul-de-sacs. Yet a close look at the neighborhood suggests that traffic planning has been done thoughtfully to allow neighborhood functions such as driving to school or the market to occur primarily on neighborhood roads, while regional traffic is held at bay on the periphery of the project. As future regional destinations, the shopping center and the "office-technology-industrial park" belong on the outer edges, where their potential traffic and air-quality impacts will have minimal effect on Fancher Creek residents. The closer one looks at the Fancher Creek site plan, in fact, the more it resembles an old-fashioned, hierarchal layout: The neighborhood-serving retail and services are in the middle, while the first concentric circle is made up of housing and schools. In the outermost circle are the big, "regional destination" shopping center and the tech park. The priorities, for the most part, are in the right order. For all its clumsiness, Fancher Creek could shape up to be a viable, mixed-use neighborhood. The obvious problem is that there is no necessary relationship between the employment centers and the residential neighborhoods. The unfortunate likelihood is that Fancher Creek homeowners will get in their cars and drive through hot, dusty streets of Fresno to far-away jobs, while other suburbanites will schlep from distant places to jobs in the pink triangle adjacent to Highway 180. That's not the fault of Fancher Creek's developers, a local venture of Fresno developers Tom Richards and Ed Kashian. The fault lies with lawmakers who preach the doctrine of jobs-housing balance but fail to encourage a stronger spatial connection between residence and employment. Klutzy or not, Fancher Creek is a big improvement on the previous suburban model, and may even turn out to be a good place to live.

OK, I'm totally obsessed with www.walkscore.com . This is one of those Google map manipulations – created by three Seattle residents – that allows you to plug in any address and get a walkability score of that location somewhere between 0 and 100. (It also shows you a map of all the businesses and services in close proximity to your address.) It's obsession-inducing because, if you're a place-oriented person, it isn't long before you are plugging in the address of everywhere you've ever lived or worked, along with the address of your siblings, cousins, ex-girlfriends, etc. The result is kind of a Rorschach test of place and pedestrian orientation. I discovered, for example, that I have never lived in a residence with less than 60 score (kind of walkable) and mostly I've lived in places with scores in the 70s and 80s (very walkable). The lone exception was the suburban home where I lived when I was married, which scored a 2! But it's illuminating if, like those of us around here, you're a planner who thinks constantly about what makes people walk versus what makes them drive. Because the scores are based entirely on the proximity of the address to a variety of businesses and services – such as grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, movie theaters, libraries, drug stores, fitness centers, and so forth. Walkscore doesn't account for urban design. If there's a river or a freeway in between you and that coffee shop a quarter-mile away, that doesn't count. If there is 43% slope uphill to get to the grocery store, that doesn't count either. This "flattened" approach to location really highlights one of the burning issues in planning: Is it services and functions that make people walk, or urban design? Planners and designers often seem to favor urban design, whereas economists and other skeptics tend to say it's proximity to businesses and services. It appears that the answer, not surprisingly, is both. Los Angeles is a great example of this dichotomy. L.A. is very densely built and things are in extremely close proximity to one another, but because of wide arterials and other barriers, you often can't get there from here on foot. Valley Vista Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, for example, scores a 72. But if you look at the resulting map, you'll see all the nearby businesses and services line Ventura Boulevard. You may or may not be able to actually walk to all those locations. So, Walkscore highlights the challenge of urban development in California: All the stuff is close-by, so how do you rig things up so you don't actually have to drive? PS: The Solimar office scores a 94. That means we're in a "Walker's Paradise," according to Walkscore. Of course, our score is helped by the following facts: • The nearest bar is conveniently located in the front of our building; • The nearest restaurant is the Burger King across the street; and • "The Adult Store," located three blocks away, counts as a bookstore. - Bill Fulton

One city's municipal services agreement with an Indian tribe has survived a legal challenge while another city's agreement has been struck down by an appellate court. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld Hesperia's municipal services agreement (MSA) with the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. The agreement called for the city to provide police, fire, water and sewer services to the tribe's proposed casino, which would be within the city limits. The court rejected arguments that the MSA violated the Community Redevelopment Law's prohibition on providing assistance to a casino. Meanwhile, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected the City of Plymouth's MSA with the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. That deal called for the city to provide water, sewer and fire service, and to turn over a road to the tribe, which also intends to build a casino. The Third District ruled that the MSA should have undergone environmental review because it committed the city to certain actions. The MSAs have been controversial in both cities, perhaps more so in Plymouth, where voters recalled three elected officials because of the deal. In both cases, the tribes have asked the secretary of the interior to accept lands acquired by the tribes into trust so that the tribes may develop casinos. The City Council in the high desert city of Hesperia approved the MSA with the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe four years ago. Hesperia's redevelopment agency is a party to the MSA, as the proposed casino would be built inside the redevelopment project area. Casino opponents gathered enough signatures to force a referendum election on the agreement, but voters upheld the MSA. Hesperia Citizens for Responsible Development then sued the city, arguing that it had violated the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code § 33000 et seq.) and had unlawfully surrendered the city's sovereign authority. San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Stanford Reichert ruled for the city, a decision upheld by a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division One. Health and Safety Code § 33426.5 prohibits redevelopment agencies from assisting "directly or indirectly" any business that involves gambling. Citizens argued that the redevelopment agency was providing assistance by endorsing the tribe's application to the secretary of interior and by ceding land use control and revenue to the tribe. The court rejected the arguments. While the city itself might provide assistance to the tribe, the redevelopment agency would not, as the agency does not provide water, sewer, police or fire services. "There is nothing in § 33426.5 that suggests that redevelopment agencies cannot be parties to contracts in which other governmental entities provide assistance to gaming entities," Justice Cynthia Aaron wrote for the court. Any loss of control or revenue, Aaron continued, would be a function of the property becoming trust land for the tribe, not of the MSA. The court also rejected arguments that the city should have insisted that the tribe abide by redevelopment law mandates, such as setting aside 20% of tax increment for affordable housing and adopting non-discrimination policies. "Citizens has not identified any obligation in the Community Redevelopment Law that requires the agency to insist on such terms for all developments occurring within a redevelopment area," Aaron wrote. As for the city relinquishing authority, the court again determined that any loss of authority would be the result of the land going into trust, not of the MSA. The lawsuit over the Plymouth MSA was different. In 2004, the council in the small Sierra foothills town agreed to provide water, sewer and fire service, and to abandon a road where the Ione Band's proposed casino and hotel would be located. In exchange, the tribe agreed to pay the city $5.85 million in one-time fees and infrastructure costs, and $3 million annually for maintenance and service. Several months later, voters recalled the mayor and two councilmembers who supported the MSA. In addition, Amador County and a group called No Casino in Plymouth sued, contending that the MSA was subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Judge Glenn Ritchey Jr., a retired Stanislaus County Superior Court judge, ordered the city to set aside the MSA because it had not undergone environmental review. The reconstituted City Council declined to pursue an appeal, so the Ione Band took up the appeal. The tribe offered numerous arguments that the MSA was not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA, and that the city's adoption of the MSA was not approval of a project. The tribe argued that the MSA was simply an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and a city government, which is expressly not subject to CEQA. The court disagreed. The MSA committed the city to building sewer and water connections, remodeling a fire station so that it may be staffed 24 hours, and vacating a road. Those are activities that "could produce a physical change in the environment subject to CEQA," the unanimous three-judge panel ruled. The court rejected the tribe's contention that the casino (or "gaming development") was the project, not the MSA. "The public works and road vacation constitute a project subject to CEQA and the MSA constitutes the approval or contingent approval of the project," Justice Coleman Blease wrote. "That the tribe could itself provide the municipal services required by the gaming development is irrelevant so long as the MSA is in effect." According to Third District, the MSA is not like the memorandum of understanding that the City of Rohnert Park signed with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and which was upheld as exempt from CEQA in Worthington v. City Council of Rohnert Park , (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1132 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , October 2005). The Rohnert Park MOU called for the tribe to make "voluntary contributions" to the community in exchange for the city not opposing a proposed casino. In addition, the MOU did not obligate the city to undertake specific construction projects, and the agreement acknowledged that CEQA review might be required if the city were to provide infrastructure. In addition, the statute (Government Code § 12012.40) excluding city-tribe agreements from CEQA only applies when a tribe has signed a compact with the state and the federal government has taken lands into trust for the tribe. Neither has occurred for the Ione Band, the court noted. Another lawsuit over the proposed casino is just getting started. Earlier this year, Amador County sued the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs for approving the Ione Band's status as a "restored tribe." The county requested that the bureau halt consideration of the tribe's land request. First Case: Hesperia Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of Hesperia , No D049614, 07 C.D.O.S. 6245, 2007 DJDAR 8069. Filed May 30, 2007. The Lawyers: For Hesperia Citizens: C. Robert Ferguson, (909) 482-0782. For the city: William Hauck, Covington & Crowe, (909) 983-9393. Second Case: County of Amador v. City of Plymouth , No. C050066, 07 C.D.O.S. 4140, 2007 DJDAR 5253. Filed April 17, 2007. Modified May 10, 2007 at 2007 DJDAR 6643. The Lawyers: For the county: Martha Jeanne Shaver, county counsel, (209) 223-6366. For the Ione Band of Miwok Indians: Paul Workman, Holland & Knight, (213) 896-2400.

Two recent court decisions have helped clear the way for the largest water transfer ever contemplated in the United States: 300,000 acre-feet of water from the Imperial Irrigation District to San Diego, Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. In a federal court lawsuit, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 exempted a water canal improvement project from federal environmental laws. The lining project is necessary to preserve water that would be transferred to San Diego. In state court, the Third District Court of Appeal threw out on technical grounds a suit filed by Imperial County that contended the environmental impact report for the water transfers was inadequate. The court determined that Imperial County did not name two "indispensable parties" when it filed the lawsuit. The federal court litigation over environmental issues turned on the 274-page omnibus tax bill passed in December 2006 by a lame-duck Congress. The bill contained a "rider" that requires the secretary of interior to carry out "without delay" the lining of the All American Canal "notwithstanding any other provision of law." The canal carries water from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley. According to the Ninth Circuit, the budget act made moot the legal challenges filed by environmentalists and Mexican nationals based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Project opponents contend that lining the canal with concrete will destroy habitat and farms that are sustained by seepage from the earthen canal. "If Congress had intended for the lining project to proceed under the usual course of administrative proceedings, it would have been unnecessary for Congress to act at all," Circuit Court Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "The environmental challenges would have been resolved in due course. However, proceeding along the usual course of resolving environmental disputes would be inconsistent with the Bureau of Reclamation proceeding ‘without delay' ‘upon the enactment of this Act.'" The lining project involves replacing 23 miles of earthen canal with a concrete-lined channel. Lining that portion of the 82-mile-long canal would prevent about 67,000 acre-feet of water (enough to serve about 140,000 housing units) from seeping away into the ground. That amount of water would then be transferred from the Imperial Irrigation District to San Diego County, which is funding the project. The $300 million lining project and the water transfer are part of a larger 2003 Colorado River agreement involving numerous states, water purveyors and the federal government. The litigation decided by the Ninth Circuit was filed by a Mexican community group, two environmental organizations and the City of Calexico against the United States. Numerous water agencies intervened as defendants. The Mexican group, the environmental groups and Calexico argued that the project's environmental impact statement was inadequate under NEPA. The environmental groups also contended that other environmental laws were being violated. All of the plaintiffs complained that the lining project would dry up groundwater sources that serve farms and wetlands south of the border. The government argued that the 2006 budget act made the environmental claims moot, and that the court had no jurisdiction over the other claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed. If the court upheld the environmental claims, it would delay commencement of the lining project — in violation of the 2006 budget act, the court ruled. The plaintiffs argued that the act itself is unconstitutional because it requires action by the state, dictates the outcome of a pending judicial case and denies Latinos fundamental rights. The court, however, quickly dismissed those arguments. The court said that due process and takings claims filed by the Mexican group should be directed to the Court of Federal Claims. Other arguments seeking to block the project are barred by the federal government's sovereign immunity, the Ninth Circuit concluded. In state court, Imperial County attempted to argue that the annual transfer of 200,000 acre-feet of water to San Diego County Water Authority and 100,000 acre-feet to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Coachella Valley Water District would have impacts not adequately addressed in an environmental impact report. The county contends the transfers would harm the local economy and environment. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Roland Candee threw out the suit because the county initially failed to name the Met and the Coachella district. The original lawsuit named only the State Water Resources Control Board, the Imperial Irrigation District and the San Diego agency. On appeal, the county made numerous arguments as to why the lawsuit should go forward and why the Met and the Coachella district were not named in the suit until after the California Environmental Quality Act statute of limitations had passed. The Third District, however, upheld the lower court. The court determined that the Met and the Coachella district have "differing and possibly conflicting interests" from the other parties in the lawsuit and, therefore, the Met's and Coachella's interests may not be adequately represented. In addition, Imperial County may press its claims in other state litigation over the water transfer, ruled the court, which rejected the county's reasons for failing to name the entities in the first place. Additional litigation is pending in Sacramento County Superior Court and in federal court. Federal Case: Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States , No. 06-16345, 07 C.D.O.S. 3658. Filed April 7, 2007. Some of the Lawyers: For Consejo de Desarrollo: Gaylord Smith, Lewis, Brisbord, Bisgaard & Smith, (619) 233-1006. For Desert Citizens Against Pollution: Gideon Kracov, (213) 629-2071. For the San Diego County Water Authority: Daniel Hentschke, (858) 522-6791. State Case: County of Imperial v. Superior Court , No. C048984, 07 C.D.O.S. 6883, 2007 DJDAR 8843. Filed June 14, 2007. Some of the Lawyers: For the county: Antonio Rossmann, Rossmann & Moore, (415) 861-1401. For the state Water Resources Control Board: Matthew Goldman, attorney general's office, (916) 324-4223. For Imperial Irrigation District: David Osias, Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, (619) 233-1155.