The Art and Economics of Building Green Friday, December 12, 9am-4:30pm UCLA Extension at Figueroa Courtyard 261 S. Figueroa St., Room 107 Los Angeles, California Urban Planning 891 0.6 CEU $350 Reg# U6078U 6 hours of MCLE credit available. (Fee includes refreshments and course materials. After November 28, fee increases to $375.) Concern about climate change as a result of greenhouse gas emissions is becoming a major driver of public policy. Since buildings and transportation contribute the major share of greenhouse gas emissions, everyone involved in planning and development will be challenged to change the way they do business. Despite CEQA, standard development practices cause major negative impacts on the environment including wasteful consumption of scarce natural resources, significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions, major contributions to landfill, and harmful impact on occupant health. Growing recognition of these impacts has led planners, architects, engineers, developers, and the greater public to explore how to integrate new sustainable planning, design, construction and operational practices for development and infrastructure. In its broadest definition, "sustainability" applies to three inter-related components: environment, economy, and equity (or, social well-being). Without considering this real triple bottom line, what kind of future are we building for our children? The need for sustainable development has gained increased publicity and credence as policy makers and the public focus on global warming and legislative mandates for the reduction of greenhouse gases. One of the critical tools helping to educate, shape and measure the movement towards achieving meaningful advances in sustainable design is the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) rating and certification program developed by the U.S. Green Building Council to address New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors and Neighborhood Development. Increasingly public institutions, major corporations and developers are stepping up to meet the challenge of LEED certification and discovering that it is possible to do well by doing good. This seminar will review the importance of sustainability and discuss land development, building design, infrastructure, and landscape practices that are being implemented by municipalities and developers in project design and construction. The economics and realities of these practices will be discussed from the perspective of planner/urban designer, architect and developer. No refund after December 5. Seminar SpeakersWoodie Tescher , Principal Technical Professional/Planning + Urban Design, PBS&J , has managed General Plans for many communities, and won awards for those in Los Angeles, Newport Beach, Corona, West Hollywood, Huntington Beach, and San Clemente. His collaboration with Kate Diamond for the City of San Gabriel Valley Boulevard Neighborhoods Sustainability Plan has been honored by SCAG as the recipients of the Compass Blueprint Award for Visionary Planning for Sustainability. Kate Diamond , FAIA Principal, NBBJ , is an award-winning architect with more than 30 years of experience in both private sector and public institutional projects, joined NBBJ's Seattle office in the fall of 2006 as a Design Principal/Lead Designer with a focus on commercial and civic projects in the context of city making. Prior to joining NBBJ, Kate spent 5 years as the Design Principal of RNL's Los Angeles Office and prior to that she built a strong design reputation as Principal and Lead Designer of her own practice, Siegel Diamond Architecture. Kate has designed multiple sustainable projects that have achieved LEED ratings of certified, silver and gold. To enroll Call (310) 825 - 9971 or go to http://www.uclaextension.edu/ * For more information please call (310) 825-7885

Copia – the $80 million wine, food and arts center that was supposed to help anchor downtown Napa's revitalization – has closed and filed for bankruptcy. This is an unfortunate turn of events, but it's not overly surprising. (Read the details on the Napa Valley Register and the Sacramento Bee .) Inspired and partially funded by Robert Mondavi, Copia: The American Center for Wine, Food and the Arts was intended to educate people about wine and food, serve as a cultural and artistic center, cement Napa Valley's place in the wine world and spur further rejuvenation of a marginal downtown. But the place struggled since it opened in 2001 and I maintain it was largely because of the location. Napa Valley is hallowed ground for the wine industry. The narrow valley has some of the best wineries and grows some of the highest quality grapes in the world. But Napa the city, located at the southern end of the valley, has long been a blue collar town. For many years, Napa's fortunes were more closely tied to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard (which closed in 1996) than to the wine industry, which was centered in St. Helena and Yountville. Everyone drives right on through Napa to get to the wineries. Napa civic leaders have worked tirelessly to revitalize a downtown that used to roll up the sidewalks no later than 6 o'clock, and they have had some success. There are new restaurants, wine tasting rooms, hotels, day spas and a restored opera house. What is now called the Oxbow neighborhood – an extension of the historic downtown – has evolved a great deal since Copia opened in 2001. A 160-unit Westin Verasa resort recently opened, joining the fabulous, year-old Oxbow Public Market and other new attractions. A Ritz-Carlton is proposed. But Copia never drew the expected crowds. Of the 5 million visitors to the Napa Valley each year, Copia attracted maybe 2%. Some people blamed the prices, some people said it was dull, some people said they couldn't figure out what the place was about. I go back to the old real estate saw: Location, location, location. Copia would be thriving if it were located in Yountville or St. Helena, two cities that visiting wine lovers and foodies know well. The great irony, though, is that Copia appears to have done at least one thing right. Downtown Napa may now be healthy enough to withstand the closure. – Paul Shigley

No president in more than 40 years has been better positioned to reshape American urban policy than Barack Obama. But the new president faces three challenges in dealing with urban policy. First, Obama must focus most of his domestic policy attention on reviving the economy, so he'll have to wrap urban policy inside his approach to the economy. Second, in order to succeed, Obama must tackle a broad range of policy issues that deal with human settlements, not only central cities. He will have to find a way to incorporate transportation, economic development, housing, environmental protection, and a whole host of other things into an "urban" policy that is really about suburbs as well as cities. And third, he's going to have to reshape urban policy without any money – or, at least, by using the money already in the budget in different and more creative ways. Not since Lyndon Johnson has a president appeared so focused on urban America. Johnson was forced into action by the urban riots of the 1960s. Not only did he create the "Great Society" federal programs, he also consolidated federal housing and urban programs into the Department of Housing and Urban Development – then an agency central to the federal government but now considered an underfunded backwater. Obama comes from a more urban setting – the South Side of Chicago – than any president in American history. On its face, his resume is that of not of a president-elect but that of the HUD secretary. Given his background as a community organizer, traditional HUD issues, such as urban poverty and local economic development in poor neighborhoods, clearly have great meaning to Obama. Indeed, one of Obama's first announcements after the election was the creation of an Office of Urban Policy in the White House. But even this move – intended to show quickly and decisively that urban policy is important to Obama – underscores the challenges the new president faces, especially in integrating different federal programs and using urban policy to reach metropolitan-wide issues, not simply HUD-style issues of central cities. The pervasive federal role in planning and development derives from a vast number of federal activities in many different agencies. By linking all these activities together, a president such as Obama could have enormous influence over growth patterns in communities all over the nation and everyday activities that result from those growth patterns. Ultimately, Obama's record will probably be shaped not by HUD-type programs – which amount to a tiny amount of money in the federal context – but by how he wields the federal government's Big Carrot and Big Stick. The HUD programs are very important to central cities, but other programs have broader significance to how human settlements are organized across the landscape. The Big Carrot is the federal transportation program – a carrot that, frankly, has not been so big lately. Funded by federal gas tax revenues, transportation spending is probably the biggest-ticket item available to Obama in shaping communities. In the campaign, Obama picked up on the agenda long pushed by the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, which calls for coordinated federal spending on transportation infrastructure projects to reinforce metropolitan economies (see CP&DR Insight , October 2008 ). However, the current federal program is overbooked – largely because gas tax revenues have been flat. So Obama's biggest opportunity here would be the big "public works" program currently being pushed by congressional Democrats – about $60 billion to $100 billion. This money could set the tone for growth patterns nationwide, but there will be tremendous pressure to spend it immediately for projects that states and regions already have in the hopper. Caltrans Director Will Kempton said the other day he has $1 billion in projects ready to go. Such a rush would seem to increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood of pork-barrel spending. How Obama will use the Big Stick – federal environmental policy – is a little harder to discern. Most of the policy work done by his campaign focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and on energy policy. It's clear that these will be his highest environmental priorities, and he is likely to be deeply influenced by recent California experience on both, whether or not he appoints Californians such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols to his cabinet. A greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program seems inevitable with Obama as president. But many questions remain unanswered. Such a program could provide the largest new revenue source for the federal government in a long time. Will Obama follow conventional thinking and push that money back into "clean coal" and alternative fuels? Or will he follow the smart growth party line and put more of the money into public transit and other actions that could alter growth patterns and reduce overall driving? Indeed, will Obama attempt to address the question of driving head-on – as the California greenhouse gas debate has suggested is necessary – or will he focus instead on technological fixes? A frontal assault on driving would be politically unpopular, but Obama could instead use the federal levers at the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and even the Interior Department to create powerful federal incentives for compact development patterns. The rest of Obama's campaign environmental positions – on wetlands, land and water conservation, and the like – were little more than conventional Democratic boilerplate. But Obama will face significant challenges on these fronts once in office, thanks in large part to the legacy of President Bush. The Bush Administration has devoted a lot of effort, for example, to weakening the Endangered Species Act administratively, especially through last-minute "midnight rules." Finally, there's economic development. In more ordinary times, this would mean a discussion of how Obama would approach the Commerce Department and, especially, the Economic Development Administration. But these are not ordinary times. Obama has made it clear that the economy is his highest priority, and "economic development" will clearly mean a wide range of policies. These could extend from a new approach to financial markets at the Treasury Department to additional encouragement for alternative and clean energy at the Department of Energy (which Obama, like all Democrats, touts as a major economic opportunity) to a revised strategy at the Commerce Department. Obama's early actions also suggest that he is trying to grapple with the age-old federal question of how to get the executive branch all moving in the same direction. It's not clear yet whether the Office of Urban Policy will focus only on cities or, instead, on broader metropolitan issues, which is the Obama policy position. The latter approach would make the Office of Urban Policy an interagency clearinghouse. His decision to appoint Tom Daschle as both the Health and Human Services secretary and a White House advisor on health care suggests the new president is grasping for new ways to deal with this age-old problem. There is little doubt that Obama, by nature and temperament, is America's first urban president. The question is whether he will be an effective urban president who can move the entire federal government in one direction.

Dear Miss California Planning, My name is City of Ontario, but if you print my letter, could you kindly change my name to something more anonymous like … Ms. C. of O.? (I want to avoid the prying eyes of sarcastic journalists, who like nothing more than to snark at young, vulnerable, economically viable cities.) Here's my question: Do you think I've done anything wrong? I realize that what I did was very unusual, especially for a California city with a population of 173,000 on the western end of San Bernardino County. I have been told that I have behaved forwardly, even to the point, and here I hold my breath, of being "innovative." That kind of talk frightens me. At the same time, the very thought of my deed fills me with pleasure. And yet I lie awake tormented, asking: Have I done the right thing? I keep going over in my mind every detail of the plan, looking for some flaw or fatal wrinkle—and yet I can't find one! It's all too perfect. I must tell you now, or I will burst: I have built a $150 million hockey stadium entirely with my own money, and I did so without selling bonds or going into debt. I sold land to a developer to raise the money! There, I said it. And that's not all: I continue to own the arena and I'm going to rake in $12 million a year, or possibly more, on this baby. It's not just hockey, mind you, as much as I love to watch large men swatting each other with their enormous arm guards. (Swooners!) No, the sports facility is only the centerpiece of a 92-acre, mixed-use development being built by the Panatonni Corporation of Sacramento, with housing, retail and restaurants, known as Piemonte. (That's pronounced pee-MON-tay, by the way, not PIE-monty.) And the arena itself, far from being only for hockey, will double as a concert venue for name-brand concert attractions like … oh, what's their names? Bruce Sticksteen? The Dixey Lips? Puff Diddle, the predominant hip-hug artist? (Note to self before mailing letter: Check those spellings. His first name might be Bryce.) My sole tenant will be a billionaire corporation known as AEG (for Anschutz Entertainment Group) of Denver, Colorado. Mr. Philip Anschutz, who cut his teeth in railroad real estate, is just the smartest man in the world. He is the largest owner of movie screens in the country and claims to be the second largest concert promoter. Mr. Anschutz is also the owner or co-owner of sports teams, including the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer club and the newly minted Ontario Reign. (As in Inland Empire. Get it?) Mr. Anschutz is also a very fine developer who is currently building the splendiferous LA Live, a theater-sports-nightclub-hotel-restaurant extravaganza right in the heart of downtown L.A. We like to think of the Piemonte project as a small-scale version of LA Live. It's like the mini-SUV version. You may think that I'm a ditz, but I've got a head for business. The hockey team will pay us $1 million a year in rent. In addition, Ontario – I mean, Ms. C. of O. – stands to make an additional $11 million in tax increment and sales tax revenue from the entire Piemonte project. And that's not a shabby return on investment. Wouldn't you do the same if you were in my shoes? Still, I fret. Will journalists, especially Mr. You-Know-Who (he knows who he is) ridicule me for building a sports arena for a multi-billionaire who could buy the City of Ontario and still have enough left over to buy the Texas-Sized Breakfast at Mama's Daughter's Diner in Dallas? Oh, please, tell me what should I do? – Inwardly Troubled in the Inland Empire Dear Ms. C. of O., Please put your pretty little business head to rest. You have done nothing wrong. You are, in fact, the envy of all the cities around you. Not only are you job-rich, but you are also rich in land, which gives you the ability to wangle deals such as Hockey Heaven in Piemonte. Yes, your business decision was audacious, almost unprecedented. Building a stadium for cash? Whoever heard of that? Plus, it must be acknowledged that many cities who build sports facilities or offer big cash incentives to team owners often come to regret it. (Think of another city whose name begins with "O".) In fact, your act would have been reckless, foolhardy and downright ill-informed if you hadn't lined up that guaranteed rental income of $1 million a year. (Many cities with minor league hockey charge a lot less in rent for an 11,000-seat facility.) Don't worry about fuddy-duddies, much less journalists, scolding you for building palaces for rich people. You know perfectly well what you're doing. The hockey-retail juggernaut is a brilliant play for the city: The games bring in couples who stroll before the puck drops, and then eat and drink afterwards, then stroll and buy a magazine or a mystery, then have a late-night coffee before going home. At which point, those older than 35 lie in bed and read their magazines. With your comparatively high median household income of $55,589, it's a win-win-win for the developer, the sports-team owner and the smarter-than-average city. The only losers are sore-heads, hockey haters and fiscal sticks-in-the-mud. Plus, those pesky journalists, who like nothing better than to drive your publicists clean out of their minds. If I were you, honey, I would ignore all of them. You're on the road to riches. Who cares what anybody thinks? – Miss California Planning P.S. Can you possibly snag some complimentary golden circle tix to the Sticksteen show? Hubby's a big fan.

A referendum on a redevelopment plan for San Francisco's Bayview and Hunters Point districts will not appear on the ballot. The First District Court of Appeal upheld a Superior Court judge's ruling that referendum proponents violated elections law by not including a copy of the redevelopment plan in referendum petitions. The referendum petition contained the ordinance adopting the plan, but the ordinance was mostly a series of findings. All of the key ingredients – such as boundaries, eminent domain provisions, affordable housing and community development components – were in the plan, the court noted. Without being able to review the plan itself, petition signers would not understand what was at issue, the court concluded. " he focus and substance of the challenged measure was found in the text of the plan which, although incorporated by reference in the ordinance, was not attached to or included in the petition," Justice Sandra Margulies wrote for the court. This was a violation of the Elections Code. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the plan for the Bayview Hunters Point project area in mid-2006 after 10 years of planning and community outreach. The plan covers about 1,300 acres east of Highway101, near Candlestick Point. The area is largely African-American and one of the city's poorest. The plan devotes 50% of redevelopment tax increment to affordable housing, limits use of eminent domain, and emphasizes localized economic development and community enhancements (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , September 2006 ). Bayview Hunters Point residents, however, have been skeptical of the city's intentions, fearing the city sought to gentrify the area at the expense of existing residents. After supervisors approved the redevelopment plan, a group called Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee (DBHPC) circulated referendum petitions and gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. However, in September 2006, City Attorney Dennis Herrera advised the city clerk that the petition did not comply with Elections Code § 9238, which requires that each referendum petition contain "the text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum." The city clerk notified the DBHPC that she would not accept the petition. Referendum advocates went to court, but San Francisco Superior Court Judge Patrick Mahoney ruled for the city. On appeal, DBHPC argued that Judge Mahoney had misconstrued § 9238 and relevant case law. The group argued that prior court rulings proved the group did not have to attach a document that was merely incorporated by reference in the ordinance to be voted on, nor did the group have to include an exhibit that was not physically attached to the ordinance. In rejecting these arguments, the First District undertook an extensive discussion of the earlier cases. In Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt , (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 159, the state Supreme Court upheld the state's decision not to include the full text of the general bond law when placing a water bond on the ballot. The court accepted the state's approach because the omitted material was an existing law that would remain in place and because the general bond law "was entirely peripheral to the substance and purpose" of the water bond, Margulies explained. The situation with the redevelopment referendum was different. In three appellate court cases, courts blocked referenda because the petitions lacked crucial exhibits of the ordinances in question. (The cases: Billig v. Voges , (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 926; Chase v. Brooks , (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 657; Nelson v. Carlson , (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 732.) " Billig , Chase and Nelson all found that exhibits incorporated into ordinances are part of the ‘text' of the ordinance for referendum petition purposes," Margulies wrote. The DBHPC argued that none of the cases involved an exhibit that was not physically attached to the ordinance, but the court said physical attachment was unimportant. In all of the cases, courts ruled "that lengthy or highly technical documents may not be omitted from the petition if they provide necessary information for prospective signers," Margulies wrote. "Here, the critical text enacted into law by the ordinance was the text of the plan, not the printed words of the ordinance. The plan supplied vital information about the effect of the ordinance, including the boundaries of the redevelopment project area, the allowed use of and limitations on eminent domain, the development of affordable housing, the promotion of jobs and business opportunities for local residents, and the community's role in the planning process," Margulies continued. "We don't hold here that all documents a local legislative body chooses to incorporate by reference in or attach to an ordinance must be included in a referendum petition. We hold only that when a central purpose of the ordinance is to adopt and enact into law the contents of an incorporated or attached document, a referendum petition of the ordinance does not satisfy Elections Code § 9238 unless it includes a copy of that document," Margulies explained. The court rejected the argument that its interpretation of the statute would burden DBHPC's free speech by requiring petition circulators to carry around huge stacks of paper. " he state's interest in ensuring that prospective signers understand what they are signing fully justifies the requirement," the court ruled. The Case: Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee v. City and County of San Francisco , No. A119061, 08 C.D.O.S. 13374, 2008 DJDAR 15977. Filed October 21, 2008. The Lawyers: For DBHPC: Michael A. Grob, (916) 441-0996. For San Francisco: Therese M. Stewart, city attorney's office (415) 554-4700.

SunCal Companies filed for federal bankruptcy protection for two Southern California projects in November – the Marblehead development in San Clemente and a 45-story condominium tower proposed for Los Angeles's Westside. Since the failure of Lehman Bros., which had invested about $2.5 billion in SunCal projects, the privately held Irvine-based developer has sought bankruptcy protection for about 20 projects in California. None of the other projects, however, has a history to match Marblehead's. Since the 1970s, developers have attempted to build thousands of homes, shopping centers and even the Nixon presidential library on the 250-acre bluff top site. Environmentalists and San Clemente residents successfully fended off proposals before finally reaching a compromise with the landowner, the Lusk Company. In 2003, the Coastal Commission approved a plan that designates about half the site as open space and parkland while accommodating 313 houses and a 675,000-square-foot commercial center. SunCal later bought the project and began grading in 2007, but construction has largely stopped. The 177-unit condo tower on Santa Monica Boulevard was designed by French architect Jean Nouvel and intended for upper-end buyers desiring a Westside location. In 2006, SunCal outbid Donald Trump, paying $110 million for the 2.4-acre site. Although Nouvel's drawings for a slender glass tower with greenery ringing the floors have received attention, SunCal has not gotten entitlements for the project. The Desert Hot Springs City Council has formally voted to end all consideration of the 2,000-unit Palmwood Golf Club housing and resort development and has decertified the project's environmental impact report. For years, Desert Hot Springs was a holdout in the creation of a multiple species habitat conservation plan for the Coachella Valley, largely because the plan designated the 1,700-acre Palmwood site for conservation (see CP&DR Environment Watch , April 2006 ). However, the project has run into numerous hurdles, including litigation filed by environmentalists and feuding among project investors. In addition, new Desert Hot Springs city officials changed the city's position and began negotiating into the habitat plan, which was finalized in June. Four dams on the Klamath River , including three in California's Siskiyou County, could be removed by 2020 under an "agreement in principle" signed in November by the Department of the Interior, state officials in California and Oregon, and utility company Pacificorp. Indian tribes, fishermen, local governments in Humboldt County and environmentalists have sought dam removal for years because the structures block access to historic salmon spawning grounds and alter the river's natural flow. In 2001, Klamath Basin farmers and federal officials engaged in a physical standoff when the Bureau of Reclamation wanted to release more water to aid fish. The following year, the bureau provided more water to farmers, leading to poor downstream conditions and a huge die off of salmon while they migrated upriver. Under the agreement, the federal government has until March 2012 to assess the costs and benefits of dam removal. California agreed to put up $250 million for dam removal, while Pacificorp would pay $200 million through a 2% surcharge on ratepayers. In the meantime, Pacificorp will provide an additional $500,000 annually for salmon fishery restoration measures. The ultimate dam removal and river restoration project would require the passage of legislation in Sacramento, Salem and Washington. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors is unanimously opposed to dam removal, arguing it would harm the region's economy and cost the county government more than $500,000 a year in taxes paid by Pacificorp. Westlands Water District has until January 21 to submit a plan for discharging irrigation waste. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board recently set the deadline for dealing with one of the region's most troublesome environmental concerns. Since Westlands first began providing farmers with Central Valley Project water during the early 1960, irrigation runoff has been a problem. The Bureau of Reclamation began constructing a 188-mile drain canal during the early 1970s but opposition from the Bay Area halted it in 1975 after only 85 miles had been built. The unfinished drain terminated in Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. In the 1980s, biologists determined that an epidemic of bird death and deformity at Kesterson was the result of unusually high concentrations of selenium, an element that occurs naturally in the Westlands Water District soil. Selenium was picked up by the irrigation runoff flowing from Westlands into the drain, and grew more concentrated in Kesterson as water in the refuge's shallow lake and marshes evaporated in the summer sun. The Bureau of Reclamation shut down the drain in 1986. In 2000, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Interior Department to build a drain, but nothing has happened. With nowhere to flow, irrigation runoff is raising the level of, and fouling the quality of, groundwater to the detriment of farmers, wildlife and communities that rely on wells. "We understand that the Bureau of Reclamation has the statutory duty to provide drainage service … and that your district and Reclamation have been working on a resolution of this problem," says the letter from the water quality control board. ""However, due to the magnitude of the problem and no foreseeable agreement, we must turn to your district to address this problem." Caltrans has launched a new website for the California Transportation Plan 2035. Rather than identifying projects, the CTP provides policy direction to the 44 regional transportation planning agencies. The existing CTP 2030 calls for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system. Scheduled for adoption in 2010, the new plan is expected to build on those principles while also addressing climate change. The website is www.californiatransportationplan2035.org .

The vagrants were getting aggressive while they panhandled in the parking lot between Starbucks and CVS. "Bitch!" an angry-looking man in his 40s shouted at one woman who denied his plea for spare change. A different fellow whom I turned down remained menacingly close while I opened my car door and quickly climbed inside. "Let's get the hell out of here," my friend said while jumping into the passenger seat. We were on the edge of downtown in a mid-sized California city that shall remain nameless. Like countless other places, the city's downtown began to fail decades ago, went through a period of neglect, but is making a nice rebound. Still, its recent successes have not offset a whole lot of vacant storefronts and empty sidewalks. OK, we were in Riverside – at the Starbucks on Market and Third streets, to be precise. To the north and west is the Fairmount neighborhood, an older residential area whose fortunes are closely tied to downtown. The neighborhood has some classic Southern California bungalows and craftsman homes, but maintenance is spotty. Some of the neighborhood's apartment houses look downright threatening, and a mini mart posts a full-time security guard at the front door. On a quiet Sunday morning, Starbucks provided refuge. The baristas and counter help made eye contact with every person walking through the door and offered a hearty "good morning." The place was bustling with moms pushing strollers, hipsters, a couple guys enjoying the newspaper, and people on their way to work. I'm sure a few of the latte sippers were "urban pioneers" who live in attractive new housing nearby. Essentially, this was the multi-cultural crowd that delights downtown boosters everywhere. But what about all of the angry guys outside the door demanding spare change? Who wants to put up with that all the time? Even if you're willing to tolerate, is it safe? Would you feel comfortable letting your elderly mother – or your 12-year-old daughter – catch the bus in this neighborhood? I'm not picking on Riverside. Homelessness and myriad issues related to mental illness and chemical dependency plague many cities. I have no answers. It's apparent to me that no one does. What I do know is this: A downtown that could tip in either direction has less chance of success if ordinary folks who want to grab a cup of coffee or fill a prescription have to run a gauntlet. Because, no matter how good a city's redevelopment plan is, those ordinary folks eventually will go elsewhere. That would be a shame. – Paul Shigley

When Pasadena first began to transform its moribund downtown into Southern California's premier urban destination, neighboring Glendale took a more cautious approach to urban renewal, which is to say that it did very little. Twenty-five years after Pasadena began its ascent into urban planning textbooks, Glendale, with a population of 207,000, residential neighborhoods stretching from the San Gabriel foothills to the flats of Los Angeles, and a downtown that resembles an edge city more than an Old Town, has plodded along with a decidedly conservative approach to planning. "There's no sense of arrival in Glendale," said former Pasadena development administrator Marsha Rood. "Glendale has beautiful neighborhoods and homes, but the downtown is a little too single-use driven." "They fell behind kind of missed the boat on a number of trends," said Glendale area real estate broker Roobik Ovanesian. Until now. After the recent opening of Americana at Brand, the latest ersatz-urban shopping extravaganza from developer Caruso Affiliated, Glendale is turning to a more genuine approach to the public realm. Under Director Hassan Haghani, the Glendale Planning Department is not promoting more mega-developments but rather intends to enhance existing urban character with the establishment of its own Urban Design Studio. "As a city, Glendale has been more comfortable with a slow, steady evolution without branding itself," said Principal Urban Designer Alan Loomis. The studio formally convened in May, when urban mobility expert Michael Nilsson joined a team that already included Loomis, urban designer Stephanie Reich, and historic preservationist Jay Platt. The team has been working to bridge the gap between design and planning. "The city had been struggling with a lot of issues that they had been trying to address through process and codes for two decades," Haghani said. "When you get to the bottom of it, what the communities are demanding is design-related. You need to infuse the planning field with that." Until Haghani became director early in 2007, the Planning Department had focused primarily on zoning and had little to do with aesthetics. Haghani said the new strategy not only has the support of the City Council but was mandated when the council authorized an update of the general plan in July 2007. "We wanted to use a design-based plan as a practical tool," Haghani said. "We didn't want to shoot from the hip every time." The studio is already working on a new update of the general plan in which a form-based strategy and attention to aesthetics and neighborhood context will take precedence. Loomis and his colleagues will also function as city-sponsored consultants to help developers and architects meet the new design guidelines, whether for a second-story addition, the restoration of a ranch-style house, or the next Americana. The studio intends to make the relationship between developers and the city less adversarial, more predictable, and more focused on the substance of design rather than on the complexity of codes. "The four of us all come out of consulting firms in the private sector, so we act in a very entrepreneurial, proactive way," said Loomis. "We're easier than hiring a consultant, because we're always here, when you might have to wait a couple days or a week get responses ." Haghani said early results have been mixed, depending on the type of project. "The larger projects that tend to have the more sophisticated architectural teams respond very quickly and very well," he said. "Sometimes it takes a little more work with the homeowner who wants to build a dream home to explain why we're being restrictive about design concepts." Everything except for small residential additions, minor façade remodels and buildings of less than 10,000 square feet in redevelopment areas is subject to review by one of two design review boards. Ultimate approval authority rests with the City Council. Loomis said he wants to help developers conceive of projects that will meet with approval rather than languish in negotiations and redesigns. "It's not just about streamlining the process, it's about getting a better product," said Platt. "We are challenging the architects who work here to produce better work than they might have been accustomed to when they came to Glendale five or ten years ago," said Loomis. "We're trying to push Glendale into that echelon of cities like West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena, where architects want to do their best work." Ovanesian said the design studio members will provide "a major benefit to developers" because they understand the community and the context of individual neighborhoods. New projects will be nestled within an amiable collection of Craftsman houses, postwar homes, dingbats, and commercial strips that has never had a unifying theme or a single icon around which to rally. The studio seeks to capitalize on this diversity of styles and forms by addressing design on a fine-grain, individual basis without throwing a blanket over the city's 30 square miles. "We have almost every kind of urban condition in Southern California except an airport and a beach," said Platt. "We don't have vision of what that product is going to be, and I don't think we want to have a vision of that. We want to be surprised. We want creativity to rule the day." Transportation planner Nilsson's work involves a downtown mobility plan, plus bike plans and pedestrian plans that are intended to create more intimate relationships between developments and their streets. All of these changes will be incremental, and no single one of them – even in downtown – is intended to transform the city. The biggest project in the pipeline is Verdugo Gardens, a 24-story mixed-use apartment tower slated for downtown. The real innovation may lie in the integration of urban design into the city's political culture. With the studio, Haghani and the city are making an effort to wake up the city and give it a sense of identity. This approach is something that Dana Cuff, architecture professor and director of cityLAB at UCLA, said may be the next step in the evolution of planning, as attention increasingly turns away from grand projects and greenfield development to infill and rehabilitation of the existing built environment. "My feeling is the next phase – the post-suburban phase of urbanism – is much more likely to be a designer's problem than a planner's problem," said Cuff. "When you zoom in closer, the specificity of the problems swamps abstract ideas." Contacts: Hassan Haghani and Alan Loomis, Glendale Planning Department, (818) 548-2140. Planning Department website: www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/default.asp Dana Cuff, UCLA cityLAB, (310) 794-6125. Marsha Rood, Urban Reinventions, (626) 796-6870.

A Bush administration proposal to streamline the Endangered Species Act has met with stiff opposition from California environmentalists and state Attorney General Jerry Brown. A November letter signed by Senior Assistant Attorney General Ken Alex and Deputy Attorney General Tara Mueller to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accuses the agency of "flouting the public review process" as it rushes toward "a decision apparently already reached." In August, the Department of the Interior published a proposed regulation for implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The rule would prevent greenhouse gas emissions from being considered an impact on species and their habitats. It also would eliminate the requirement that the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service independently review the impact of federally approved mining, logging and power plant projects on protected species. Instead, the agencies approving the projects would study the species impacts. Interior received roughly 300,000 comments on the proposed regulatory changes but reportedly took only four days to review comments before concluding the changes would not necessitate an environmental impact statement. One of the comment letters came from the California attorney general, who apparently felt ignored. "Despite the department's contentions and protestations that the proposed regulations are modest in breadth, scope and impact, in fact they could have profound impact on the species and habitat that the ESA is designed to protect," states the latter from Alex and Mueller. They argue the federal government must complete an environmental impact statement before adopting the regulations. Read the press release and the entire letter on the AG's office website .

California's General Plans: Crafting Sustainability, Community, and Culture Friday, December 5, 9am-4:30pm UCLA Extension at Figueroa Courtyard 261 S. Figueroa St., Room 107 Los Angeles, California Urban Planning 864.2 0.6 CEU $350 Reg# U6079U 6 hours of MCLE credit available. (Fee includes refreshments and course materials. After November 21, fee increases to $375.) Greenhouse gases. Housing generation. Ballot box planning. Smart growth, sustainability, infrastructure, and hazards management. Complex negotiations in the Legislature over general plans are being framed around increasingly complex sets of driver issues like these. While communities insist upon well-conceived, legally valid plans, they now demand plans that incorporate innovation and realism; confront growth issues; transcend "legalism" by developing effective tools for consensus; conserve character while celebrating community culture. This valuable seminar will illustrate what those plans look like and what they must contain to meet evolving State standards. The program will include both legal fundamentals and hot-button topics, recent court decisions, and each aspect of a plan's development, formulation and implementation. No refund after November 28. Seminar Speakers Steven A. Preston , FAICP, is Deputy City Manager and Community Development Director for the City of San Gabriel, overseeing planning, building and safety, economic development, housing, and public works. In addition to producing several award winning plans, Preston serves as a member of the Planning Accreditation Board, accrediting urban planning programs across the country. Elwood C. ("Woodie") Tescher , is Principal Technical Professional/ Planning and Urban Design for PBS & J in Los Angeles. He has managed General Plans for many communities, and won awards for those in Los Angeles, Corona, West Hollywood, Huntington Beach, and San Clemente. His efforts on the Newport Beach General Plan, which survived an initiative battle, were rewarded with state and national awards. To enroll Call (310) 825 - 9971 or go to http://www.uclaextension.edu/ * For more information please call (310) 825-7885

The Role of CEQA in Public Health Thursday, December 4, 9am-4:30pm UCLA Extension at Figueroa Courtyard 261 S. Figueroa St., Room 107 Los Angeles, California Law 867 0.6 CEU $350 Reg# U4830U 6 hours of MCLE credit available. (Fee includes refreshments and course materials. After November 20, fee increases to $375.) From analyzing the health effects of poor air quality defined by Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield to cutting-edge litigation over food crops, public health is emerging as a central issue to be examined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). But how are the specific risks posed by global warming, genetically engineered food, or contaminated soil to be addressed within CEQA's framework? This seminar evaluates trends concerning the hot CEQA topics of environmental setting, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures as they relate to the substantive areas of air quality, global warming, water quality, health risk assessment, and soil contamination. A panel of experts explores the hazards of reconciling CEQA's dictates with the scientific, legal, and pragmatic challenges unique to each substantive area. No refund after November 26. Seminar Speakers Margaret Moore Sohagi , JD, President, The Sohagi Law Group, PLC; recognized authority on CEQA, NEPA, impact fees, rates, and charges; primary contributor to Funding Open Space Acquisitions Programs: A Guide for Local Agencies in California; co-author of Exactions and Impact Fees in California: A Comprehensive Study Guide to Policy, Practice, and the Law Ken Bogdan , JD, is Environmental Counsel and Principal at Jones and Stokes. He specializes in analyzing issues regarding compliance with NEPA, CEQA, the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Bogdan is also co-author of The NEPA Book and the CEQA Deskbook (Solano Press) and has taught numerous NEPA, CEQA, ESA, and Wetlands Regulation courses throughout California. To enroll Call (310) 825 - 9971 or go to www.uclaextension.edu * For more information please call (310) 825-7885

Two recently released studies warn that California is not moving quickly enough to prepare for climate change, while a third study found that the San Diego region is not adapting. Meanwhile, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed an executive order directing state agencies to study the situation and recommend actions quickly. A study authored by University of California, Berkeley, researchers David Roland-Holst and Fredrich Kahrl determined that the public and private sectors face billions of dollars in annual losses if they do not prepare for extreme weather events, rising sea level and increased wildfire, and that $2.5 trillion in real estate assets will be at risk. A separate assessment prepared by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that while water agencies and electric utilities have begun to take steps to adapt to the changing climate, entities responsible for coastal resources, air quality, public health and ecosystem vitality are lagging. "To be most effective, California policymakers should develop an integrated climate policy, one that considers efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for climate change adaptation in tandem," PPIC researchers Louise Bedsworth and Ellen Hanak recommended. Both the UC Berkeley researchers, who prepared their report for the nonprofit organization Next 10, and PPIC credited the state and local entities for leading the way in mitigating climate change. However, both also urged greater research on the likely impacts of climate change and best ways to prepare. Schwarzenegger's executive order appears to be a step in the recommended direction. The order: • Directs all state agencies to begin considering immediately potential sea level rise, increased storm surges and coastal erosion between 2050 and 2100 when planning construction projects. The order exempts routine maintenance and projects planned for the next five years. • Orders Resources, the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to assess by mid-February the transportation system's vulnerability to sea level rise. • Directs OPR and Resources to "provide state land use planning guidance related to sea level rise and other climate change impacts" by May 30, 2009. • Gives Resource's existing Climate Action Team and a slew of other state agencies until June 30, 2009, to prepare a climate adaptation strategy for water, ocean and coastal resources, infrastructure, biodiversity, working landscapes and public health. This adaptation strategy "will be coordinated with California's climate change mitigation efforts." • Directs the Resources Agency, Ocean Protection Council, California Energy Commission and coastal management agencies to work with the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a sea level rise assessment, and issue a final report on the state's vulnerability by December 2010. All three independent reports cite scientific studies that predict the climate will continue to change for the next 100 years even if societies around the world begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation, however, could reduce climate change impacts. The Next 10 report, "California Climate Risk and Response," focuses on the potential economic impacts of climate change. "While multiple studies have been conducted assessing the economic impacts of scoping plan, to date, there has been limited economic analysis of California's climate risk – the impacts of climate change if the state continues business-as-usual – or of the adaptation needed to cope with unavoidable climate change," the report says. The report makes four core findings: • Damage from climate change if no action is taken could amount to tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs, and even more in indirect costs. • Mitigation and adaptation may be executed at a fraction of this cost. • The political challenges may be greater than the economic ones. • Although there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding what adjustments are needed, "policymakers must have better visibility regarding climate risk and response options." With the Sierra snow pack expected to decline by 30% to 80% toward the end of the century, and with continued population growth predicted, Roland-Holst and Kahrl say, "Effective climate response may require a complete re-appraisal of rules governing the state's water entitlements and private use." The conclusion is roughly the same for electricity production and distribution, which will be challenged by higher temperatures and more people living in warmer inland areas – both of which exacerbate the need for air conditioning. The researchers found that $500 billion of highway, sea port and airport assets are at risk. "What is needed right now is capacity at the state and local level for better assessment and incorporation of this information into strategic planning," the report concludes. "California can turn the threat of climate change into a growth opportunity with the right policy leadership." The PPIC report makes some of the same observations regarding threats, responses to date and opportunities. Bedsworth and Hanak also find that some mitigation and adaptation measures are in conflict. For example, water recycling and desalination are adaptations to a less stable water supply, but they increase energy usage. "Conversely," the researchers write, "planting shade trees can lower home cooling needs, but this may come at the expense of higher water use. Similar water issues can arise for biofuels production." Called "Preparing California for a Changing Climate," the PPIC report makes six recommendations for "state and local institutions": • Improve the basic science on climate impacts. • Help frontline actors, such as local governments, interpret the science. • Determine where early actions are needed. • Refine existing adaptation tools and experiment with new ones. • Strengthen the incentives for coordinated federal, state and local actions. • Make legal and regulatory adjustments. "Local land use decisions (zoning, building codes) have implications for adaptation across a wide spectrum: habitat, water and energy use, and susceptibility to floods and wildfires, to name a few," the report says. Another report, prepared by a collection of researchers and scientists for The San Diego Foundation, found that San Diego County is "uniquely threatened." The report cites threats such sea level rise and increased storm surge, a less dependable water supply, a longer fire season and invasion of fire-prone invasive species, loss of rare species, and increased loss of life from heat waves, which the report notes "have claimed more lives over the past 15 years than all other declared disaster events combined." At the same time, San Diego County is expected to prepare for a 50% population increase to 4.5 million by 2050. Resources: "California Climate Risk and Response," www.next10.org/research/research_ccrr.html "Preparing California for a Changing Climate," www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=755 "San Diego's Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call," www.sdfoundation.org Governor's Executive Order S-13-08: www.gov.ca.gov/executive-order/11036