Bill Fulton and a panel of economic and development experts to be featured at Tucson Growth; Decision at the Crossroads – An open community forum for Southern Arizonans; Friday, March 14, 2008 – University of Arizona

If you live in the Bay Area, where everybody thinks they are the coolest people on earth, or in Los Angeles, the world's biggest experiment in infill development, it's hard to swallow the idea that Sacramento may be ahead of us on planning. But it's true. Unlikely as it may the seem, Sacramento Area Council of Governments – the six-county regional planning agency commonly known as SACOG – has actually made the idea of higher-density projects conforming to the regional plan seem cool, even to suburban politicians. SACOG approved the "Sacramento Region Blueprint" a little more than three years ago. Like a lot of other "regional visions" in the last few years – most notably Envision Utah the Blueprint lays out a more compact version of the region's future growth than would otherwise be the case. Such regional visions aren't hard to create, but they're almost impossible to implement. That's because the local elected officials have to go back home and actually make decisions to increase densities and move development around in a way that the locals – constituents and developers – might not like. Under the leadership of Executive Director Mike McKeever, a veteran of the growth wars in Portland, SACOG has managed to maintain the pressure. One trick has been to get local electeds excited about the cachet of a "Blueprint project" that earns SACOG's seal of approval. But another trick – maybe the most powerful one – is simply to be realistic. McKeever has been smart enough to recognize – and repeatedly articulate – that you can't accommodate all future growth with mid-rise mixed-use buildings in Midtown Sacramento. Sometimes to the consternation of local environmentalists, McKeever has strongly supported certain greenfield developments – especially those in what McKeever calls "infill greenfield" locations. Exhibit A here is the Placer Vineyards project near Roseville. Environmentalists don't like the idea of more greenfield projects chewing up raw land in Placer County, north of Sacramento. In fact, it's the subject of a lot of lawsuits . But in McKeever's view – and according to the Blueprint – good development there is far preferable to lower-density development both there and farther out in Sutter, Yuba, and northern Placer counties. Placer Vineyards may or may not turn out to be a good project. There are two possibilities floating around, one more smart growth than the other, and it's not clear which one will be passed. If the lousy one passes in the end, it's pretty much just more of Roseville. But I guess it's better to have more of Roseville in Roseville, than in Wheatland or Nicolaus. A good regional plan, good public relations – and a little bit of realism. Maybe that's how land use patterns in California get changed for the better. - Bill Fulton

Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" would really be a bridge to sprawl - and that's why it'll be a crucial issue in the upcoming Senate re-election campaign of 84-year-old Ted Stevens. Last week, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich , a 45-year-old Democrat, created an exploratory committee to run against the powerful six-term incumbent. Stevens is damaged by a passel of ethics problems , but he's also dogged by the fact that his "earmark" for the Knik Arm Bridge in Anchorage has become the poster child for Republican pork. But there's more to the "bridge to nowhere" than pork. Whether or not the bridge is built is likely to fundamentally shape future growth patterns in Anchorage - as Begich well knows. Anchorage is located on a peninsula in the midst a dramatically beautiful natural setting not unlike San Francisco or Seattle. Downtown Anchorage has skyscrapers from the '70s oil boom, as well as a connection to the Alaska Railroad often used by tourists. The rest of the city isn't much to look at. It's landlocked by a military installation and a national forest, and the city is running out of land. (Many residents commute an hour across the national forest from low-density suburbs that are technically still part of the combined city-county government.) The Anchorage 2020 Plan , championed by Begich, says all the right things about smart growth. The Knik Arm Bridge would stretch from downtown Anchorage across the "Knik Arm" - a body of water that's part of the Cook Inlet - to the undeveloped Matanuska/Susitna Valley. Almost four years ago, I sat in Begich's office high above downtown Anchorage and listened to him explain why the Knik Arm Bridge wasn't necessary. I was there as part of a visiting team of experts sent by the Smart Growth Leadership Institute , under a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, providing advice to the city about how to implement Anchorage 2020. The city needed to turn its lack of land into an advantage, Begich said. He wanted to build housing on top of city-owned parking garages downtown. He was proud of the fact that Artspace was building artists' housing overlooking the water. He wanted to strengthen the Alaska Railroad connection between downtown and airport. Begich, the first mayor of Anchorage born in the city, clearly understood what the bridge would do. If it was built, Anchorage would only become more suburban. If it wasn't built, Anchorage might become a mini-Seattle. Given the fact that Anchorage's Municipal Assembly was mostly Republican and much more conservative than Begich, I wasn't about to suggest in our report that the bridge not be built. So instead, what we said was that Anchorage 2020 needed to be implemented no matter what. Even if Stevens came through with the pork, the bridge wouldn't be built until 2015, maybe even 2020. The next year, the pork patrol came after Stevens and the Democrats regained control of the Senate. It'll be interesting to see what kind of hay Begich makes out of Stevens' pork - and whether Begich as a senator might nudge Anchorage even more quickly toward a smart growth future. - Bill Fulton

Although the state's mounting budget deficit is expected to predominate in Sacramento for many months, 2008 could be a blockbuster year for land use legislation. Scores of bills related to planning, the California Environmental Quality Act, redevelopment, housing, the Subdivision Map Act, and other land use matters have been introduced during the first two months of the year or remain leftover from 2007. All eyes are focused on SB 375, Sen. Darrell Steinberg's bill from last year that seeks to tie together regional planning, transportation funding, and greenhouse gas reduction. Negotiations over the bill have been ongoing for months, and the legislation remains at the top of the list for environmental groups and builders, but for very different reasons. Redevelopment has the potential to be the second most lively land use topic. The oldest redevelopment projects (those from 1969 and before) must halt redevelopment activities by the end of this year, unless agencies can make updated blight findings. However, there is a movement to eliminate the updated blight requirement, essentially giving another 10 years of life to all redevelopment project areas. On the CEQA front, lawmakers have introduced a few bills that seek to streamline the environmental review process, especially for infill projects. At the same time, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) is carrying a bill that would tighten some CEQA provisions. The housing market slowdown has halted construction everywhere. Thus, there are at least two bills that would extend the life of all tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. The automatic extensions are a major priority for builders. But SB 375 remains the hot bill. It's a complicated piece of legislation that would require each metropolitan planning organization to adopt a preferred growth scenario with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that infill, mixed-use and transit-oriented development would be favored over subdivisions on the metropolitan edge. Cities and counties that conform their land use decisions to the preferred growth scenario would be eligible for transportation funding and a modest amount of CEQA streamlining. Cities and counties that buck the preferred scenario would be on their own for transportation funding (see CP&DR Insight , September 2007 ). The bill is likely to evolve in coming months, but the basic emphasis on regional planning, infill development and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely to change. It is worth noting that Steinberg, a Democrat from Sacramento, has been chosen to succeed Sen. Don Perata (D-Oakland) as the Senate president pro-tem, a move that can only boost Steinberg's influence over legislation. "It's the big banana right now," Sande George, chief lobbyist for the California Chapter, American Planning Association, said of SB 375. "We've agreed to work with the authors and the sponsors on how this might work." In fact, the CCAPA is so focused on SB 375 that it is not sponsoring any legislation of its own during 2008, she said. George declined to detail the CCAPA's concerns with the bill because of ongoing negotiations, but local government organizations have not hesitated to complain about the legislation's potential to reduce local land use discretion in favor of a regional approach. Still, the discussion remains mostly cordial. In a late February legislative bulletin, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) said the concept of AB 375 is consistent with CSAC policy emphasizing regional approaches to climate change, blueprint planning and preservation of resource and agricultural lands. Still, the organization listed concerns, including the need to coordinate SB 375's preferred growth areas with regional fair-share housing mandates, the ability to use habitat conservation plans to meet SB 375's obligation for determining protected resource lands, and incentives for rural areas that provide resource and agricultural land. Richard Lyon, a lobbyist for the California Building Industry Association, said that builders could endorse Steinberg's linking of the regional transportation planning process with land use planning, and SB 375's attempt to put some teeth in regional blueprints that have become popular in recent years. However, Lyon said, the bill has a number of drawbacks. For one, the bill lays out a broad definition of protected resources lands without any deference to local decision-makers, Lyon complained, echoing one of CSAC's concerns. In addition, the bill calls for development to advance outward in concentric circles, which Lyon called "a recipe for litigation." In addition, SB 375 or other legislation needs to contain broader CEQA reform, he said. "That's the key," Lyon said of CEQA reform. "You can do these blueprints all you want, but if you can't build the projects, you don't get the carbon benefits." Tina Andolina, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League, conceded that SB 375 is a work in progress, but one that environmental groups strongly endorse. "It's a tough nut to crack — to reform land use planning to reduce the miles people drive their cars," she said. "This is a first good step." The Steinberg bill is not the only measure that seeks to use land use policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One other measure (AB 2093, Jones) would require that all mandatory elements of the general plan except the noise element contain policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The subject of redevelopment is a touchy one these days, in part because of two statewide initiatives on the ballot in June. One would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development, while the other would only prohibit government from taking owner-occupied houses for economic development purposes (see CP&DR In Brief , February 2008 ). Because of those campaigns, it is possible that redevelopment advocates may not make potentially controversial legislative moves until after June 3. Still, several sources report there is interest in amending SB 211, a measure passed in 2001. That law permits redevelopment agencies to extend their life spans by 10 years, but only if an agency adopts updated blight findings, is in a city or county with a certified housing element, is up to date on its housing set-aside spending, and has had no major audit violations for three years. There is reportedly interest in eliminating at least some of SB 211's restrictions, chiefly the blight requirement. A number of redevelopment "spot bills" were introduced during late February, and any one of those bills could provide the amendment to existing law. The change is likely to draw stiff opposition from some counties and redevelopment opponents, as well as budget hawks who complain redevelopment costs the state money in the form of backfills to school districts that lose property tax revenue to redevelopment agencies. Also in spot bill form are several CEQA measures that are likely to attempt CEQA streamlining or otherwise diminish environmental review of certain types of projects. Such bills are introduced nearly every year but seldom gain much traction. This year could be different because of the desire to boost infill and transit-oriented development as a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Kuehl's bill (SB 1165) is headed the other direction. The bill would require that when a project relies on an EIR that is more than five years old, the EIR would have to be recirculated for comments, which could re-open the entire environmental review process. The bill also would ensure the public has as much access to an "administrative" or "preliminary" environmental impact report as a project proponent, and calls on superior courts with designated CEQA judges to ensure those judges actually get CEQA cases. The Planning and Conservation League is sponsoring the bill. Kuehl will be termed out of the Legislature this year and is expected to make a major push for this bill and several others. The CBIA is sponsoring SB 1185 (Lowenthal), which would extend the expiration date of subdivision maps by 24 months. Another bill, (AB 1777, Houston) proposes the same thing. The association contends that providing more time for builders to complete subdivisions will help the industry recover from the slowdown. Lawmakers approved a similar 24-month subdivision map extension during the housing slump of the early 1990s. Another CBIA bill (SB 303, Ducheny) that would require cities and counties to identify 10-year land supplies for housing and update each element of the general plan every 10 years remains alive. Planners, local governments and environmentalists are aligned against the bill, which struck a wall of Democratic opposition in the Assembly last year. Proposed Land Use Legislation For 2008 CEQA • AB 2230 (LaMalfa). Revises exemptions for the payment of CEQA filing fees to fund Department of Fish and Game reviews. • SB 1165 (Kuehl). Requires recirculation of any EIR that is more than five years old when a project relies on the EIR, and increases public access to preliminary draft EIRs. • SB 1210 (Dutton). Republican spot bill on infill exemptions from CEQA. Fees and revenues • AB 239 (DeSaulnier). Permits Contra Costa and San Mateo counties to increase real estate document recording fees to fund affordable housing development. • AB 938 (Calderon). Creates a stormwater management process whose programs could be funded by user fees. Builders support this approach to paying for stormwater management. • AB 1221 (Ma). Permits local officials to dedicate property tax increment to retire bonds for infrastructure within transit village development districts. • AB 1574 (Houston). Limits the imposition of real estate transfer fees. • AB 1836 (Feuer). Authorizes city councils and boards of supervisors to create infrastructure finance districts (IFD) that can issue bonds and divert tax increment to retire the debt. Currently, IFD creation requires voter approval. • AB 2218 (Gaines). Modifies procedures for Proposition 218 fee elections. • SCA 12 (Torlakson). Exempts stormwater and urban runoff management fees from Proposition 218 vote requirements. • SB 974 (Lowenthal). Imposes a fee on cargo containers going through ports in Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland to fund infrastructure and mitigate air pollution. Extremely controversial bill. Housing • AB 1129 (Arambula). Creates the San Joaquin Valley Regional Affordable Housing Trust. • AB 2000 (Mendoza). Allows a city or county that exceeds production of its fair-share housing allocation to count the excess against subsequent fair-share requirements. • AB 2069 (Jones). A spot bill that seeks to tighten existing restrictions on reducing permitted densities of residentially zoned land. • SB 668 (Torlakson). Exempts housing built on school property from seismic safety standards that apply to schools, and declares that the Department of General Services is not required to review the housing plans. • SB 900 (Corbett). Repeals a Subdivision Map Act provision exempting from local government approval the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership. • SB 1065 (Correa). Allows cities and counties to acquire loans for the purpose of refinancing mortgages on owner-occupied homes, and to acquire reverse mortgages made to seniors. • SB 1299 (Migden). Permits local governments to require that demolished rent-controlled units be replaced on the same parcel or elsewhere. Infrastructure • AB 842 (Jones). Awards Proposition 1C funds for transit-oriented development to entities with local or regional plans that reduce vehicle miles traveled by 10%. • AB 1756 (Caballero). Establishes the Office of Local Public-Private Partnerships within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. • AB 1815 (Feuer). Creates the temporary Transportation Infrastructure Funding Task Force to explore options for taxing road users other than the gasoline tax. • AB 1850 (Devore). Creates the Office of Public-Private Partnerships within the governor's office. • AB 1968 (Jeffries). Authorizes the governor to declare a transportation infrastructure emergency on certain highway segments for the purpose of letting Caltrans expedite construction of new highways and additional lanes. • AB 2005 (Jeffries). Authorizes the transfer of state parks to local government. • SB 61 (Runner). Expands authority for regional transportation agencies and Caltrans to build and operate high-occupancy toll lanes and tolls roads. Local and regional planning • AB 724 (Benoit). Increases local government's authority to regulate the siting and operation of "sober living homes." • AB 1777 (Houston) and SB 1185 (Lowenthal). Extend the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. • AB 2093 (Jones). Requires general plans to contain policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • AB 2182 (Caballero). Establishes a sustainability communities program within the Office of Planning and Research for the purpose of allocating $90 million in planning grants and incentives contained in Proposition 84. • AB 2219 (Parra). Modifies the proof of water requirement for large subdivisions by permitting a city or county to count water demand management measures against a subdivision's water need. • SB 303 (Ducheny). Requires cities and counties to designate land for 10 years worth of housing development, and to update every general plan element at least once every 10 years. • SB 375 (Steinberg). Regional planning and greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill. • SB 732 (Steinberg). Creates the Sustainable Communities Council consisting of three cabinet members and two public appointees, and allocates $90 million from Proposition 84 for general plans that encourage water conservation, discourage automobile use, promote infill, protect natural resources and farmland, and are compatible with regional growth blueprints. • SB 821 (Kuehl). Requires the California Research Bureau to report on implementation of a 2001 law that requires cities and counties to condition approval of subdivisions of more than 500 lots on water availability. Redevelopment • AB 1088 (Carter). Ensures that an exemption from statutory timelines remains in place for redevelopment projects at the former Norton and George Air Force bases in San Bernardino County. • AB 1941 (Carter). Authorizes a city, county, housing authority or redevelopment agency to convey surplus land to a developer for any use consistent with a redevelopment plan and a general plan. Currently, surplus land conveyances may be made only for affordable housing projects. • AB 2097 (Coto). Allows use of housing set-aside funds for homeless shelters and supportive housing. • AB 2509 (Galgiani). Establishes a $50 million homeownership preservation mortgage guarantee fund in the state treasury, and authorizes redevelopment agencies to guarantee home loans. • SB 1103 (Cedillo). Requires a city, county or redevelopment agency to disclose specific information before approving an economic development incentive, and to report on the incentives at certain intervals.

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has recommended that state lawmakers take charge of Salton Sea restoration efforts. Last year, the Resources Agency released a restoration plan that called for shrinking the 376-square-mile lake into a narrow, U-shaped lake separated from two brine sinks, extensive saline habitat areas and exposed lake bed (see CP&DR Environment Watch , September 2007 ). The plan was the latest of several that address the problems caused by reduced freshwater flows into the increasingly saline lake. The LAO did not pass judgment on the Resource Agency's 75-year, $8.9 billion plan. Instead, the LAO urged the Legislature to "set explicit policy priorities in statute for addressing environmental problems at the sea." The analyst said protection of air quality and preservation of wildlife habitat should be top priorities. The LAO further recommended that lawmakers adopt a comprehensive restoration plan and designate the Department of Water Resources as the primary implementing agency. Because implementation of any plan is years away, the Legislature should consider interim funding for air quality and habitat issues, according to the analyst. The LAO report is available at www.lao.ca.gov/2008/rsrc/salton_sea/salton_sea_01-24-08.aspx . Stockton update. Since CP&DR detailed the extensive land use issues and litigation in the City of Stockton in the February Local Watch , there are have been two important developments in court. First, the state Supreme Court accepted for review a Third District Court of Appeal decision that the statute of limitations for Wal-Mart opponents to challenge the lack of environmental review for a Supercenter had not expired because the city's approval of the project was not valid. The state high court voted 6-0, with Chief Justice Ron George recusing himself, to consider whether or not the statute of limitations ever started running. The case is Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton , No. S159690. Second, the Third District in an unpublished decision rejected a downtown Stockton property owner's claim that the city's demolition of her condemned building amounted to inverse condemnation and violated her civil rights. The three-story structure was one of several the city has torn down during recent years as part of a code enforcement and urban revitalization effort. The court ruled that Dominga Flores had her day in court when she sought an injunction to halt the city's abatement proceeding, and she could not re-litigate based on essentially the same facts. The case is Flores v. City of Stockton , No. C053479 and was filed on February 15, 2008. The Coastal Commission surely set records at a meeting in February when the panel voted 8-2 to reject the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies' plan to build a toll road through San Onofre State Beach. An estimated 3,500 people attended the hearing in Wyland Hall at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, and 2,500 signed up to testify. The Commission cut off testimony after 12 hours and voted 14 hours after taking up the item. Although the Commission's decision pleased the majority at the meeting, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) has vowed to press forward with the project. Its first step was filing an appeal with the federal secretary of commerce. "We are not going to ignore our responsibilities and allow South County to be choked with traffic," Jerry Amante, a TCA board member and Tustin councilman, told the Los Angeles Times. The Commission found the project in violation of the Coastal Act because of the toll road's potential impact on coastal resources and sensitive habitat. The Commission's 246-page staff report (which includes links to numerous related documents) is available at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2008/2/W8b-2-2008.pdf . Santa Monica Place has closed while owner Macerich overhauls the 550,000-square-foot, Frank Gehry-designed shopping mall into an open-air complex. Macerich had sought to develop high-rise condominiums, shops and offices on the site of the 28-year-old Santa Monica Place (see CP&DR Places , February 2005 ; Letters to the Editor , April 2005 ). That project eventually died and the property owner instead decided to convert the mall into an open-air facility with outdoor dining and ocean views from the third floor. The project is scheduled to be completed in fall 2009.

A key document in the evolving methodology for evaluating development's impact on climate change has been released by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Called "CEQA & Climate Change – Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act," the white paper is lengthy (more than 140 pages), detailed and highly technical. It is also both potentially frustrating to planners and technicians who were hoping for strict guidance, and a relief to the development community, which is very wary of definitive numbers. "There is kind of a void out there right now," explained Mel Zeldin, executive director of the association, known as CAPCOA. The white paper "is designed as a resource document. … It's not a guidance document. We're not in a position where we felt comfortable telling local officials what they should do." Instead, the white paper lays out three basic options for agencies conducting environmental reviews: • CEQA review with no thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. "As with other project types, the lead agency could conduct a project specific analysis to determine whether an environmental impact report is needed and to determine the level of mitigation that is appropriate," the white paper says. "Over time, the agency could amass information and experience with specific project categories that would support establishing explicit thresholds." • Setting a GHG threshold of significance of zero, meaning that essentially every discretionary project would be subject to environmental review and mitigation requirements. • Establishing GHG thresholds of significance at levels other than zero. These "non-zero" thresholds could be based on state or local air district thresholds for GHG if they exist, or could be established based on the type of emission and what activity is generating the emissions. "By itself, establishment of a GHG threshold will not insulate individual CEQA analyses from challenge," the white paper warns. "Defensibility depends upon the adequacy of the analysis prepared by the lead agency and the process followed." The paper also contains a chapter on potential mitigation measures that lead agencies could apply to projects. "The recurring theme that echoes throughout a majority of these measures is the shift toward new urbanism," the white paper states. " esearch has consistently shown that implementation of neotraditional development techniques reduces VMT and associated emissions." In other words, urban design that encourages walking, bicycling and use of transit, and which discourages driving and convenient parking, may be considered mitigation. The CAPCOA white paper arrives at a time when people involved in almost any aspect of land use are desperate for information on how to apply CEQA to the issue of global climate change. For a period, there was a question about whether a project's potential to contribute to climate change was even an issue for CEQA. State Attorney General Jerry Brown answered the question affirmatively, and the Legislature confirmed Brown's position last year when it passed SB 97 (Dutton) (see CP&DR Environment Watch , October 2007 ). Among other things, that law directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare CEQA "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions" by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency is supposed to adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. In the meantime, practitioners are feeling their way around. In June 2007, the Association of Environmental Professionals produced what at the time was the most detailed "white paper" for dealing with GHG in a CEQA context (see CP&DR , July 2007 ). The AEP offered up eight potential methodologies. The CAPCOA white paper narrows the alternatives and focuses on quantifying emissions, said Michael Hendrix, of Chambers Group in Redlands and a co-author of the AEP document. "It's probably not good news for the developers, because they'll have to identify their emissions and mitigate them," Hendrix said of the CAPCOA advisory. Al Herson, environmental practice leader for SWCA Environmental Consultants in Sacramento, said it is important to remember that applying CEQA to climate change is a practice that is only about 18 months old. Because there is little practical experience and no case law, everyone needs to have patience, he said. "There is a period of turmoil right now," he said. The CAPCOA paper, "does advance us in terms of how we do these analyses," Herson said. "For folks who are steeped in preparing climate change sections of EIRs, there is some useful information at a high technical level." The paper might have been more useful, Herson added, if it contained recommendations for thresholds. A "net zero" threshold is not practical and may go beyond CEQA because it would require mitigation for any project that does not actually reduce current greenhouse gas emissions,. Herson noted. Dave Vintze, air quality planning manager for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and a principal co-author of the CAPCOA paper, said the organization could not make recommendations on thresholds of significance because the members do not agree. "All we could do with the white paper is identify different strategies that air districts and lead agencies could choose to use," Vintze said. To date, no government agency in California has set a GHG threshold of significance, although some air districts, including Vintze's, are headed in that direction. During its preparation of the white paper, Vintze said, CAPCOA members found that the few EIRs that have addressed climate change did so only at a cursory level, and no EIR attempted to quantify GHG emissions from a development project or long-range plan. The environmental studies have either said it's all too speculative and therefore no additional discussion or mitigation is required, or the EIRs said any emission of GHG is significant and therefore requires mitigation, Vintze explained. The CAPCOA paper should help agencies prepare more detailed, quantitative reviews, he said. Hendrix said the analysts are starting to do project-by-project reviews based on concepts contained AB 32 (the greenhouse gas emissions reductions law) and incorporating emissions reduction strategies endorsed by the state. "Everybody now is holding their breath hoping OPR will save them," Hendrix added. "But OPR gives wide deference to lead agencies — the law itself gives them this authority." Contacts: Mel Zeldin, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, (916) 449-9603. Dave Vintze, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, (415) 749-5000. Michael Hendrix, Chambers Group, (909) 335-7068. Al Herson, SWCA Environmental Consultants, (916) 565-0356. CAPCOA website: http://www.capcoa.org/

The city of Dublin in Alameda County bears little resemblance to the English countryside of the late 1800s. The scene is not sylvan, to put it mildly. Instead of a landscape of mills, farms and contented cows, we see one of the Bay Area's fastest growing cities, proliferating with enormous apartment blocks and office buildings. Although there are easily accessible, undeveloped hills rising just beyond the west and east sides of Dublin, it's doubtable that Constable, the painter of lowing herds and hayricks, would have memorialized the town on canvas. What Dublin and the English countryside of 100 years ago have in common, however, are carefully planned villages that attempt to combine city living, including factory work and shopping, with the healthfulness of open space and farms. In England, the most famous examples are Letchworth Garden City (built in 1903) and Welwyn Garden City (1920), both developed by the social reformer Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928). Surprisingly, the present-day planned-unit development known as Fallon Village in Dublin has much in common with Howard's idealistic settlements. The differences between them are equally interesting. It's not hard to see the appeal of compact development in a city that has more in common, at least superficially, with the suburban sprawl of Southern California than the Bay Area. One of Howard's concerns was to prevent people from abandoning the countryside, in search of jobs, for slum housing in the cities. Present-day Dublin officials may or may not share Howard's idealism, but they seem to retain his belief in the goodness of the countryside and perhaps his desire for both order and human scale, as well. Approved by the Dublin City Council last November, the 1,134-acre Fallon Village is an assemblage of 13 different land holdings on the east side of the city, at the border of unincorporated Alameda County. Braddock & Logan, a Bay Area homebuilder, has received approval from the city to fill 488 acres of the village with 3,100 single-family houses. The remaining portions of the site are set aside for small farms or "rural residential" estates, apartment complexes, office buildings and retail in the foreseeable future. In this way, Fallon Village is almost a self-contained city, like the Garden Cities before it — even if no community in the Bay Area, especially one located along both BART and the 580 Freeway, can realistically expect to be self-contained. Although the gerrymandered shapes on the land-use plan of Fallon Village are a little hard to comprehend at first glance, a certain logic lies behind its informality: A habitat trail, moving diagonally from north to south, literally splits the plan in half. Fallon's master planners have wisely taken advantage of this dividing line to "break down" the scale of the site. On either side of the habitat trail, the master planners have created three enclaves of single family homes, each with its own neighborhood park. This idea of housing bordered by farms is perhaps the strongest point of resemblance between Fallon Village and the early garden cities. Howard's own diagram for his cities, reproduced from his 1902 book, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, may be helpful here. The center of the city is open space, explicitly public. (Why are utopian cities so often conceived of as circles?) The first ring around the park consists of public uses, especially shopping and local government buildings. The layer after that is housing, interspersed with factories and work places. The outermost edge is farmland, which Howard believed had both physical and moral benefits for garden city dwellers. As in Letchworth and Welwyn, we can see the density growing thinner in Fallon Village as one moves from south to north. The most intense uses – multi-family housing, retail, office space – are concentrated at the bottom of the plan. The middle-range (the big yellow splotches) is single-family homes, while farms and rural estates are the low-density edge on the north. One of the most appealing details in the plan is the elementary school, bordered by a triangular park to the west and farmland to the east. Here, some of the most obvious differences between Howard's dream villages and Fallon Village become apparent. Fallon Village is a commuter subdivision for middle-class homeowners, not a model colony for working people. I see a tension between the ideals of communal life that are laid out with almost pedantic obviousness in Howard's plans, as opposed to the curving streets of present-day America, where privacy and living-unto-oneself are primary values. Still, the planners have not entirely neglected the public life: The land-use plan indicates space for an eight-acre "public plaza" at the center of the plan, hemmed in by commercial buildings on three sides; Leon Krier, the German city planner, would approve, even though eight acres seems way too large for anything except outdoor concerts and political rallies. For some reason, this generous plaza fails to suggest a social center to me, perhaps because the only other major public space that connects to it directly is a major corridor that runs east and west, rather than streets branching out of the public space, which would increase its accessibility and its visibility. Beyond ideology, then, what is the major difference between Fallon Village and Welwyn? The former lacks cogent urban form. Fallon Village, at least in the nascent form of the land-use plan, lacks the idea of public life as a unifying principle. In Howard's quaint old diagram, we see how clearly the street pattern directs everything toward the public uses — transit, shopping and housing — at its center. Fallon Village, in contrast, is in the end a conventional suburb, with some charming amenities. A century after they were built, Howard's towns remain popular places to live, even though they have been absorbed as suburbs into larger cities; good urban design tends to survive, because it is both workable and pleasant. I would like to see how much of Fallon Village survives in a century's time, after the population flood washes away the rural charm.

Although redevelopment often seems like a never-ending process, redevelopment of Old Town Monrovia is nearly complete. The city is now switching its focus to redevelopment of an 80-acre area about one mile south of Old Town and studying how to tie together the two areas. Located in the San Gabriel Valley about five miles east of Pasadena, Monrovia began redeveloping its historic core during the 1970s. After decades of planning and both public and private investment, Old Town Monrovia has become a successful area of interest to private developers. "It may not be the financial center of town, but it certainly is the emotional center of our town," Mayor Rob Hammond said of Old Town. Now the focus is shifting to the Station Square area — 80 acres adjacent to the 210 Freeway and straddling a planned extension of the Gold Line light rail system. The city's redevelopment agency is working with local developer Samuelson & Fetter on a transit-oriented development with between 1,400 and 3,000 housing units, 850,000 square feet of office space for high-tech and research-and-development companies, 140,000 square feet of retail space, and a hotel. The project would mark a major change from the hodgepodge of small industrial and service uses currently in the area. The redevelopment agency has acquired 20 acres for the project. Monrovia's redevelopment has not been without setbacks or discontent, but Monrovia's overall success stands in contrast to the experience in the neighboring cities of Sierra Madre and Arcadia, where redevelopment opponents have halted major projects in recent years (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , September 2007 ; Local Watch , May 2007 ). "Monrovia said 35 years ago this (redevelopment) is the thing that is going to be the difference in this town," said city spokesman Dick Singer. "It has driven economic development for a generation." "Our community," added Hammond, "has grown up with the concept that redevelopment is not the bogeyman, because we've had a very strong and a very ethical redevelopment agency." The agency has ensured that it treats property owners fairly, which everyone recognizes, he said. "It keeps people who are scared of government close to the path." Redevelopment in Monrovia generated $6.8 million in tax increment during the 2005-06 fiscal year, the last for which figures are available from the state controller's office. In 2002, the city added a new redevelopment project area south of the freeway, which includes the Station Square territory. Early morning at the south end of Old Town. Old Town is essentially a six-block stretch of Myrtle Avenue, about one mile north of the freeway. The area has been the center of town since the 19th century but has had its ups and downs. Today, the virtually spotless district contains a variety of shops and services — an appliance store, dry cleaners, numerous salons, coffee houses, bookstores, music stores, a few nightclubs. City hall is only one block off Myrtle, as are some classic century-old craftsman houses. Old Town turned a corner during 2000, when the redevelopment agency enticed Krikorian to open a 12-screen movie theatre on Myrtle Avenue. The cinema greatly increased the number of Old Town restaurants, which now number 24, according to Singer. Last year, the redevelopment agency completed a $3 million upgrade of Old Town sidewalks, landscaping and street furniture. Another turning point occurred in February, when developer Barker Pacific Group conducted the grand opening of models in Colorado Commons, the first residential units built in Old Town since the 1970s. The project contains 68 housing units ranging from simple 700-square-foot flats to luxury 2,100-square-foot townhouses, plus four retail spaces totaling about 4,000 square feet. Fourteen of the housing units are designated as "affordable," according to Singer. The agency began acquiring the property for Colorado Commons, a half-block west of Myrtle, during the early 1990s. The site contained a convenience store, an auto repair shop and some dilapidated housing, Singer said. The city demolished the structures and created surface parking. Eventually, the agency made a deal with Barker Pacific. The city provided the 2.1 acres in exchange for the developer building a public parking structure with about 200 spaces, according to Kevin O'Brien, the city's redevelopment division manager. "It was just a great location," said Barker Pacific Project Manager Reed Garwood, citing the proximity to restaurants, shops and the movie theater. The next residential project, scheduled to break ground this spring, is on the southern edge of Old Town. Urban Housing Group intends to reuse a three-acre former office industrial property for development of 163 apartments and about 4,000 square feet of office or retail space. The project, known as The Courtyards at Old Town, is purely market-driven and has no redevelopment agency involvement. But Don Deibel, vice president of development for Urban Housing Group, readily admits that the city's "ambitious redevelopment" attracted the company to the site, which it purchased from Barratt-American. "The overall sense of place they are creating is impressive," Deibel said. "They are very focused on improving downtown Monrovia." One of the final pieces of the Old Town puzzle also is not a redevelopment agency project, but it certainly involvements redevelopment. In January, the city tore down its library and began work on a replacement, 28,000-square-foot facility funded by a $16 million voter-approved bond. The construction has closed the square-block Library Park, which is Monrovia's primary community gathering place, until 2009. The Myrtle Avenue Corridor, just south of Old Town. Pink: Office/Commercial Violet: Residential Green: Mixed-Use Blue: Station Square, Phase 1 The Station Square project is not proceeding on such a tight timeline, partly because of the housing market downturn and partly because of uncertainty over the Gold Line extension. City officials feel like they have no control over either; nevertheless, they continue to plan and prepare for the huge redevelopment project with the longer term in mind. "The train is eventually going to get here. I hope it is within my lifetime," said the 47-year-old Hammond. "The City of Monrovia can't wait around for the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) to do something." For years, the MTA has planned to extend the Gold Line 24 miles beyond its current terminus in Pasadena to Montclair. Cities along the line, including Monrovia, Azusa, Glendora and Claremont, have planned and even approved transit-oriented development projects along the proposed light-rail alignment. Last year, however, the MTA shifted its attention to Lost Angeles's Westside and a potential "subway to the sea." In January, the MTA declined to keep the $1.4 billion Gold Line extension on an important funding list. Assuming the Station Square project goes forward at some point, an additional issue concerns linking the area with Old Town. The two areas are about 10 blocks apart along Myrtle Avenue. Several years ago, an Urban Land Institute (ULI) advisory group recommended the city transform Myrtle into a more pedestrian-friendly boulevard between the two districts. The concept excites city officials, who see such a project as an important transformation of the Myrtle Avenue corridor that could goose Old Town commerce and ensure that Station Square integrates into the rest of town. The Station Square project "must fit into our community without feeling like it is a whole new community," Hammond said. "We cannot create a whole brand new area and say, ‘OK, that's Monrovia, too.'" The details remain undecided and potentially tricky. Hammond would like to see a trolley run for about a 1 1/2 miles from Station Square to the top of Old Town. Singer advocates an old-fashioned streetcar zipping up and down Myrtle. The ULI envisioned something other than the current auto-dominated commercial and industrial atmosphere. However, the redevelopment agency controls little land along the corridor, and, at a glance, existing businesses appear healthy. The city has not wielded a heavy hand with redevelopment (it has employed eminent domain only about six times in 35 years, including some instances requested by the property owner for tax purposes) and has no plans to become aggressive now. Thus, the Myrtle Avenue evolution may be slow. The city has been willing to use redevelopment powers more aggressively to combat gang violence that has flared elsewhere in town. Four people were killed and five others were wounded by gunfire during a 10-week period starting last November. Some of the victims were mere bystanders caught in the crossfire. The redevelopment agency has been buying houses that serve as gang hangouts, funding code enforcement, fence replacement and graffiti removal, and even sponsoring block parties to re-establish neighborhood ties, Singer said. All efforts are aimed at maintaining decent working-class neighborhoods, he said. Contacts: Mayor Rob Hammond: (626) 932-5550. Dick Singer and Kevin O'Brien, Monrovia Redevelopment Agency, (626) 303-6604. Dan Deibel, Urban Housing Group, (650) 340-4320. Colorado Commons website: http://www.livecoloradocommons.com /

In an extremely long and complex opinion, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has upheld water discharge permits for Duke Energy's Moss Landing power plant. Environmentalists have been on the offensive ever since Duke applied for permits to rebuild and expand the natural gas-fired power plant in 1999. The concern arises because the power plant draws water from, and discharges water to, the Elkhorn Slough area, which is one of the largest intact coastal wetlands in California and of importance to hundreds of bird species, as well as rare plants and other animals. A primary point of contention regarded Duke's plan for "once-through" cooling, in which the power plant draws in water from the estuary for cooling and then discharges the water at a higher temperature into the sea. Environmentalists argued for a closed cooling system in which the same water is recycled through the plant for cooling — a concept that Duke fought because of cost. The California Energy Commission approved the project in October 2000, and the following month the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the project's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. When the State Water Resources Control Board rejected environmentalists' appeal of the discharge permit, the group Voices of the Wetlands sued the water boards. A Monterey County Superior Court Judge in March 2003 remanded the permit to the regional board because the court found there was insufficient evidence that the board relied on BTA (best technology available) for one aspect of the cooling system. The regional board reconsidered the matter and concluded that its decision was in fact supported by substantial evidence. Voices, the water boards and Duke returned to the trial court, which in July 2004 upheld the regional board's action. Both sides appealed. The environmental group challenged numerous aspects of the discharge permit and the procedure behind it, while the water boards and Duke challenged the court's ability to even hear the case, and the lower court's remand of the discharge permit to the regional board. In a 98-page opinion, the Sixth District rejected all appeals. From a land use perspective, the court's ruling on the appeals from the water boards and Duke may be most important. The water boards and Duke argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit because state law provides that proceedings of the Energy Commission are appealable only to the state Supreme Court. But the court determined that power plant certification and the NPDES permit were separate issues, and the latter could not be decided by the Energy Commission. In fact, the Commission had deferred to the regional water board. Thus, environmentalists could seek review of the plant certification by the state Supreme Court while also challenging the discharge permit in Superior Court, the Sixth District ruled. As to the trial court's remand of the permit to the regional board, the water boards and Duke argued the remand was improper because there was substantial evidence to support the initial decision. The appellate court, however, said that California Environmental Quality Act principles applied and the board "was required to meaningfully analyze the alternatives itself." The administrative record showed that the board members during their initial consideration failed to adequately analyze BTA alternatives, the court found. The Sixth District rejected Voices' contention that the trial court should have invalidated the permit and returned the entire matter to the regional board, and Voices' argument that the regional board should not have considered new evidence during the remand hearing. The court also rejected the argument that the regional board improperly weighed the costs and benefits of a once-through cooling system. Voices has asked the state Supreme Court to review the Sixth District's decision. The Case: Voices of the Wetlands v. California State Water Resources Control Board , No. H028021, 07 C.D.O.S. 14339, 2007 DJDAR 18432. Filed December 14, 2007. Modified January 10, 2008 at 2008 DJDAR 385. The Lawyers: For Voices: Deborah Sivas, Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic, (650) 723-0325. For the Water Resources Control Board: Anita Ruud, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5533. For Duke Energy: Sarah G. Flanagan, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, (415) 983-1000.

The Second District Court of Appeal has rejected the environmental review of an oil refinery project in Wilmington and Carson because the South Coast Air Quality Management District used an improper baseline for measuring impacts. Instead of relying on the refinery's permitted level of nitrogen oxides emissions for the baseline, the air district should have used the actual level of emissions, which was less than half the permitted amount, the court ruled. The air district and ConocoPhillips relied on the Fairview line of cases, in which courts have allowed lead agencies to use permitted conditions — rather than actual conditions on the ground — as the baseline for environmental review. But the court said that approach was not appropriate because the Fairview line of cases involves projects that underwent prior environmental review, and there was no evidence that the refinery equipment in question "had ever been subject to environmental review." The project involved modification of ConocoPhillips's Los Angeles Refinery, which spreads across many acres in Wilmington and Carson, so that the company could produce ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. ConocoPhillips submitted an application in late 2003, and in June 2004, the Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) issued a negative declaration — meaning the project had no potential to harm the environment — and a permit to construct the project. After workers found unexpected contaminated soil, the air district certified an addendum to the negative determination and issued a modified permit in September 2004. An environmental group and two trade unions sued, arguing that the air district violated CEQA and failed to apply its own prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulation. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Andria Richey ruled for the air district. On appeal, the Second District, Division Two, reversed only a portion of the CEQA ruling — which was still a major victory for the environmental group and unions. Under a 1994 permit issued as part of the air district's Regional Clean Air Initiative Market (RECLAIM) program, the ConocoPhillips refinery may emit up to 8,318 pounds per day (ppd) of nitrogen oxides (NOx). In recent years, the refinery has emitted a declining amount of NOx, down to 3,249 ppd during the 2002-03 reporting period. The district conceded the project could result in increased NOx emissions of 456 ppd. This amount exceeds the district's adopted NOx threshold of significance, which is 55 ppd. Typically, when a project exceeds a threshold of significance, an environmental impact report and mitigations become necessary. However, the air district determined that any emissions below 8,373 ppd — the permitted 8,318 ppd plus the 55 ppd in the threshold of significance — would be less than significant for CEQA purposes. When adding the additional 456 ppd to existing emissions, the refinery would still produce far less than its permitted NOx emissions. In court, the air district and oil company cited Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura , (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 283 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 1999 ) and Benton v. Board of Supervisors , (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467. In Fairview , the court ruled that the county could use a sand mine's fully permitted capacity as a baseline for studying a proposed expansion, even though the mine had been operating well below capacity. In Benton , the court found that impacts of a modified proposal for a winery should be measured against a winery that was previously approved and permitted. But the court said Fairview , Benton and similar cases were inappropriate here because they involved changes to projects that had previously received CEQA scrutiny. Instead, the court relied on a series of cases — including Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno , (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , June 2007 ), and Fat v. County of Sacramento , (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , June 2002 ) — that say established usage should serve as the baseline. " e conclude that a project's baseline is normally comprised of the existing environmental setting — not what is hypothetically allowed pursuant to existing zoning or permitted plans," the court ruled. "Where prior environmental review has occurred, though, the existing setting may include what has been approved following CEQA review." The air district presented two arguments: Because the refinery does not need discretionary approval to increase utilization of equipment, the baseline emissions and the post-project emissions are essentially the same because both are allowed by existing permit. Alternatively, the district argued that even if the increased emissions are not considered part of the baseline, the project would have a less than significant impact because total emissions still would be less than permitted levels. The court called both arguments flawed. Increased use of existing equipment is part of the project that SCAQMD must evaluate, the court determined. " mploying a baseline figure premised on emissions levels that far exceed the refinery's actual emissions is misleading and subverts full consideration of the actual impacts that will result from the ULSD project," the court ruled. Considering the alternative argument, the court ruled the air district was essentially creating a categorical exemption to CEQA for any project that remained within its RECLAIM permit emission levels. Neither the district nor the court may create such an exemption, the court ruled. "In this case, the SCAQMD conceded that the ULSD project would generate a best case of 237 ppd of additional NOx emissions and a worse case of 456 ppd of NOx emissions — figures ranging from approximately 400% to 900% of the CEQA significance threshold of 55 ppd," the court determined. " e must conclude that the record here supported a fair argument that the ULSD project's NOx emissions may have a significant effect on air quality." The court further found that the air district should evaluate the project's contribution to cumulative air pollution. The court rejected the plaintiffs' other CEQA contentions and arguments concerning PSD regulations. The Case: Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District , No. B193500, 08 C.D.O.S. 682, 2008 DJDAR 720. Filed December 18, 2007. Modified and ordered published January 16, 2008. The Lawyers: For CBE: Adrienne Bloch, (510) 302-0430. For SCAQMD: Bradley Hogin, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, (714) 558-7000. For ConocoPhillips: Ward Benshoof, Westin, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, (213) 576-1000.

Stanislaus County voters became the first in the Central Valley to approve a county-wide growth-control initiative when they backed a ballot measure that prohibits the rezoning of agricultural land for residential uses without voter approval. While voters in what had been growth-friendly Stanislaus County endorsed growth control, voters in Santa Clara and Rocklin backed specific housing projects. Meanwhile, voters in San Clemente overturned the city's approval of a condominium project. Also on Super Tuesday, voters in the western Riverside County community of Wildomar supported incorporation, but voters in the Sierra foothills community of Oakhurst rejected formation of a new city. Traditionally, growth-control initiatives have been a coastal phenomenon. But they have been inching into the valley in recent years. A growth boundary initiative in Stockton narrowly lost out to a city-written boundary measure in 2004 (see CP&DR , December 2004 ). Tracy voters adopted a housing permit cap in 2000 and have refused to ease it. Davis has plenty of voter-imposed growth rules. Modesto has advisory vote requirements that date to the 1970s. However, none of those restrictions compares to Measure E — known as Stamp Out Sprawl or SOS — which Stanislaus County voters supported by a 2-to-1 ratio. Similar to Napa County's Measure J and the SOAR initiatives in Ventura County (see CP&DR , December 1998 ; Insight , December 2000 ), Measure E requires voters to decide the rezoning of agricultural land, although Measure E is limited to residential rezonings. In Ventura and Napa counties, significant development in unincorporated areas has nearly ceased. If the effect is the same in Stanislaus County, it would be a major change because, according to a Modesto Bee analysis, the county has approved nearly 3,000 houses in unincorporated areas since 2000. County supervisors tried to block Measure E. First, they delayed the vote on Measure E until 2008, even though advocates submitted petition signatures in June 2006. In the interim, developers drafted a growth-friendly plan for Salida, the county's largest unincorporated growth area, and gathered signatures to place the plan on the ballot. When the Salida plan qualified for the ballot, supervisors simply adopted the initiative rather than permitting voters to decide (see CP&DR Local Watch , September 2007 ). Surprisingly, the development community did not campaign against Measure E, which might have been the result of a county strategy that backfired. After placing SOS on the ballot, the county drafted an alternative ballot measure that would have placed a two-year moratorium on agricultural land conversions, created a citizens committee to update the general plan, and then placed that update in front of voters. Steve Madison, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Central California (BIACC), said the county's alternative Measure L was in some ways worse than SOS. Thus, the BIACC would have been in the untenable position of having to campaign against both the citizen initiative and the county's alternative. "In the near-term, it will result in people not wanting to do a project in the county," Madison said of SOS. "It makes the application process a beauty contest because you have to attract the voters." Denny Jackman, an SOS co-author and former Modesto councilman, said builders didn't fight Measure E because they know that protecting farmland has become a public priority. Plus, he said, "There are nine incorporated cities in Stanislaus County, so there are plenty of areas in which the BIA can still build." That may be, but Madison wonders how long those cities will remain growth magnets. "I don't for a minute think that the people who were behind this won't go to every city and try to get the same thing passed," Madison said. Jackman contended the SOS vote sent "a real strong signal" to the county and cities about growth planning and farmland preservation. But Larry Giventer, a professor of politics and administration at California State University, Stanislaus, questioned the significance of the SOS vote. "I don't think very many people followed Measure E, compared with all the hype the presidential election and state propositions were getting. It sort of flew under the radar," Giventer said. In addition, the City of Modesto had its own high-profile ballot measures — one giving the City Council more authority over city administration and one dividing the city into council districts. Those measures in the county's largest city received far more attention than the SOS initiative, Giventer said. What helped Measure E was its offer to let voters decide on development, Giventer added. "I don't think it's a harbinger of things to come, I think it's a reflection of the past. Voters like to control things," he said. In Riverside County, voters decided to make Wildomar the 479th city in California and the 25th in the county. Covering 24 square miles along Interstate 15, Wildomar has a population of about 27,000 people. In the past, Wildomar residents have fended off annexation attempts by the neighboring cities of Lake Elsinore and Murrieta. There are two unusual twists to the Wildomar incorporation. First, the county agreed to pay the new city between $250,000 and $310,000 annually for 10 years. Typically, the state's revenue neutrality law requires that new cities pay the county for a period to offset lost county revenue (see CP&DR Insight , July 2002 ; CP&DR, May 1999 ). But in Wildomar's case, an analysis found that incorporation would save the county money because the city would assume provision of services to the largely residential community. The revenue transfer from the county to the city was not a requirement for fiscal viability, Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer George Spiliotis said. But the transfer made the city even more feasible, and the county is strongly encouraging communities to incorporate, he said. The county-to-new city transfer appears to be the first of its kind, but maybe not the last. Voters in the Western Riverside County community of Menifee are scheduled to decide on incorporation in June. That incorporation includes a transfer of about $1 million annually for 10 years from the county to the city, according to Spiliotis. The second twist to the Wildomar incorporation is the creation of City Council districts, as nearly 57% of voters backed a second ballot measure calling for five districts rather than an at-large council. Only a handful of large cities in California elect the legislative body by district. While voters approved Wildomar incorporation, voters rejected creation of a new city in Oakhurst, a community of about 4,200 people in eastern Madera County at the junction of Highways 41 and 49. Opponents carried the day by arguing that proponents sought incorporation to encourage growth and that they did not keep the public adequately appraised of cityhood efforts. In the cities of Santa Clara and Rocklin, voters upheld approval of development projects, while in San Clemente voters tossed out an approved project. In Santa Clara, 60% of voters backed a plan to reuse the University of California's 17-acre Bay Area Research Extension Center site for development of 110-single family houses by SummerHill Homes and a 165-unit low-income senior citizens apartment complex by Charities Housing. The university closed the agricultural research center across from Valley Fair mall about five years ago. SummerHill agreed to pay the state $34 million for 11 acres, while the city and Charities Housing agreed to pay $10 million for 6 acres. Development opponents called the site the "last 17 acres of open space in Santa Clara" and still have a suit pending over the project's environmental impact report. In the Sacramento suburb of Rocklin, voters backed developer Rick Massie's proposed 558-unit, 622-acre project in Clover Valley. The site has been a growth battle zone since the 1990s, with development opponents arguing the oak-studded grasslands should be preserved as a park. Project supporters defended the development for maintaining about half of the site as public open space. The United Auburn Indian Community, which owns the nearby Thunder Valley Casino, has promised to buy 154 lots to preserve the remains of an ancient community. In San Clemente, more than two-thirds of voters overturned the City Council's approval of a project that involved replacing nine holes of the private Pacific Golf Club with 224 housing units. The project, approved 3-2 by the council in June 2007, included a development agreement in which landowner Michael Rosenfeld would pay $11.5 million for development of a community park and senior center elsewhere in town. Opponents who forced a referendum vote said the housing project would reduce open space, increase traffic and raise public service costs. In November, San Clemente voters are scheduled to decide on a measure that would prohibit any conversion of designated open space to residential use without approval of the electorate. February 2008 Local Election Results Alameda County Voters rejected two parcel tax measures for Children's Hospital and Research Center Oakland. Measure B was a hospital-backed initiative, while Measure A was a compromise between the hospital and the county. Both would have imposed an annual tax of $24 per residential parcel and $100 to $250 for business parcels to raise about $300 million for construction of a new hospital. Measure A would have lasted 35 years compared with Measure B's 30 years, and Measure A would have given a greater cut to the county to pay for tax administration. County officials disliked both measures because they imposed a tax to pay for a private hospital and placed the burden solely on Alameda County landowners even though the hospital serves the region. Hospital neighbors complained that new hospital facilities would displace families and conflict with the North Oakland neighborhood character. • Measure A (2/3 vote required): No, 58.9% • Measure B (2/3 vote required): No 69.2% Imperial County A measure prohibiting the importing of sewage sludge into the county passed easily. The measure is aimed at blocking a "sludge-to-energy" plant proposed by Liberty Energy east of the Salton Sea. • Measure X: Yes, 68.8% Madera County Oakhurst. Voters in this 13-square-mile, 4,200-person community in the foothills rejected incorporation. • Measure C: No, 57.1% Napa County Voters approved a general plan amendment and zoning change to permit the four-acre Stanly Lane Pumpkin Patch, located in an agricultural zone south of Napa, to have a delicatessen and wine tastings. • Measure K: Yes, 57.3% Orange County City of Newport Beach. Voters approved an initiative that amends the city charter to require a new city hall to be built on city-owned land between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, next to the central library. For years, the city has promised to develop the hilly 12.8-acre site as a park. Initiative proponents said the site offers the cheapest location for a much-needed city hall. • Measure B: Yes, 52.9% City of San Clemente. A project that involved replacing nine holes of the private Pacific Golf Club with 224 housing units failed at the polls. Opponents who forced a referendum vote said the development would reduce open space, increase traffic and raise public service costs. • Measure C: No, 68.9% Placer County City of Rocklin. In a referendum, voters backed a proposed 558-unit, 622-acre project in Clover Valley. However, the development may amount to only about 400 houses, as the United Auburn Indian Community has promised to buy 154 lots to preserve the remains of an ancient community. • Measure H: Yes, 52.8% Riverside County Wildomar. Incorporation of the community of 27,000 people along Interstate 15, between Lake Elsinore and Murrieta, won approval. • Measure C: Yes, 61.6% San Diego County City of Coronado. In a showdown over public facility development at the beach, voters said they want new projects. An initiative that would have prohibited any building at the beach — including lifeguard buildings, restrooms or a bike path — without voter approval failed. Meanwhile, a measure asking whether the city may go forward with a planned 2,500-square-foot lifeguard support building won easily. • Proposition A (voter approval requirement): No, 53.2% • Proposition B (lifeguard support building): Yes, 68.1% San Francisco A $185 million park bond to pay for development of three new bay front parks and extensive repairs and renovations at existing parks and green spaces was approved. • Proposition A (2/3 vote required): Yes, 71.3% Santa Clara County City of Santa Clara. In a referendum election, voters backed a plan to re-use the University of California's 17-acre Bay Area Research Extension Center site for development of 110 single-family houses and a 165-unit, low-income senior citizens apartment complex. • Measure A (general plan amendment): Yes, 59.8% • Measure B (rezoning): Yes, 59.8% Stanislaus County Voters endorsed the "Stamp Out Sprawl" initiative prohibiting the rezoning of agricultural land to residential uses without voter approval. Also on the ballot was the county's alternative "Responsible Planning and Growth Control Initiative" proposing a two-year moratorium on agricultural land conversions until the county completes a general plan update. Although both passed, the SOS initiative takes effect because it received about 600 more votes than the county alternative. • Measure E (citizen initiative): Yes, 67.4% • Measure L (county alternative), Yes: 62.7% Yuba County Not surprisingly, voters turned down the 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands project that the county had approved on 2,900 acres between Beale Air Force Base and Spenceville State Wildlife Refuge (see CP&DR Local Watch , June 2007 ). In January, developer Gary Gallelli urged voters to reject the project so that he could pursue a scaled-down version. • Measure N: No, 77.6%

Is Gov. Schwarzenegger's "Strategic Growth Council" simply the latest in a decades-long string of gubernatorial efforts to make it look like he is dealing with growth? Or can Schwarzenegger actually take coherent action on growth by appointing a Cabinet-level council devoted to the issue? It's probably a little bit of both. Despite all the focus in Sacramento these days on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, the Strategic Growth Council doesn't seem likely to focus on the "smart growth" policy initiatives that many leaders seem to think are necessary to meet the goals of AB 32. Meanwhile, the real focus of Schwarzenegger's "strategic growth" effort appears to be infrastructure – and, in particular, getting bond money out the door as quickly as possible to build new infrastructure. Schwarzenegger first glommed onto the "strategic growth" theme during 2006, when he used the phrase to describe his 10-year, $222-billion infrastructure effort – including the $40 billion in bonds that were placed in the ballot that fall (see CP&DR Insight , February 2006 ). The "strategic growth" phrase was borrowed from Schwarzenegger's political mentor, Pete Wilson, who used the same words to describe his stillborn growth management initiative back in the early '90s. Now that all the bonds have passed, Schwarzenegger has taken the next step and appointed a five-member, Cabinet-level council charged with implementing the vision contained in the infrastructure effort. Chaired by Cynthia Bryant, the director of the Office of Planning and Research, the council also has as members Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman; Business, Transportation, and Housing Secretary Dale Bonner; Environmental Protection Secretary Linda Adams, and Food & Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura. In and of itself, the idea of a Strategic Growth Council isn't a bad one. Whether the council helps to bring about much-needed change in the state's growth strategy depends on what Schwarzenegger decides to do with it. The growth council has been charged by the governor with four tasks: • Award and manage grants and loans from Proposition 84 funds — the open space bond placed on the 2006 ballot by initiative, not by the governor — "to support the development of sustainable communities." • Coordinate the four member state agencies, as they undertake infrastructure and development projects, to "encourage sustainable land use; protect natural resources; improve air and water quality; increase the availability of affordable housing; improve transportation; and meet the goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)." • Recommend policies to the governor, the Legislature and state agencies that encourage sustainable development. • Collect and provide data to local governments to help them develop and plan sustainable communities. Although this charge is long on the rhetoric of "sustainable communities," it's not clear that this is where the council's actual work will be focused. For one thing, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel on the growth question; California has no lack of laws and policies calling on the state to do the right thing in this regard. For more than 30 years, a state law – usually honored in the breach – has required the governor to issue an "Environmental Goals and Policies Report" every four years (see CP&DR In Brief , December 2003 ). In 2002, shortly before he was recalled, Gov. Gray Davis signed AB 857, a law which requires all state actions to promote what might be called a "smart growth" pattern emphasizing infill development, compact greenfield development, and protection of agricultural and open space land. The state hasn't done much with this law since Schwarzenegger was elected in 2003, and there is no mention of AB 857 in any of Schwarzenegger's strategic growth literature. It's almost as if the law were never passed. The second big question is how aggressively the Strategic Growth Council will focus on implementing AB 32, the state's greenhouse gas reduction law. Environmental Secretary Adams – a veteran of the Davis Administration – was Schwarzenegger's chief negotiator on AB 32, and her agency oversees the California Air Resources Board, which is the primary implementer of AB 32. But implementing the land use portion of AB 32 has fallen mostly to Bonner's Business, Transportation, and Housing (BTH) Agency, and the administration's rhetoric on the BTH side has focused mostly on providing local governments with carrots rather than wielding sticks in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, it appears that soon the Legislature will hand Schwarzenegger SB 375 – a bill that is supposed to provide a roadmap for implementing AB 32 on the land use side, but looks an awful lot like a statewide growth management law. It's hard to know how aggressively even a moderate Republican administration will go after implementation. Most important, however, is the fact that the focus of the Strategic Growth Council isn't really on the land use and greenhouse gas aspects of California's growth. Its major focus is on infrastructure – and, specifically, on building infrastructure more quickly. Virtually all of the administration's public information on the Strategic Growth Council is not about land use and growth patterns but, rather, about using public-private partnerships to speed up the delivery of infrastructure projects. The administration calls this approach "performance-based infrastructure." It includes not only the "design build" approach, which allows construction firms rather than state engineers to design infrastructure projects, but also efforts to permit private companies to finance, own, and lease public infrastructure projects. The strategic growth portion of the governor's 2008-09 budget focuses on public-private partnerships, going into extended detail about privately financed and owned infrastructure projects throughout the world. The administration has highlighted such efforts as the private toll lanes on State Highway 91 between Orange and Riverside counties as a successful example of such public-private partnerships. However, after a middling performance under private ownership, the toll lanes were taken over by the Orange County Transportation Authority a few years ago (see CP&DR Public Development , February 2003 , February 2000 ). The strategic growth portion of the governor's budget also highlights the next round of proposed infrastructure bonds in Schwarzenegger's agenda, including the eternal effort to build a more efficient – but potentially more environmentally destructive – system of moving water from north to south through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the need to build more surface reservoirs in California. Some of these efforts are likely to line up nicely with greenhouse-gas-driven growth management efforts. Almost everyone agrees, for example, that more reservoirs will be required as global warming continues to influence precipitation patterns. If the Strategic Growth Council is a serious effort by the administration to get the state's act together on growth and greenhouse gases, it could be very effective. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be just an effort to promote private infrastructure financing, it'll be yet another opportunity missed.