California is on the verge of "five major, protracted water crises" and must change its system of governance to address the urgent situation, according to "Managing California's Water," a comprehensive examination of the subject recently produced by the Public Policy Institute of California. The report recommends creating a Department of Water Management that is headed by an appointed director whose term overlaps different governors' administrations. This department, which could have cabinet-level status, would house a "public trust advocate" to ensure water is put toward reasonable uses and, for the first time, would have significant groundwater oversight. The report also recommends: • Establishing a water independent system operator (like the state's ISO for electricity) to serve as a clearinghouse for water transfers • Assigning control of the State Water Project to a new public utility, which would be run by the ISO board of directors • Creating nine "regional stewardship authorities" that would be like the existing regional water quality control boards but with new responsibilities for water supply, flood management and ecosystem management • Expanding the role of the Department of Fish and Game  "Our starting point on this is that we have not been successful in aquatic ecosystem management," said Ellen Hanak, a senior fellow at PPIC and one of eight report co-authors. "So much of this is done at the local level. Our suggestion is to scale up and be more comprehensive." California's current system for managing water is anything but systematic. It's an extraordinarily decentralized system that, according to PPIC, "has often resulted in uncoordinated, fragmented water and land use decisions that contribute to chronic groundwater overdraft, impairment of watersheds by a wide range of pollutants, ineffective ecosystem management, and rapid development in poorly protected floodplains. Similar coordination failures among state and federal agencies have led to inefficiencies in reservoir operations, ecosystem management and water marketing, among others." (The full report is available on the PPIC website .) Although the report does not get into details, the authors clearly see a need to better link land use planning decisions and water decisions, especially with regard to floodplain management. The five crises that the PPIC sees as "virtually guaranteed" unless reform is implemented are: • Extinction and decline of native species. • Catastrophic floods • Water scarcity • Deteriorating water quality • Decline of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The PPIC authors would beef up the Department of Fish and Game, which they say does not exercise all of its legal authority. The recommendation is to return the appointed Fish and Game Commission to its original role of overseeing fish and hunting, and making the department a more vigorous research and management entity. The agency would work closely with the new Department of Water Management and federal agencies to establish flow standards for the environment. The regional authorities and local entities would then figure out how to meet those standards, Hanak said. If a region did not perform adequately, state agencies would swing their regulatory hammer. The recommendation to give the new Department of Water Management some control of groundwater is potentially the most controversial recommendation. However, the move would help get California past the legally established – but scientifically fictitious – notion that groundwater and surface water are separate things. The report urges better use of markets to improve water efficiency. As Hanak explained, "If you accept that we're not going to be increasing water supplies, and that supplies might actually decrease because of changing climate conditions, and you consider population growth and environmental demands, there's going to be less slush in the system. There has got to be more efficiency." This is where the new water ISO would come in, serving as a clearinghouse to arrange arm's-length transactions between sellers and buyers. "Our water market has really stagnated," Hanak observed. Creating a new public utility to manage the State Water Project (SWP) is not an entirely new concept. As Hanak said, "There's an emerging consensus that something has to happen with the State Water Project." Currently, the Department of Water Resources runs the SWP. During most years, the SWP diverts 2 million to 3 million acre-feet of water from the Delta to Southern California cities and Central Valley farmers. However, a lack of resources has harmed the existing department's ability to manage the system. In addition, the PPIC identified a conflict between the department's role as a major holder of water rights, and its role for statewide water management. Some SWP contractors have said they should take over the system, but neither the PPIC nor the Little Hoover Commission – which reached many similar conclusions last year – endorse that approach.  The PPIC recommendation is based on the idea of managing water as a public commodity, which the PPIC describes as "balancing the public benefits of water and its value as an economic input." Only a disinterested entity could strike that balance. Reaction to the 450-page report has mostly centered on resource management recommendations (such as managing species at the ecosystem level rather than species-by-species) proposals for new fees, and on whether the PPIC was too hard or too soft on agriculture. The Association of California Water Agencies issued an entirely noncommittal response. There's been little comment on the governance proposals, although former Natural Resources Secretary Lester Snow noted that the difficulty of a reorganization is often inverse to its effectiveness. That's a fair enough point. Still, the reorganization strikes me as crucial. I don't know whether PPIC's proposal is the right one. I do know that, like most aspects of California government, our current water management system evolved piecemeal over a long time period and often based on court rulings No one starting from scratch would recommend our fragmented system, which frequently works against itself and is ill-suited to a state where water demand is rapidly outstripping supply. – Paul Shigley

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has aside a summary judgment in favor of a city in a dispute over a church's request to relocate and develop an expanded church facility in an industrial park. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel ruled that District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision in favor of the City of San Leandro was erroneous, and the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit did not rule on the merits of the case. As the membership of the Faith Fellowship Foursquare Church increased in the early 2000s, the church outgrew its existing facilities. The church began searching for a new location and eventually settled on property on Catalina Street in an industrial park. In March 2006, the church entered into a purchase agreement for the Catalina Street property.  The city's general plan designated the industrial park for industrial and technological activity. The city's zoning code did not allow assembly uses in the applicable zoning district. City planners advised Faith Fellowship that churches and other assembly uses were allowed only in residential districts, and then only with a conditional use permit. Staff advised the church that, before the church could develop the Catalina Street property, the city would have to amend the zoning code for the industrial limited ("IL") classification, and rezone the property to the IL district. After the church filed an application, city planners expressed reservations about the broader implications of allowing assembly uses in the IL zone. City officials then debated an alternative strategy: creating an overlay zone applicable to non-residential properties. Meanwhile, the church, in contract to purchase the Catalina property, was running out of time. In October of 2006, the church paid a non-refundable fee of $50,000 to extend the contract to the end of December 2006. At the end of December, the church closed the deal and took title to the property. In March 2007, the city adopted an overlay zone and applied the overlay to 196 properties amounting to, collectively, more than 200 acres. The Catalina Street property was not eligible for the overlay because the property did not meet the ordinance's criteria. The church then filed an application to apply the overlay to the Catalina Street property. The City Council rejected the application in May 2007. Concurrent with the overlay zoning request, the church sought an assembly use permit for its property. Because the existing zoning did not permit assembly uses, the Planning Commission and City Council denied the request.  The church then filed a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) lawsuit. Judge Hamilton first found that the city's zoning ordinance was a neutral law of general application. Because a neutral law imposes only an incidental burden under RLUIPA, Hamilton ruled, RLUIPA's "strict scrutiny" standard of review did not apply. As a result of applying a standard of review favorable to the city, the District Court granted summary judgment for the city. She found that the city's stated interest of reserving the Catalina Street property for industrial uses was legitimate. The appellate court first rejected the trial court's determination that, under RLUIPA and as a matter of law, the city's regulations could not impose a substantial burden on the church's exercise of religion. While the ordinance was facially neutral and of broad application, the "burden" was potentially triggered by the church's specific request for a rezoning and separate request for a conditional use permit, the Ninth Circuit found. To significantly burden the exercise of religion, the regulation must be more than an inconvenience, and must be "oppressive" to a "significant extent." In the summary judgment proceeding at the District Court, the church offered evidence from a realtor and former city manager that there were no other suitable sites in the city to house the church's operations. This evidence included a real estate agent's analysis that none of the 196 parcels zoned with the overlay zone was of sufficient size to house the church's operations, which included concurrent services, children's programs and related ministries for up to 1,600 people at one time. While the District Court found the evidence to be less than persuasive, the appellate court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. The city's argument that these activities could have been conducted at separate locations did not overcome the church's position that its faith required that these activities be conducted simultaneously and physically together. The Court of Appeals went on to address the District Court's additional determination that the city had provided a compelling government interest in preserving lands for employment uses, as called for in the general plan, and that the city's strategy was the least restrictive means of accomplishing that goal.  "Even if we assume without deciding that the city's interest is compelling, we believe there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the city used the least restrictive means to achieve its interest," wrote New York District Court Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, sitting by assignment to the Ninth Circuit. "While the city may prefer to preserve the Catalina property for industrial use, the city presents no evidence that it could not achieve the same goals by using other property within its jurisdiction for that purpose." Procedurally, the case goes back to trial at the District Court. The Case: International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro , No. 09-15163, 2011 DJDAR 2503. Filed February 15, 2011. The Lawyers: For the church: Kevin T. Snider and Matthew B. McReynolds, Pacific Justice Institute, (916) 857-6900. For the city: Jayne W. Williams, Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, (510) 808-2000.

Gov. Jerry Brown entered office three months ago with a vow to close the state's $26 billion budget gap as pragmatically as possible. What started out as an exercise in accounting has now risen to high political drama, most recently with the issuance of a 'list of demands' from state Republican lawmakers.  Not a single Republican member of the state Senate or Assembly has yet agreed to vote to put Brown's package of tax extensions on an upcoming statewide ballot. Doing so requires a 2/3 majority in both houses. Friday, GOP leaders told Brown what they want from him if they are to even consider supporting his tax plan. It's a long list, written roughly enough to suggest that perhaps it was not thought out thoroughly and is instead a document of opportunity. The GOP may, indeed, be throwing suggestions against the wall to see which ones stick. Not surprisingly, the list includes plenty of demands related to land use.  Some highlights:  CEQA Reform Reform of the California Environmental Quality Act has been long sought by many who contend that it unduly burdens the development process. In fact, the GOP has often opposed CEQA outright, thus perhaps complicating their demand that it be reformed.   Limit the amount of attorney's fees that a losing side would be liable for, and try to limit the size of overall awards. A lead agency not be required to respond to a comment after the closure of public comment period.  Facilitate the development of urban infill projects.  GHG emissions should be considered less-than-significant as long as a project is using best management practices; zero emissions not necessary.  Enterprise Zones Republicans consider the elimination of Enterprise Zones to be a "permanent tax increase" that is, presumably, unlawful because it is not being subjected to a popular vote.  Mello-Roos The GOP seeks a "fix" in response to the recent decision in Azusa Land Parnters v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 26, No. 2, Jan. 2011 ), which requires all projects in a Mello-Roos district to pay prevailing wages. Williamson Act Restore the Williamson Act subventions, to help landowners protect farmland and open space, for at least four years.   The entire list is available  here , on the L.A. Times' website.

The wait continues.   Reports indicated that the leadership in both houses would push for a vote on the elimination of redevelopment in today's 9 a.m. floor sessions. The vote on the mirror bills SB 77 and AB 101 has been anticipated for two weeks as Gov. Jerry Brown has attempted to shore up support for his budget package, including some $12 billion in taxes. Those sessions have come and gone.  Against the backdrop of unanimous Democratic support, five Republican legislators have indicated their possible willingness to side with the governor and authorize a popular vote on the extension of taxes such as the current vehicle license fee. The vote would give Brown the two-thirds majority he needs in both chambers. A package of $11 billion in cuts has already been approved and signed.  While it's unclear whether redevelopment has played into the GOP 5's deliberations, the California Redevelopment Association and the League of Calfornia Cities have been aggressively lobbying for a pair of alternative proposals. CRA officials see the delay as a chance to lobby for their alternative and have vowed to reach out to as many legislators as possible.  CRA's Option 1 would allow redevelopment agencies to voluntarily suspend their housing set-aside for FY 2011-12.  An equivalent amount of funds from any source must then be contributed to local school districts in project areas.  In exchange for this voluntary contribution, the agency's project area would be extended for two additional years.  Agencies are free to continue contributing to their housing funds during the first year of the proposal. In addition, or alternatively, Option 2 allows redevelopment agencies to voluntarily contribute up to 10 percent of their non-housing tax increment revenue stream each year to local school districts for 10 years, beginning in FY 2011-12.  In exchange for this contribution, redevelopment agencies would be able to extend the life of their project areas for one year per percentage contributed. Both of these options are designed to ease the state's budget burden without violating Prop. 22. Passed by voters in November, Prop. 22 prevents the state from seizing certain local funds (including RDA money). Supporters of redevelopment claim that Prop. 22 precludes the state from eliminating redevelopment agencies , such as Brown as proposed.  CP&DR will provide updates as they become available.  --Josh Stephens

In two years the world's biggest event on water will take place in San Francisco. But, like many other mega-sporting events, the 34th America's Cup is expected to have no small impact on land. With an expected draw of hundreds of thousands of spectators, San Francisco is already contemplating plans to capitalize on the crowds and prestige of the America's Cup. While it's no Olympics or World Cup in terms of scope, the event does present the city with an opportunity to bring about long-term changes. San Francisco was named as the host of the event on December 31, and its plans – both short- and long-term – are already unfolding. The America's Cup is traditionally hosted by a yacht club associated with the past winner and is therefore chosen largely by fiat, in contrast with the fierce competition for the Olympic Games. Bay Area luminary Larry Ellison – CEO of Oracle Corp. – won the Cup in 2010 and spearheaded the efforts to bring the race to his home waters. The race itself will take place in a wobbly ring within the Bay, meandering along the Embarcadero and Bay Bridge, past Treasure Island and Angel Island, over to the Marin Headlands, and then a quick in-and-out beneath the Golden Gate Bridge. Its organizers expect viewers to watch from all around the Bay, but the focus of attention will be around the city's piers, which will host the main viewing areas as well as a number of temporary facilities for the event. The city's bayfront between the Golden Gate and Bay bridges is already a busy tourist area, and the months-long racing events are expected to bring upwards of 200,000 visitors a day to the area. Most of the event-related work will be temporary, and much of it is centered around Piers 27 and 29. This will be the main viewing area, and also the site of the America's Cup village. The racing teams will be based at Piers 30 and 32, and will be the site of much activity during the main racing events held between July and September 2013, as well as during preliminary racing events held in summer 2012. Part of the hosting deal between the city and the America's Cup Event Authority includes significant infrastructure investments from the organizers that would refresh a number of aging piers. In exchange for a reported $80 million infrastructure investment, organizers get development rights and a 66-year lease on the Pier 30-32 and Pier 26-28 complexes. Overall, eight piers will see renovations or improvements ahead of the events, and a number of channels will be dredged. A report from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors' budget analyst in November projected a direct cost of hosting the Cup at about $42 million, not including lost revenue for the development rights and free leases handed over. The events and related work are expected to create a $1.4 billion economic impact for the city and region, according to America's Cup Event Authority spokesperson Stephanie Martin. The city of San Francisco recently announced a notice of preparation for the project's environmental impact report. A draft EIR is expected to be complete by this summer. Due to the tight deadlines of the event, the environmental review process has been expedited, according to Joy Navarrete, a senior environmental planner in the San Francisco Planning Department. She says the city was able to cut time by skipping the bidding process for an EIR consultant. Instead of the typical 12 to 18 months, this review is expected to take about 11 months. "But that's assuming the project description doesn't change," said Navarrete. As the event looms, city officials are trying to plan for the expected boost to traffic in the areas around the main event attractions. With tourist attractions like the Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 39, the area already has a high volume of foot and car traffic. A recent study of Jefferson Street between Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf found weekend pedestrian traffic of more than 70,000 people a day. During the event, even more pedestrian traffic is expected. In fact, it's being encouraged, according to Michael Martin, the America's Cup project director for the city. "What we recognize very acutely is that this can't be a car event," said Martin. "We don't have enough parking, the places where people are going to want to watch this are in a lot of residential neighborhoods, so we're really looking hard at how do we make a transit, a pedestrian, a bicycle kind of program that really encourages people to not use their cars." Though much of the event's preparations are temporary, one element will coincidentally become a very important part of the city for the long term. A previously planned new cruise ship terminal will be built at the Pier 27-29 complex, which will also serve as the America's Cup village. Partial construction on the terminal will begin before the event, creating a spectator and concessions area. Major construction on the terminal will commence after the racing event is over. Over the long-term, the America's Cup does have the potential for creating major change in the city. Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, sees the event as an opportunity to kickstart investments in the area that can benefit the city beyond the event. Much of that opportunity lies in transit projects and public space improvements along the waterfront. One of SPUR's recommendations is the extension of the city's historic F-Line streetcar further past Fisherman's Wharf to Fort Mason. "The long term improvements don't happen automatically," said Metcalf. "We can make some key investments in public spaces and public transit that will be here for the long run. They will help us handle the volume of visitors for the America's Cup, and they will be things that we use and rely on long after the America's Cup." The Golden Gate National Recreation Area's Fort Mason Center and the National Maritime Historic Park recently released a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed extension of the F-Line. The study for this $29 million project is expected to complete by January, and streetcars could be rolling in time for the America's Cup. The source of funding, however, remains an unanswered question. But Martin in the city's office argues that the event's impact won't only be on the built environment, but also on the logistics of the city. "It's also ways that we're moving people around the city or these information technology tools that could be demonstrated on an event basis, but then we suddenly see the value of them not only to this event but for other events and daily operation of the city," said Martin. Other long-term goals of the city are also being fast-tracked because of the America's Cup. For example, the event is likely to give extra weight to the Fisherman's Wharf Public Realm Plan. Originally envisioned in 2006, the plan seeks a redesign of the streetscape and circulation of a heavily toured area that hadn't been updated in more than 50 years.  The draft plan was approved last summer. Project Manager Neil Hrushowy of the city planning department says that the America's Cup has put the Fisherman's Wharf area even more in the spotlight. "There's a lot of political attention and the realization that there's going to be a whole lot of people from every part of the globe looking at San Francisco and Fisherman's Wharf," said Hrushowy. "So we really want to look good for that." While the plan and its focus on urban design might have otherwise been a harder sell during tough economic times, the America's Cup has given it a significant boost. "It's something that's easy for a politician to pick up and say ‘let's do it'. There's not a whole lot of work that has to be done before we can move towards final design and then implementation," Hrushowy said. "The timing's worked really well for us." This will be the first time San Francisco has hosted the America's Cup, and it may not be the last. Traditionally, the winner of the race gets to pick the venue for the next event. And this being the first time the event will have a large on-shore viewing audience, many expect it to be well-received by the racing teams. And though the America's Cup could potentially become a recurring part of San Francisco's waterfront, local officials are wary about thinking too far ahead into the future. "It's just an event," said Navarrete of the city planning department. "For now, we're looking at it as a one-time event." (CP&DR contributor Nate Berg covered the urban impacts of the 2010 World Cup.) Contacts: Stephanie Martin, Spokesperson, America's Cup Event Authority, 949.395.4532 Joy Navarrete, Senior Environmental Planner, San Francisco Planning Department, 415.575.9040 Michael Martin, America's Cup Project Director, City of San Francisco, 415.554.6937 Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, 415.644.4285 Neil Hrushowy, Fisherman's Wharf Public Realm Plan Project Manager, San Francisco Planning Department, 415.558.6471

A great deal of literature has already anointed the hero in the fight against climate change: the city. Beginning with David Owens' Green Metropolis and including the work of Paul Hawken, Ed Glaeser, and countless others, the city has come to symbolize all the ways that humans can live densely and tread lightly on the Earth.  These accolades might be premature. In his brief but wide-ranging book Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in a Hotter Future, Matthew Kahn renders no such heroes.  Kahn, a professor of economics and public policy at UCLA, does not say that we are doomed, even in the face of a three-foot sea level rise. He does, however, explain a host of reasons why the desire to defend against and adapt to a changing climate will be fraught with complications, many of them based in basic economic principles and faulty public policy. To Kahn, climate change is just a structural shift that will send us scrambling to reach a new equilibrium; it will not be a clarion call for purposefulness and altruism.  To a great extent, Kahn hams it up in the role of the circumspect economist. His prose is self-consciously lively and fun, perhaps to make up for the fact that his book has no grand narrative or particularly inspirational message. The playful attitude gets wearisome when he drops pop culture references ad nauseam, or constructs a whole chapter around Kobe Bryant. Pandering aside, Kahn is deadly serious about his message that market forces, as much as climactic forces, will determine who wins and who loses in the coming century.  Kahn considers climate change a certainty, as does the scientific community. He then assumes that individuals and institutions will eventually adapt to these changes whether they believe in them or not, such that choices about urban growth, energy consumption, and living patterns will be dictated by subtle and not-so-subtle strategies of adaptation. We may find, for instance, that real estate in Fargo grows more expensive (because Fargo will get warmer without becoming oppressive) while real estate in inland Southern California will go in the tank (see below). Kahn introduces the notion of "climate bundle," which accounts for changes not only in temperature but also in precipitation. With this holistic perspective, Kahn places his bets on five U.S. cities that will weather the permanent heat wave well without having to adapt: Salt Lake City, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Minneapolis, and -- no kidding -- Detroit. After a half-century of migration to the West and South, it appears that the Great Lakes region will rise again. (Internationally, Kahn bets on Moscow, Beijing, Paris, Crakow, and Calgary -- all chilly inland cities, at least for now.) Kahn isn't saying that these cities are particularly green or that they even need to be green. Rather that they have the greatest possibility of maintaining, or improving, their current quality of life. Ironically, writes Kahn, the supposedly heroic cities -- the New Yorks, San Franciscos, and Portlands -- are unlikely to do anyone much good because "the cities with the smallest carbon footprint are the least likely to permit new housing to be built." In other words, Prius-driving yuppies don't want to let in any more Prius-driving yuppies.  Unlike its Northern California neighbor, Los Angeles has never been a model for sustainability, and Kahn spends a whole chapter elaborating on the fate of his adopted home. He notes that with a 13-degree rise by 2070, the city with the mildest weather in the country will end up feeling like Jacksonville, Florida. Whether the beautiful people will want to subject their hair to that kind of climate remains open to debate. Currently, places with warm winters and mild summers command huge premiums in real estate values. That may go away. Kahn figures that the rich will continue to cluster along the more temperate coast (which, he writes, would be maximally efficient if it assumed the density of Manhattan -- if only Angelenos would accept density and, perhaps, part with some of their golf courses), while the inner-city poor and inland suburbanites will swelter. Wearing his dispassionate-but-wry economist's hat, Kahn notes that those places "will suffer home price declines as their climate amenity premium vanishes."  Climate changes, writes Kahn, will be accompanied by an infinite number of economic signals, many of which will serve to highlight current market failures that are brought on by shortsighted policies or structural inefficiencies. One lousy policy, writes Kahn, is that of cheap water and power in Southern California. He writes that prices should be allowed to rise as these resources become increasingly scarce. Instead, Los Angeles' response to its decades-old water crisis is to tell people not to hose down their driveways. Talk about a drop in the bucket. In light of this kind of half-hearted measure, Kahn advocates old-fashioned, efficient pricing signals to encourage consumers to do what is necessary.  Los Angeles is not, of course, the only city that has to cope with climate change while also trying to maintain it status in the world. Kahn visits New York -- often considered the darling of sustainable living -- and points out that it, too, has plenty of adapting to do. Climate change presents New York with a new forum in which to compete: every city is going to experience climate change differently, and every city must devise and pay for its own adaptive measures. In the most crass terms, if a city fails to make the right investments, then--polar bears be damned--its homeowners and business-owners are going to wake up to severely depressed real estate values. In this sense, Kahn sees public policy as a way to protect an investment known as "life as we know it."  This attention to the landed classes, though, highlights a problem that will arise largely in cities of the developing world. In the chapter entitled "Bono's Anxiety," in reference to the U2 frontman's concern for the global poor, Kahn explains why the poor will suffer most from a changing climate. While rural lifestyles and agricultural output will be upset by changing weather patterns, in the cities "climate change will increase inequality across Indian states, because more educated areas will fare better as their politicians work for the people, unlike those in poorer, more backward regions." India's only hope may lie in "leapfrog" development, in which it waits for the developed world to devise the right technologies and techniques and then adopts them in one fell-swoop.   In his penultimate chapter, on "opportunities" that will arise from climate change, Kahn attempts to put a positive spin on the looming tragedy. He explains how some places will end up with better skiing and how carbon pricing will lead to a resurgence in the shipping industry. He is not, however, so sanguine on the popular notion of creating clusters of "green jobs." He writes, "…for every one hundred new jobs created in a city, only a small share of jobs (less than 10 percent) go to unemployed residents." He is skeptical of subsidies for green industries or other interventions, preferring instead a carbon tax that will force all other industries to adapt of their own accord to higher energy prices.  Even without those policy changes, Kahn's ultimate message is that the climate is not going to wait for them or for any other adaptive strategies. It is already brewing in the stratosphere, heating up little by little, irreversibly building up to the moment when we finally cannot ignore it any longer. And when that moment comes, we will have to adapt whether we like it or not. For that reason, Kahn's account has an air of futility. He offers recommendations mixed equally with predictions -- about human behavior and the economic forces that compel people not to make the right decisions. Ultimately, it's a breezy primer on the world to come but one that is neither scary enough to inspire action nor entertaining enough (try though it might) for anyone to take notice. We will simply have to wait for some other hero to come along.  Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in a Hotter Future Matthew E. Kahn Basic Books 274 pages $26.95

Alvaro Huerta grew up in a forlorn place, where urban planning surely failed. Living in Los Angeles' Ramona Gardens housing project, the son of Mexican immigrants, Huerta read only two books and wrote a single two-page paper through 13 years of elementary and secondary school in the public school system. But he knew what he was missing, and he is now in the process of completing his doctorate at UC Berkeley's Department of City & Regional Planning. Currently a visiting scholar at UCLA's Chicano Studies Research Center, Huerta has emerged as a leading voice for disenfranchised urban poor. Last fall, the American Planning Association awarded Huerta its national Advancing Diversity & Social Change award for his service to the planning world and to minority communities.  What is your mission? What are the social, economic, and political issues that you feel passionately about?  I'm interested in issues of diversity, social justice, and equity. In a state like California, which is about 30 percent Latino, you don't have the same amount of representation in education or at the higher level in planning positions or in faculty positions—people making the decisions taking place in everyday life.  Another area within that is the issue of how this country treats immigrants, particularly how conservatives and Republicans are treating in the current recession that we're facing. People that were once middle class are now very vulnerable in the working class or are now unemployed.  I'm interested in that population on the bottom who don't have a voice and are people are blamed for things that have nothing to do with them.  They're not the ones who deregulated the banks or engaged in the war in Iraq where there was no threat. But for some reason the burden is put on them. That has to do with my own personal upbringing. I experienced poverty and racism firsthand and now that I'm in a position to say something about it, I can say that at the personal level and also at a professional level.  In what ways have cities contributed to, or helped alleviate, the problems that interest you?  If we look at the history of urban planning in California and throughout the U.S., it's been a mixed bag. There's been a lot of great progress in terms of improving the quality of life in cities and creating the infrastructure and institutions of higher education. We have segregated housing from sources of pollution. So planners and government have done a lot of great things to protect the interests of average people. On the flip side, during the middle 20th century we had urban renewal: federal programs where you see that there's segregation of minorities in the inner cities and you see white flight into the suburbs and then you see how the schools where the poor live are overcrowded, poorly funded, and (that) perpetuated the poverty that people are under that live in these types of conditions. The cities themselves are set up in such a way that, for the poor, they only perpetuate the status quo.  There are those that have the resources to get ahead, and those that don't are unfortunately at the bottom.  At an institutional level there's an understanding that things are they way they are because it's sort of a normal state of being. Inequality is part of the system and people accept it.  You have people that are rich and influential and those that are poor and destitute. You have a situation where the people themselves are being blamed for their own circumstances: you're poor because you don't work hard enough or because you don't apply yourself in school.  Then you have situations like a Justice Sotomayor or a Barack Obama, and the message is that if you work hard you can become president or a justice of the Supreme Court. But those examples place the burden on individuals and families: it implies that they're in the situation they're in because they lack initiative, because their culture doesn't put education as a priority.  What do cities need to do address these issues?  We need to have a New Deal for cities and to have programs that are aimed at getting people back to work. There's too much emphasis on planning and infrastructure and not enough in terms of people and the social capital that already exists in terms of people. If you look at any poor community, there is a lot of organization and there's a sense of purpose.  People pull their resources together to get by.  As planners there should be an emphasis on helping people and working within informal institutions.  It could be microloans or helping people with their businesses out of their homes.  A lot of people don't work in the formal economy but they still need to get by. For example, some people collect cans and recyclables to sell. You have a lot of entrepreneurial spirit, and a lot of them come from their countries, from South America. But when they come here, they're relegated to dead-end jobs.   I believe in big government in the sense of investing in people and investing in projects that can help them relieve poverty.  I think, for example, there should be a GI Bill for inner-city poor people.  If we have these types of programs to address the needs of the poor that attend these overcrowded schools, I think it will make a difference.  These ideas are quite different from what planners deals with on a daily basis. How do you shift the planning profession to the things you're talking about?  The problem in general with planning is that they're part of a bureaucratic system that's overwhelming.  They're under the direction of the city council. They're just following orders, and they make recommendations based on what the policymakers say and do.   A lot of people say that they want to join (planning departments) and change them from within.  That's fine and dandy. These are personal prerogatives. But at the end of the day they are part of the same system that they wanted to change. I believe that planners and policy makers should take a more bottom-up approach, where they go directly to the communities that they are serving and allowing concerned members to have direct input into the planning process.  This means holding planning at local schools and community centers in the various languages of the communities without the technical language that excludes those without college educations. In a city like Los Angeles, for example, the special interest groups have such a grip that they determine what happens. Any of these things that I talk about are seen as marginal or idealistic things that are not realistic when it comes to day-to-day reality at City Hall.   For example, they want to build a billion-dollar football stadium and the mayor and all these people are behind it. To me, that's preposterous.  I thought the city is broke and are laying off thousands of people. And all of a sudden AEG wants to build a stadium. There's no proof that these stadiums are profitable. When LAUSD wants to build a school near a freeway, you don't see the same outcry or rally to prevent that from happening.  Poor immigrants don't guarantee season tickets.  How do you think the elimination of redevelopment would affect low-income communities?  When funds are allocated specifically to blighted communities or to areas that need investment and all of a sudden that money is taken away, the hope of any change is just not there anymore. There was a time with urban renewal when these funds were only in the interest of certain groups, like business groups. Like we had Dodger Stadium, which displaced a whole community. But now we see that – with more people being aware of these types of practices – these monies that have been allocated more for communities where there's a need for affordable housing or a need for businesses or other things that will generate some income and that also dignify the community. When you take that away, there's no incentive in the private sector for them to (invest in the community). There's just no profit to be made if you don't have government involved.  Some of the negatives with these types of investments is that it leads to gentrification. I think the challenge is to beautify and improve communities without displacing the people who live there. But just overall the trend at the moment is not looking very good for these communities that are in desperate need of funds.   Unfortunately I don't see the same transparency that should take place among these agencies.  A lot of CRAs operate in a fashion that people don't know what they're doing. A lot of the language is very technical, and meetings are held during the day. At the CRA meetings, there's no coincidence that the audience members are typically lawyers and lobbyist from special interest groups, where most community members are even unaware of their existence and role in their communities. If CRAs were better integrated into the community and held town hall meetings in the communities that need the most attention. Hold them after-hours, have translation, there will be more of an outcry. But at the moment, unless you're an urban planner or you have some special interest, most people don't really know what's being debated.   Are there any impacts on these communities from SB 375 that you're either hopeful about or wary of? A lot of the pollution that is emitted, there's a disproportionate amount of negative impact on poor and minority communities. You have cities in southeast Los Angeles where there's a high concentration of people living in a small area and you have five freeways intersecting that area.  These are the individuals that are consuming a lot of the pollution that is emitted.  We all benefit one way or another from having businesses that pollute in the sense that there's electricity and people driving…but when it comes to the actual source, it's mainly concentrated in these communities.  These are the people that are impacted the most.  Unfortunately they cannot get up and leave.  This has nothing to do with NIMBYism. It has to do with environmental racism and environmental justice. In a democratic society everybody should share the burden.  We all benefit from having businesses that pollute. But when it comes to the actual cause, it's mainly concentrated in these low-income communities.  When we pass laws to regulate this and reduce the emissions, these laws will de facto benefit those people because these are the individuals who are being exposed to that pollution. That should be the number-one priority for ensuring the health and welfare of people who are in an economic position where they cannot move.   This interview has been edited and condensed.

The redevelopment system in California was still standing when the Legislature broke for the weekend Thursday night. But that's only because the bill has gotten caught up in the partisan wrangling over the budget as a whole. The Legislature will return on Monday, and the betting in Sacramento is that redevelopment will be killed early next week. And discussion around the Capitol is quickly turning to what Gov. Jerry Brown will propose as the "replacement tool" for redevelopment. SB 77, the bill that would eliminate redevelopment, fell one vote short of passage in the Assembly on Wednesday night – but that was only because the Democrats had introduced the bill, along with a number of other budget bills, with a two-thirds vote requirement in hopes of luring Republicans over the line. The 53-23 vote went down on straight party lines with one exception: Assemblymember Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, voted with the Democrats. Norby, of course, has based his entire political career, from the Fullerton City Council to the Orange County Board of Supervisors to the Assembly, on his ideological opposition to redevelopment. In fact, there are many Republicans who are ready to kill redevelopment, just as there are some urban Democrats who would like to save it. So two possibilities exist for early next week: Either the Republicans and Democrats strike a budget deal and there's an overwhelming vote to kill redevelopment, or the Democrats bring the idea back in a way that allows a simple-majority vote and kill it separate from the overall budget deal. Either way it looks dead. One question is whether the Legislature will seriously consider the alternative served up last week by the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities .  The alternative would set up a voluntary system allowing redevelopment agencies to extend the life of their projects if they offer up money to school districts. Supposedly it holds the potential to provide $2.7 billion in funds for schools. Unlikely. The general sense in Sacramento on Friday was that the proposal was too little, too late – especially after the scorched-earth approach taken by the CRA and the League since January. Among other things, the alternative seemed designed to plug this year's budget gap without worrying about future years – whereas the Brown Administration seems intent on a permanent shift of tax-increment funds away from redevelopment agencies. And the Democrats – whose urban constituencies should lead them to favor redevelopment – have expended an awful lot of effort in the last two months criticizing redevelopment as fraud-ridden and useless. It would be very hard for them to shift gears and say, "Oh, never mind." --Bill Fulton

Updated Thursday morning. Yesterday the Senate and Assembly considered AB 101, which is the budget bill that includes the provisions to eliminate redevelopment, per Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal.   AB 101 fell one vote short in the Assembly. It had passed the Senate Budget Committee, 10-7, but, upon failing in the Assembly, it did not come up for a vote in the full Senate. While the Assembly voted on AB 101, the Senate deliberated on SB 77, which is a mirror of AB 101. Legislators did, however, approve $7.4 billion in spending cuts.  Both houses are expected to reconsider the redevelopment bills in the 11am floor session today.

The California Assembly and Senate are expected to vote on the budget proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The trailer bill concerning redevelopment, AB 101 , emerged from committee today. If enacted, it would codify the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the winding down of their activities under "successor agencies" and oversight boards. Agency activities would effectively end July 1. The bill language includes the provision that agencies canno t "pledge or encumber, for any purpose, any...revenues or assets" and cannot "Amend or modify existing agreements, obligations, or commitments with any entity, for any purpose"  as of Jan. 1, 2011. These provisions mean that much of the evasive action that agencies have been taking may be for naught if successor agencies attempt to undo deals that have been made in the past ten weeks. As well, the bill language retains the provision that successor agencies would "approved development projects, which were funded by tax increment revenues of the dissolved redevelopment agency." Cities that wish to retain properties and proceed with development may purchase the properties from successor agencies form their own coffers at "fair market value."   Earlier today the California Redevelopment Association put forth its own plan that would salvage redevelopment agencies and encourage them to make voluntary transfer payments to help ease the state's budget crisis. The fate of that proposal is unclear as of yet.  --Josh Stephens

After weeks of stalemate and tough talk -- on both sides -- the California Redevlopment Association has announced an alternative to Gov. Jerry Brown's intention to eliminate redevelopment. The CRA announced today a compromise plan that would preserve the architecture of redevelopment while allowing the transfer of certain funds to schools (at the expense of affordable housing), thus easing the state's deficit.   CRA Executive Director John Shirey said that the proposal does not yet have any sponsors in the Legislature but that feedback on initial drafts of the proposal had been positive. Shirey said that he expected the governor to be unyielding but hoped that legislators would be able to swap it into the budget bill in place of the governor's more draconian measure.  Budget talks have reportedly stalled in Sacramento, with the governor attempting to garner support from Republican legislators.  CRA officials say that their plan would comply with the state constitution -- particularly Prosition 22 --  by allowing voluntary contributions from redevelopment agencies. In doing so, the compromise plan presumably avoids the legal battles that would likely ensue if the governor's plan was adopted intact.  The proposal includes the following two key provisions: 1) Local redevelopment agencies can voluntarily suspend their housing set-aside for FY 2011-12.  An equivalent amount of funds must then be contributed to local school districts in project areas. In exchange for this contribution of funds for FY 2011-12 to local schools, the agency will be allowed to extend the project area's life by two years. 2) In addition, or alternatively, redevelopment agencies could voluntarily contribute up to 10 percent of their tax increment revenue stream to local school districts for 10 years, beginning in FY 2011-12. CRA estimates that the alternative could raise more than $2.7 billion over the 10-year life of the proposal, exceeding the $1.7 billion in the governor estimates that could be gained by eliminating redevelopment. --Josh Stephens

A developer building a housing development on the site of the closed Fort Ord Army post in Monterey County was required to pay prevailing wages to construction workers, a state appellate court has ruled. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, held that deeds for property acquired from the City of Marina Redevelopment Agency required the purchaser/developer to pay prevailing wages to construction workers, because the deeds incorporated a master resolution that explicitly mandates payment of prevailing wages.  In addition, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit were entitled to $73,167.50 in attorney's fees. Developer Cypress Marina Heights LP (CMH) acquired 248 acres of Fort Ord land from the Marina's Redevelopment Agency (MRDA) at fair market value – more than $10 million – for the development of the 1,050-unit Marina Heights project. The redevelopment agency had acquired the land from the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) for $1 per parcel. Covenants in the FORA/MRDA deeds required payment of the prevailing wage for Monterey County to workers on all "first generation construction" relating to development of the land, regardless of whether the projects were considered "public works" under the Labor Code. The Department of Industrial Relations sets prevailing wage rates for different regions of the state based largely on union-level wages in large cities. The prevailing wage requirement typically applies only to public works projects and private development projects that receive a public subsidy. Cypress Marina Heights refused to commit to pay the prevailing wage to workers on the Marina Heights project and claimed that its purchase agreement with MRDA did not require payment of the prevailing wage. Two labor unions, a mechanical contractors association and two Marina residents filed suit against CMH, MRDA and other entities that had acquired Fort Ord property. In a motion for summary adjudication against only CMH, the trial court found that CMH was required to pay the prevailing wage. The court also awarded plaintiffs their attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.   The unanimous, three-judge court of appeal panel affirmed the judgment by reasoning that the master resolution, approved in 1997 and included in the transfer of land, obligated MRDA to require CMH to pay the prevailing wage. The 2001 implementation agreement between FORA and the city mandated that any transfer of property acquired from FORA by MRDA must be done in compliance with the master resolution and must incorporate specific deed covenants. Besides explicitly stating that the covenants would run with the land in perpetuity, the deeds also stated:  "Grantee covenants for itself, its successors, and assigns and every successor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof, that Grantee and such successors and assigns shall comply with all provisions of the Implementation Agreement as if the Grantee were the referenced Jurisdiction under the Implementation Agreement and specifically agrees to comply with the Deed Restrictions and Covenants set forth in Exhibit F of the Implementation Agreement as if such Deed Restrictions and Covenants were separately recorded prior to the recordation of this Deed."  The court ruled "this language indisputably binds MRDA's successors in interest;" therefore, CMH was required to pay prevailing wages. After affirming the trial court's ruling, the appellate court addressed the attorney's fees. The trial court had granted two summary adjudication motions: one against CMH and one against East Garrison Partners I, another Fort Ord developer. Finding that CMH was less culpable than East Garrison Partners, the trial court required CMH to pay 35% of the total attorney's fees amount and Garrison 65% .  On appeal, CMH argued that the award of attorney's fees was improper because the case did not enforce an important right affecting the public interest, as required under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. CHM also argued that, even if an award of attorney's fees was proper, the amount was too great. On the first issue, the appellate court said that, in determining the importance of the particular vindicated right, courts should realistically assess the significance of that right in relation to the achievement of fundamental legislative goals. In this case, the plaintiffs' enforcement of prevailing wage requirements did vindicate a public interest and revitalized a local economy, resulting in benefits to 900 construction workers. After determining that attorney's fees were appropriate, the court reasoned that the amount of the fee award was reasonable, given that only 35% of the requested amount was awarded against CMH. The Case: Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP , No. H034143, 2011 DJDAR 1324. Filed January 10, 2011. Ordered published January 24, 2011. The Lawyers: For the Trades Council: John Jacobs Davis Jr., Davis Cowell & Bowe, (415) 597-7200. For Cypress Marina Heights: Patrick Edward Breen, Allen, Matkins, (213) 622-5555.