Although freeways have helped shape the development of California, very few new freeways have been built since the 1980s. The focus has instead been on widening existing freeways, and adding carpool and transit lanes. But in Riverside County, where construction and development are major economic drivers, county officials are trying to add a new east-west freeway. The proposed Mid County Parkway is seen as a crucial link as the county's population grows from 2.1 million to 3 million residents by 2025. Initial plans for the freeway called for a 32-mile road from Corona to San Jacinto to be built at a cost of $3 billion. Earlier this summer, though, the county's transportation commission bowed to political and economic reality, and shortened the planned freeway by half, deleting the roadway's western portion that would have linked Interstate 215 to Corona. Now the $1.6 billion freeway – which is scheduled to open by 2016 – is proposed to cover 16 miles from the city of San Jacinto and State Route 79 to Interstate 215 in Perris. Funding for the parkway is far from certain. Money will come from the county's half-cent sales tax for transportation, development fees, and state and federal highway funds. Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster said he expects the roadway to be built in segments as development impact fee revenue becomes available. But some Perris city officials oppose the project, saying it will cut their city of 55,000 people in half and remove 111 homes, businesses, a new fire station and a skateboard park. "There's huge development out there, and we have to move traffic," said Perris City Councilman Mark Yarbrough. But, he continued "There needs to be a balance here. We're the only city being impacted like this." Yarbrough suggests that the Riverside County Transportation Commission focus its efforts on improving and extending Highway 74, which would provide a better link between Perris, Hemet and Elsinore. Another option would be to improve already-existing Ramona Expressway, which would parallel the proposed Mid County Parkway. Environmentalists have long expected the parkway. They accepted the parkway in 2003 as part of the Riverside County Integrated Program. That plan outlined future transportation corridors and set up multiple species habitat conservation areas for endangered and threatened species (see CP&DR Q&A , January 2004 ; In Brief , July 2003 ; CP&DR , January 2002 ). However, after Mid County Parkway environmental studies were released, the freeway generated opposition – primarily along the proposed western half of the road – from local residents, a landfill operator and environmentalists. The western parkway would have gone through several reserves set up under the habitat plan. The Riverside County Transportation Commission board, comprised of all five county supervisors plus city representatives, decided to scale back the project at its July 8 meeting. "They cut off the part that is most vulnerable to litigation," explained George Hague, conservation chair of the Moreno Valley group of the Sierra Club. Indeed, lawsuits from environmentalists and residents of the Gavilan Hills area west of Perris appeared likely if the stretch of parkway from I-215 to Corona were included in the project. Buster said building that section of the parkway would involve a "protracted legal battle." Supervisor Jeff Stone agreed when he told the Riverside Press-Enterprise that the western section of the project was "a litigation minefield." Instead of building the parkway, the county now intends to upgrade the existing Cajalco Road in the same area, which is likely to retain its rural character with the new roadway project ending at I-215. While Perris city officials worry about the eastern portion of the parkway, Hague expressed fears that the western portion will still get built someday, and will be tied into freeways to Orange County. Much of Riverside County's growth is from workers in Orange County seeking affordable housing. Hague noted that $15 million in congressional funding is being used to test the feasibility of building three 12-mile tunnels through the adjacent Santa Ana Mountains to provide new transportation routes to Orange County. However, now that the Riverside County Transportation Commission has dropped plans on the western portion of the Mid County Parkway, those tunnels appear doomed. Supervisor Buster, who represents western portions of the county, said the decision not to build the western stretch of the parkway "is kind of a watershed point for the county" because it lessens the chance that a new road to Orange County will be built. A tunnel, he said, would have promoted jobs in other counties, while the revised parkway's focus is on travel within Riverside County. The county can also use money it would have spent on the parkway's western portion on upgrading arterial roads within the county, he said. A new environmental study for the San Jacinto-Perris portion of the parkway is expected to be completed by next summer. Hague said environmental groups already are wary of the noise and pollution that the freeway could bring. "Our concern is this roadway will foster sprawl that will significantly impact the area," he said. Hague also criticized the name of the Mid County Parkway. "When you say parkway, it gives it a nice, fuzzy feeling," he said. "It's a six- to eight-lane freeway." Perris Councilman Yarbrough concurred. "This is not a parkway. This is a freeway," he stated. Among the projects the new parkway would serve is the Villages of Lakeview, an 11,000- to 15,000-unit housing development awaiting approval by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Buster said he had recently met with the developers, Lewis Planned Communities, and they are still planning on building the project, despite the recession. The parkway contains no mass transit options such as bus lanes or rail. But Cathy Bechtel, project manager for parkway, said there is room in the parkway's 60-foot median to add bus lanes in the future, if necessary. A train line would be difficult to build because of the region's rocky, hilly terrain, she said. The city of Perris is already expected to gain train service that will tie into the Metrolink rail system by 2012, as part of a 23-mile extension from Riverside, she said. An estimated 60,000 motorists a day will use the new parkway. Although Bechtel said an additional traffic lane will be added on I-215, Buster said details for the intersection with I-215 and the parkway still need to be resolved. Contacts: Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster, (951) 955-1010. Perris City Councilman Mark Yarbrough, (951) 943-4903. Cathy Bechtel, project manager, Riverside County Transportation Commission, (951-787-7934. George Hague, conservation chair, Moreno Valley Group, Sierra Club, (951) 924-0816. Mid County Parkway website: www.midcountyparkway.org .

Less than one week after the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to create a task force to overhaul the Planning and Development Services department, the department director resigned. In July, a county audit concluded that the planning department was in "critical condition" after years of declining revenues and shrinking staffs. It said the department's priority had become self-preservation. Department director Tim Neely retired during the audit. Public Works Director Bryan Speegle replaced Neely. He did not contest the audit's findings but insisted departmental changes were underway. But only days after the supervisors voted to form the task force on August 4, Speegle announced his retirement after 26 years with the county. The City of Irvine has approved a controversial amendment to a 2005 agreement with the consortium of developers handling the El Toro Marine Corps base reuse project. Under the amendment, the developers, headed by Lennar, may build up to 4,900 homes – or about one-third more units than originally approved. The developers were also relieved of their obligation to build 45 holes of golf. In exchange, the developers transferred 131 additional acres to Irvine and agreed to pay $58 million over five years for infrastructure and park maintenance, plus $9 million over nine years for the loss of golf course revenue. The amended agreement also permits the city to build retail space, restaurants, hotels and a police station on portions of the 1,480 acres devoted to the "Great Park." City officials say the infusion of cash will jump-start construction of the Great Park, which has stalled because development intended to generate money for it has been slow to occur (see CP&DR Places , March 2006 ). Councilwoman Christina Shea, a longtime skeptic of the El Toro reuse plan, voted against the amendment, saying it amounted to "a bailout for Lennar." Stockton's downtown redevelopment efforts suffered a major setback in August when the Lexington Plaza Waterfront Hotel was closed and repossessed by the lender, First Bank of Missouri. Developed by Regent Hotel, LLC, the $62 million, 150-room hotel opened in December 2007 as a Sheraton but fell into receivership in less than a year because Regent was unable to sell the 40 condominiums topping the hotel. The hotel is part of downtown waterfront redevelopment effort that also includes an indoor arena, a minor league baseball park, a 10-acre public park and amphitheater, and a plaza (see CP&DR Local Watch , December 2006 ). The city sold the land for the hotel and a small convention center for $1 and provided a $500,000 development subsidy. The City of Santee has sued San Diego County over the county's plans to expand the Las Colinas Detention Facility for women in Santee. The city contends the county's environmental impact report for the 30-acre expansion failed to fully address the project's effects on traffic and public safety. Ryan Companies US, which is developing a mixed-use project adjacent to the jail site, filed a similar lawsuit against the county. A separate lawsuit filed by Santee in 2008 is on appeal. The city contends the county should have prepared an EIR before accepting a $100-million state grant to enlarge the jail. The Palo Alto City Council has voted to adopt a ballot initiative that mandates wider private streets in new development projects. Private streets built after July 31 must be at least 32 feet wide, even if narrower streets were already approved in projects. Some recently built private streets are as slender as 20 feet across, and they have generated complaints about the lack of street parking and poor emergency vehicle access. In June, proponents of the initiative submitted enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot. But rather than place the measure before voters, the council decided to accept it. Final adoption is scheduled for September, after the city completes an environmental review of the initiative's effects.

Two Bush administration policies for managing national forests were invalidated by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in early August. One three-judge panel blocked implementation of a 2004 amendment to the Sierra Nevada Framework that governs all 11 national forests in the mountain range. A second panel rejected the Forest Service's attempt to eliminate a Clinton-era rule prohibiting development in designated roadless areas of national forests. The court ruled that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act by not conducting required environmental reviews. The first case involved the Sierra Nevada Framework, which was adopted during the final days of the Clinton presidency. Backed primarily by environmentalists and community groups, the framework reduced permissible logging levels by about one-third by limiting the size of trees that may be cut. The plan was intended to prevent the court-ordered shut down of logging, as occurred in Oregon and Washington during the 1980s and 1990s (see CP&DR Environment Watch , April 2005 , March 2001 ). The Bush-era Forest Service amended the framework to permit logging of much larger trees. The increased logging would generate money for forest-thinning projects to reduce fire danger. Environmental groups sued, arguing the Forest Service violated NEPA, but District Court Judge Morrison England declined to issue a preliminary injunction to block the amendment. Last year, a Ninth Circuit panel overturned England and issued the preliminary injunction ( Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey , 526 F3d 1228). The administration asked for a new hearing, and the same panel reconsidered in light of new standards for a preliminary injunction established in an unrelated case by the U.S. Supreme Court ( Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council , 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). In its latest decision, the Ninth Circuit still held that a preliminary injunction was appropriate. The Forest Service in 2004 should not have relied on the environmental impact statement for the 2001 framework because the Forest Service's own modeling techniques had changed and because the 2004 amendment "introduced substantially new objectives" to the framework, according to the court. England has since ruled for the environmentalists in their NEPA claim. The Ninth Circuit said the judge should now consider whether to block implementation of the 2004 amendment permanently. The second case involved Bush administration efforts to repeal the "roadless rule" for millions of acres of national forests. Also promulgated during the final days of the Clinton administration, the rule barred most road building, logging, mining and drilling from inventoried roadless areas. Instead, the Bush administration in 2005 adopted the "state petitions rule," which allowed individual states to determine how to manage roadless areas of national forests within each state. The Forest Service declared the new rule categorically exempt from review under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act because the rule was merely a procedural change. In litigation involving numerous states and interest groups, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte in 2006 blocked the Forest Service from implementing the new rule and ordered the 2001 roadless rule reinstated. In a blunt opinion, the Ninth Circuit upheld Laporte's decision. "By permanently removing the roadless rule from the Code of Federal Regulations, the state petitions rule did much more than establish a new procedure for consideration of state-specific land management rules: It purported to ensure that future land management decisions would never again be constrained by the roadless rule and its enhanced protections for inventoried roadless areas," Judge Robert Beezer wrote for the court. "It was unreasonable for the USDA to characterize the permanent repeal of these substantive protections as ‘merely procedural' and within the scope of the cited categorical exclusion." Other litigation over how to manage roadless national forest areas continues. In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit decision applies nationwide. First Case: Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey , No. 07-16892, 2009 DJDAR 12032. Filed August 13, 2009. The Lawyers: For Sierra Forest Legacy: David Edelson, (510) 527-4116. For the Forest Service: Jennifer Scheller, U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division, (202) 514-2000. Second Case: People v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture , No. 07-15613, 2009 DJDAR 11669. Filed August 5, 2009. The Lawyers: For the People: Claudia Polsky, California attorney general's office, (510) 540-3951. For the Forest Service: John Smeltzer, U.S. Department of Justice, (202) 514-2000.

A state appellate court has reinstated the results of a local ballot initiative that authorize a large development near the San Luis Obispo County airport. A trial court judge had thrown out the initiative on the grounds that it was superceded by the State Aeronautics Act and that the ballot measure amounted to an "adjudicative" rather than a legislative act. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, disagreed, ruling that the aeronautics law did not preclude the initiative and that it was appropriately legislative in nature. Ever since the 1980s, landowner Ernest Dalidio Jr. has been trying to develop his 130-acre property west of Highway 101 and south of Madonna Road. Five years ago, he finally won approval for a project from the City of San Luis Obispo. But city voters nullified the approval in a 2005 referendum, and the city never annexed the property, as Dalidio had proposed. A year later, Dalidio took a proposed development directly to county voters in the form a general plan amendment and zoning changes. The proposal involved a 530,000-square-foot retail center, 200,000 square feet of office and business space, a 150-room hotel, 60 housing units and a permanent farmers market. County voters passed the proposal, Measure J, by a 2-1 margin in November 2006. Opponents continued to complain that the developer would not pay his fair share for a needed freeway interchange and that plans for an on-site sewage-treatment plant were uncertain to pass state regulatory muster. The Citizens for Planning Responsibly and the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County sued to block the project, and San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Roger Picquet ruled in their favor. Dalidio appealed. In its decision, the appellate panel first addressed the question of whether the initiative was legislative. Only legislative acts are subject to the initiative process. Judge Picquet had characterized Measure J as adjudicative because it involved a specific proposal for a defined area and not more general rules for future cases. The appellate panel pointed to the landmark cases of Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mes a, (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, and DeVita v. County of Napa , (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763. In Arnel , the state Supreme Court held that a zoning ordinance is a legislative matter that may be enacted by initiative. In DeVita , it ruled that a general plan amendment is legislative and thus subject to the initiative process. The three judges said Dalidio's initiative was no exception to these rulings. The appellate panel then turned to the State Aeronautics Act, which requires every county to have an airport land use commission that adopts plans for areas around airports. Cities and counties must comply with the plans unless they make certain findings regarding compatibility with airport uses and obtain two-thirds approval from the legislative body. Measure J would alter general plan and zoning designations within an area subject to the San Luis Obispo County airport land use plan. Opponents of Dalidio's project contended that the State Aeronautics Act, because it addresses issues of statewide concern, prohibits any local initiative seeking to change how land adjacent to an airport is used. The court rejected the argument. "Undoubtedly, public safety and environmental concerns related to aviation and airports are matters of statewide concern. But a state statutory scheme does not restrict or preempt the power of the initiative simply because it implicates matters of statewide concern," Justice Steven Perren wrote in the decision overturning the lower court. "Local agencies have traditionally exercised control over land use regulation," Perren continued. "Absent a clear indication of preemptive intent, we must presume that local regulation and the initiative power do not conflict with the SAA ." The judges also rejected the argument that the initiative was invalid because voters could not make the findings required to supercede the airport land use commission. Making such findings is a procedural requirement that is waived in the initiative process, the court determined. The trial court judge's award of attorney fees to the opponents of the project was also overturned. The two groups were ordered to pay Dalidio's appeal costs. The Case: Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo , No. B206957, 2009 DJDAR 11387. Filed August 4, 2009. The Lawyers: For Citizens: Kevin Bundy, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272. For the county: James Orton, county counsel's office, (805) 781-5400; and Barbara Schussman, Bingham McCutchen, (415) 393-2000. For Ernest Dalidio Jr.: Michael J. Morris, Andre, Morris & Buttery, (805) 543-4171.

A draft "California Climate Adaptation Strategy" recommends that development projects and locations be reconsidered in light of rising sea levels, greater potential flooding and higher temperatures. Released in early August by the Natural Resources Agency, the plan summarizes the latest science on climate change and makes numerous recommendations for dealing with its effects. State officials and climate-change scientists say an adaptation plan is necessary because even if efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are successful, some level of human-caused climate change is a certainty, as heat-trapping gasses remain in the atmosphere for a long time. Among the recommendations:: • Consider the effects of climate change in environmental review documents for major development and infrastructure projects. • Amend general plans and local coastal plans to avoid potential climate effects. • Assess land use, housing and transportation proposals for their compatibility with a changing climate. • Consider project alternatives that avoid significant new development in areas prone to flooding, rising sea level, temperature changes and precipitation changes. • Reduce water usage 20% statewide by 2020 and expand water storage. Improve the Bay Delta water supply, water quality and ecosystem conditions. • Protect habitat areas and manage water systems to aid species most at risk of extinction due to climate change. The draft Climate Adaptation Strategy is available at www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation . A public meeting on the document is scheduled for August 31 in Los Angeles. Final adoption is scheduled for the fall.

A couple of weeks ago I had the chance to tour a short strip of York Boulevard in the Highland Park district in Los Angeles. York's tucked away near Occidental College, a mile or two east of the Pasadena Freeway and the Gold Line. The boulevard is generally narrow – from Avenue 50 to Avenue 56 it's only one lane in each direction – and it straddles the divide between the yuppie hillside to the north and the Latino working-class flats to the South. It's a charming street with a characteristic hodgepodge of businesses that you'll find in L.A. – the 60-year-old Mom and Pop stores, the taquerias and auto repair shops typical of Latino L.A. and now a hipster gastropub and a new coffee shop where screenwriters hang out with their laptop . It's kind of a Silver Lake in the making. Indeed, artists have come to York Boulevard partly because they're priced out of Silver Lake. I was there, along with several other planners, at the invitation of Councilmember Jose Huizar, who's thinking about doing a new plan. The trick is to maintain the eclectic character of the street – and yet upgrade it at the same time. Striking this balance won't be easy, but we planners had better figure out how to do streets like York really well. There are lots of emerging places in California that could be as good as York's going to be, and in many ways they represent the future of the state. We in California planning spend an awful lot of time focusing on downtowns and transit corridors. Our big-picture policies – like Proposition R in Los Angeles and the carve outs in the 2006 state housing bond – focused on building rail transit infrastructure and then developing projects around the rail stations. Planning firms all over the state – including the one I work for – tout their skill at creating great places around transit stations. And when they're not obsessed with transit stations, cities are focused on corridor plans that hold the potential for bus rapid transit, such as Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach . The challenge in a place like York Boulevard is that it's not on top of a rail transit station and probably never will be. It's away from dense employment centers (except the Oxy campus, a half-mile away). It's a mile and a half away from two Gold Line stations; the trip takes 15 minutes, either by Metro bus (which runs on 12-minute headways) or the city's DASH bus (which runs on 20-minute headways). And because it's a narrow strip, there'll probably never even be a parking garage. So it's a neighborhood center, accessible by foot and car to folks nearby, that's increasingly drawing a hipster crowd arriving by car at night. Local transit service isn't bad but it's a long way to the rail system, and most people who have a choice are going to drive. The locals appreciate the village-like charm (and with good reason); they're not very interested in Pasadena-style three- and four-story mixed-use along York, which would block views, change the scale of the neighborhood, and bring in a lot of traffic without bringing in more transit. A place like York is much more likely to be focused on little things: façade improvements, parking management, streetscape, maybe some economic development efforts to find just the right businesses. You might get more Oxy kids to come down off the hill on their bikes; and when tax revenues go up again, it might be possible to improve the bus service over to the Gold Line. But helping York Boulevard become a great place requires a scalpel, not a bulldozer; and entrepreneurs who want to transform one of the few two-story buildings into something great, rather than build new four-story stuff. Not everybody can be Pasadena. Not everybody wants to be. As planners and developers shape the new, more urban Los Angeles that's emerging, they're going to have to come up with a varied set of templates for different situations, rather than simply assuming that the mixed-use model so popular a few years ago will apply everywhere. – Bill Fulton

Your trusty CP&DR correspondents have been writing about planning and development matters for other publications of late. I have a story in Planning magazine's latest edition about access to healthy food, while Morris Newman has a story in the August 12 edition of The New York Times about redevelopment of the Sacramento rail yards. I will admit I did not fully understand the issue of food access until I was personally affected. It was during the 2002 American Planning Association, California Chapter, conference in downtown San Diego. One afternoon while walking back to my motel several blocks from the conference site, I went in search of some snacks. I wasn't looking for anything fancy –a bunch of bananas, a package of raisins, maybe a couple oranges. I walked block after block, finding plentiful junk food and liquor but little else. I think I finally ended up with a small bag of peanuts. The gentrified downtown San Diego has grocery stories and at least one weekday farmers market. But seven years ago, in the struggling neighborhood where I was living for a few days, I couldn't find even an apple. This unhealthy situation is not limited to inner-city neighborhoods. While researching my story for Planning , I learned that residents of poor towns in the Central Valley – where much of the country's fruits, vegetables and nuts are grown – often must rely on a liquor store or gas station mini-mart for their day-to-day needs. Thankfully, planners and public agencies are tackling the issue in a variety of ways. My story in Planning explains some of those efforts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York. (You must be an APA member to access the story.) Meanwhile, Morris Newman has written a piece for The Times ' Real Estate section about reuse of Sacramento's rail yards. This could be one of the great large-scale infill projects in the country, as Morris explains in a story that explores not only the development, but the site's rich history as the terminus of the transcontinental railroad. You may read more about Sacramento's rebirth in Morris's latest piece for CP&DR about a riverfront project called The Docks . The long-discussed project between the Sacramento River and Interstate 5 would provide River City's first true riverfront development. – Paul Shigley

The Docks site was the orphan of downtown Sacramento. The broad, concrete shoulders of Interstate 5 divide the riverfront parcel from the rest of the city. Until recently, this 43-acre triangle of land remained almost entirely out of sight and out of mind from even nearby points in the city, such as the state Capitol and the enormous rail yards development, both only a few blocks from this site. As it currently exists, the Docks site is an unplanned space, a leftover between the Sacramento River and the interstate. Some runners and bike riders are brave enough to push beneath the shadowy recesses beneath the freeway structures. In general, however, the Docks site offers very little to the city, and vice versa. � The environmental impact report for large-scale homebuilding, a multi-acre park (there are several proposals) and a linear park on the river bank are awaiting approval this fall. The city has handled the linear park and the development site as separate projects, under the same specific plan. This article focuses primarily on the development piece; of course, the developer and designer have yet to be selected. � The Docks site is close to (1) Old Sacramento, (2) Westfield Downtown Plaza and (3) the K Street Mall. � Sacramento is a relative latecomer to the beautification (and monetization) of its formerly industrial riverfront. The redevelopment of industrial riverfronts has become a mainstay of American urban planning and design since the success of Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas, four decades ago. Unlike many waterfront projects, however, Sacramento is emphasizing housing above entertainment and retail uses.��� The plan is admirable both for the planning that connects the riverfront site with the existing city grid, and the way that the southern edge of the site will be used for stormwater detention. When the city considers the EIR, the biggest decision to be made is whether to opt for one of three design choices, Variation A-1, A-2 or B. The public will benefit no matter the choice, because all schemes have virtues. That said, the city and its future private development partners face a choice of a scheme that maximizes open space at the expense of new residential development (Variation B), and two others that offer a smaller park and more development, along with more property tax and hotel tax revenues (A-1 and A-2). Both are good enough to be built. But which is better? Variation A-1 and A-2 are very similar, except that A-2 has more high-rise residential towers. From a purely graphic standpoint, Variation A is a superior composition to the more casual-looking Variation B. I confess I have long harbored a superstition that the design that looks better on paper is often the better design in real life. And, with a few notable exceptions, that belief has been confirmed by experience. But sometimes a nice, symmetrical picture does not yield superior urbanism. The site plan drawing by itself does not necessarily take into consideration the existing conditions on the site, such as hard-to-ignore roadways that rain down soot and noise. �One criterion for judging the two alternatives is to ask which takes the biggest step toward a successful pedestrian environment, where people set the scale and human movement sets the pace. Variations A-1 and A-2 (again, they are almost identical) are pretty pictures, for what it's worth.� I like the way that planners have routed traffic around the block-sized park, allowing the park to open directly onto the river without any barriers between the two. The scheme is also more urban (in this sense, formal) and far more dense than Variation B. I'm of two minds about the park. On the plus side, the park seems a comfortable size. Being surrounded by buildings on all sides also helps to give the open space a sense of form. ��� But why such a small park? What are the design priorities here? If the riverfront is truly a regional attraction, why is Sacramento packing this waterfront location full of housing � especially in light of the 12,000 units approved as part of the nearby rail yards re-use project? Might it be preferable not to max out the number of residential units and the revenue-capture-potential in the Docks development project to take full advantage of the riverfront location? Variation B is far less elegant as a drawing, lacking the formalism of Variation A. Less development is promised in Variation B, in large part because a third or so of the site is set aside for a large-scale, regional-sized park. Beyond offering far more in open space, Variation B is also interesting in the way it seems to pick up on existing conditions. The outer edge of the park, for example, is the freeway structure itself. This decision integrates the freeway into the composition and makes a negative into a positive. Variations A-1 and A-2, in comparison, merely turn their backs on the freeway and pretend that it does not exist. Assuming that the naked freeway structure would not make a good park wall, we will need to build some fence or enclosure to partly hide the freeway from view. An inventive landscape architect could make that wall into something visually interesting, covering parts of the freeway structure while allowing others to remain visible. This is a great architectural opportunity. The biggest sore point in Variation B is the traffic planning, which requires drivers to make turns on acute angles. Granted, the Docks is not supposed to be a thoroughfare, but this looks like a miserable place to be stuck during rush hour. On the other hand, we are facing a park and a river, and the need for streets laid out with Teutonic regularity does not extend all the way to the Sacramento River. Verdict: Either Variations A-1 and A-2 is an easy winner, while Variation B could become something extraordinary, if the designers are up to it. Despite my reservations, I vote for Variation B. I predict the city will opt for Variation A-1. The city will benefit in either case and the orphan of downtown will become a golden child; the leftover will become a main course. In this recessionary time when local government tends to think small, the Docks project is one of the projects that makes Sacramento the state's most interesting downtown area of the current moment.

GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY CERTIFICATE Area of Concentration: Environmental Law & Policy OVERVIEW: This area of concentration will address the roles of local, regional, state, national and international regulatory agencies responsible for protecting natural resources. Air, water, food, energy, land use, transportation and waste management all fall under this heading. Recent legislative mandates regarding climate change and the reduction of green house gas emissions will be considered from global, legal, and policy perspectives. How much regulation is enough, too much? Land use authority battles, health impacts from mobile and stationary source emissions, and food quality concerns are examples of case studies that will lead to provocative discussions in searching for ethical answers that may be different for developed and developing countries. COURSE TOPICS: • Overview of Environmental Laws & Agencies: National and International • Causes and Mitigation of Environmental Impacts • Environmental Compliance: Monitoring and Performance Measures • Climate Change: How to Comply with the Body of Regulations • Transportation and Land Use: Impacts on the Environment • Natural Disaster Planning and Crisis Communication • Integrating Climate, Energy, and Transportation Policies • California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA): A Place to Start • Making Wise Policy under Uncertain Conditions: Energy Futures, Climate Change and Transportation. For more information and an overview of courses offered, contact the Public Policy Department at: (310) 825-7885 or sustainability@uclaextension.edu

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control says that planning may play a significant role in reducing the obesity epidemic in the United States. The report, which compiles numerous research studies and recommendations of experts, provides additional scientific backing for the healthy design movement that has started to gain traction during recent years. The report recommends 24 community strategies to prevent obesity, ranging from school lunch improvements, educational programs and breastfeeding support to mixed-use zoning and better pedestrian facilities. The report makes nine recommendations related directly to land use planning: • Improve geographic availability of supermarkets in underserved areas. The report does not speak specifically to zoning, but I learned while working on a story for an upcoming edition of Planning that zoning policies influence supermarket access. In Los Angeles, for example, city officials who want to encourage new neighborhood grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods have backed off some policies that essentially require giant stores with acres of parking – stores that are almost impossible to build in dense urban areas. • Provide incentives to food retailers to locate in and/or offer healthier food beverage choices in underserved areas. Some of this is basic economic development assistance, such as grants for installing dairy and produce cases. Zoning for small food markets also plays a role. • Improve access to outdoor recreational facilities. As you may guess, this involves building parks and community exercise facilities, and ensuring people may reach them. • Enhance infrastructure supporting bicycling. Create bike lanes and shared-use paths, and establish bike routes on existing roads. • Enhance infrastructure supporting walking. The report makes clear that providing sidewalks, walking trails and pedestrian crossings is not enough. The report also speaks to "street-scale urban design and land use interventions" such as improved street lighting, traffic calming and enhanced landscaping. • Locate schools within easy walking distance of residential areas. In California, planners have limited influence on where school districts locate their facilities. But the report also states, "Among students living within 1 mile of school, the percentage of walkers fell from 90% to 31% between 1969 and 2001." The report attributes this startling decrease to the walking environment, specifically, single land uses, long blocks and incomplete sidewalks. • Improve access to public transportation. People who ride transit often walk or bicycle to and from transit stops. • Zone for mixed-use development. The report says succinctly, "Zoning laws restricting the mixing of residential and nonresidential uses and encouraging single-use development can be a barrier to physical activity." Gosh, who knew? • Enhance traffic safety in areas where persons are or could be physically active. In other words, engineer streets to slow traffic in areas where you want to encourage walking, running and bicycling. The report, "Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States," is available here from the CDC website . – Paul Shigley

Will redevelopment mean anything once the dust settles on California's budget crisis? Last month's state budget deal attempts to whack redevelopment agencies to the tune of $2.05 billion . The redevelopment agencies are suing, claiming it's an unconstitutional shift of funds. This is nothing new; last year, the state attempted to take $350 million, and the redevelopment agencies successfully sued to block the revenue shift. In fact, this is merely the latest skirmish in a decades-long fight over redevelopment funds. Redevelopment is one of the few ways that local governments – especially cities – can unilaterally gain control over tax revenue. By declaring an area blighted, a city can capture 60-70% of the increases in property tax revenue from that area in the future. By comparison, cities typically receive about 15% of the property tax revenue inside their borders absent redevelopment. Statewide, redevelopment agencies capture close to $5 billion a year in property tax revenue, which is nearly 10% of the statewide property tax total. The problem, of course, is that there is a fixed amount of property tax, so money that flows to redevelopment agencies flows away from somebody else – principally counties and schools. That's why the state always goes after redevelopment funds in bad times. Half of the property tax in the state goes to school districts, so every time a dollar flows to redevelopment agencies that means the state must backfill 50 cents to school districts. Whatever you think of redevelopment agencies – and there are strong feelings on both sides – they have far less money than they used to. Over the last 30 years, the state has gradually boxed redevelopment agencies in and diverted more and more tax increment revenue away from them, either directly or indirectly. The latest tax transfer is far more massive than anything we have seen before. It's more than worth it to keep existing project areas going; but we may soon be to the point where creating new ones doesn't pay off. – Bill Fulton

By shifting $1.7 billion from redevelopment agencies to state programs and schools, the state budget signed this week by Gov. Schwarzenegger could halt numerous redevelopment projects for years to come, according to the agencies and housing proponents. The tax increment shift could also mean the end for some redevelopment agencies. "This amount is so huge that it really, for most agencies, amounts to 100% or more of their discretionary spending," said John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association (CRA). "The numbers are of such great magnitude, inevitably what it means is that some agencies will go out of business." Some redevelopment agencies have already identified projects that may halt because of the state's tax increment maneuver, such as rail yards re-use adjacent to downtown Sacramento and affordable housing development in downtown Los Angeles. The CRA has vowed to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the tax increment shift. The organization won a lawsuit over a similar shift earlier this year. From the viewpoint of local planning and development, the redevelopment tax increment shift is arguably the most important part of the 2009-10 state budget. The budget does not contain a shift of gasoline sales tax revenue away from local governments, a proposal that appeared certain to pass until the last minute. The budget also does not contain a 30- to 40-year extension of local redevelopment authority in exchange for the state getting a slice of future tax increment. Backed by the City of Industry, the redevelopment tax increment "securitization" plan passed the state Senate but died – for now – in the Assembly. The budget does borrow $1.9 billion of local government property tax revenues (8% of total), which the state is required to pay back with interest within three years. The budget included only 80% of Williamson Act subventions to make up for property tax revenues the counties lose through the agricultural protection program. However, at the last minute Schwarzenegger cut all but $1,000 of the subventions. The state has shifted money away from redevelopment agencies numerous times in recent years. In April, however, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled that a $350 million shift from redevelopment agencies to schools in the 2008-09 state budget violated the state constitution because there was no guarantee the money would be used for redevelopment purposes (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , June 2009 ). Lawmakers and the administration say they solved the legal flaw with the creation of "supplemental revenue augmentation funds" (SRAF) in each county. Money contributed to the SRAF would fund courts, prisons, Medi-Cal service, hospitals and schools. But the money would be spent only in redevelopment project areas or for services to people who live in project areas or redevelopment-assisted housing. The budget calls for redevelopment agencies to transfer $1.7 billion to their county SRAF by May 1, 2010, and another $350 million in 2011. In exchange, redevelopment agencies may extend project area sunset dates by one year. Shirey, however, said the language in the budget bills does not change the fact that the tax increment in question is legally obligated to fund debt payments and redevelopment projects. "We intend to sue the state just as we did a year ago when they tried to take $350 million," he said. Any agency that fails to make its mandatory SRAF payment would be subject to the "death penalty," meaning the agency would have to cease nearly all activity except for the retirement of existing debts. An agency may borrow money from its low- and moderate-income housing fund, but the money must be repaid within five years or else the low-mod housing set-aside jumps from 20% to 25% for the remainder of the project area. The state is permitting agencies to suspend all required low-mod allocations for the 2009-10 fiscal year. An agency may also borrow money from other sources to make its SRAF payment. Republican lawmakers and the administration in recent years have eyed the hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in redevelopment agencies' low-mod housing funds. However, agencies say nearly all of the money is earmarked for projects that await other funding before they may be built. Officials with the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency said the shift of $71 million away from the agency threatens to halt at least seven projects, including affordable housing development in Hollywood and downtown, a shopping center in Reseda and a shopping center overhaul in Watts. "The gutting of the CRA-LA budget will mean that we will not be able to complete millions of dollars of redevelopment projects in Los Angeles, resulting in a loss of 2,300 construction jobs and a loss of $360 million in private investment," said Cecilia Estolano, the agency's executive officer. The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency would be required to give up $16.8 million this fiscal year. The hit would prevent the agency from starting any new projects and could imperil several high-profile projects, according to Deputy Executive Director Lisa Bates. Among the projects in jeopardy is rail yards reuse, a project that recently won $83 million in Proposition 1C funding and was expected to get $50 million in redevelopment assistance. San Jose Redevelopment Agency Assistant Executive Director John Weis said the required shift of $75 million over two years would force his agency to borrow money in order to keep existing projects on track, which the agency did a few years ago to make an $18 million ERAF payment. The big loser in all of this will be affordable housing, predicted Christine Minnehan, a lobbyist with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, because the only money many agencies have available to make SRAF payment is in low-mod housing funds. "A take of this level is going to decimate the housing piece of redevelopment," she said, noting that redevelopment tax increment provides the sole permanent source of funding for affordable housing development in California. The Industry proposal would have permitted agencies to extend their redevelopment project area sunset dates by up to 40 years without renewed blight findings. In exchange, the state would receive 10% of agency tax increment. The argument in favor of the plan was that the extensions would be voluntary, and if enough agencies signed up, there would be no forced SRAF transfers and there might be no need to borrow the $1.9 billion from local governments. The plan did pass the Senate but never came up for a vote in the Assembly for reasons that remain unclear. The CRA strongly opposed the Industry measure, which surfaced as ABx4 27 during the wee hours of the July 23-24 budget marathon. "It takes redevelopment money and spends it on non-redevelopment purposes," Shirey protested. That is unconstitutional and it would invite more state and public opposition to legitimate redevelopment activity in the future, he insisted. Minnehan agreed the Industry proposal would "completely undercut" the point of redevelopment, and San Jose's Weis said the proposal would have been worse than what the state did pass. "Do I think it's dead? No I don't," Shirey said of the Industry proposal. "They have a whole army of high-powered lobbyists, including four former legislators." The immediate focus of many redevelopment agencies now appears to be CRA's coming lawsuit over the tax increment shift. Shirey said labor unions have also offered to lend assistance, because they fear the loss of tens of thousands of construction jobs as redevelopment projects are halted. The Williamson Act subventions lie on the other end of the urban development spectrum. The Department of Finance has targeted the subventions for years. Under the Williamson Act, agricultural property owners receive a tax break by agreeing not to develop their property for 10 years. The program costs counties $35 million to $40 million annually, an amount the state backfills. The budget contained money for 80% of subventions, or about $28 million. But the governor "blue penciled" the amount down to $1,000, saying the money is needed for a prudent general fund reserve. Contacts: John Shirey, California Redevelopment Association, (916) 448-8760. Christine Minnehan, Western Center on Law and Poverty, (916) 442-0753. John Weis, San Jose Redevelopment Agency, (408) 535-8500. California Redevelopment Association website . Department of Finance state budget summary . Legislative Analyst's Office, 2009 Budget Package .