Updating or Revising your General Plan? Join Us - April 30, 2010! The UCLA Extension Public Policy Program is offering a one day training seminar on Friday, April 30th, illustrating what general plans look like and what they must contain to meet increasingly stringent state standards. If you have a general plan update approaching, or are undertaking new plans, or major revisions, we encourage you to attend. This program includes both legal fundamentals and hot-button topics like smart growth and sprawl; recent court decisions; and each aspect of a plan's development, formulation, and implementation. The seminar runs 9 am to 4:30 pm at the Figueroa Courtyard in downtown Los Angeles. Steve Preston, City Manager, City of San Gabriel and Woodie Tescher, Principal Technical Director of Planning and Urban Design at PBS&J will instruct the seminar. For more information please call (310) 825-7885. Online registration is available by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and searching for V6845.

Not long ago, when California's economy was booming and concerns about rising seas were mounting, California tapped into its environmentalist traditions to pass popular laws that promised to lead the nation in greenhouse gas mitigation. While there are no sure signs that the global climate has cooled, the same cannot be said for the state's support of anti-climate change legislation.  In 2006, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, a comprehensive bill designed to limit carbon emissions in almost every sector of the state's economy. Two years later, it passed a complementary bill, Senate Bill 375, designed to help achieve AB 32's goals by encouraging cities to re-make their built environments and transportation networks in order to limit driving and thereby reduce vehicular emissions. SB 375 facilitates regional planning, promotes the tenets of smart growth and encourages cities to grow more dense (see William Fulton's blog  Oct. 2008  and CP&DR's  SB 375 Resources Page ).  "They're both pivotal," said Stuart Cohen, executive director of transportation advocacy group TransForm and member of the SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). "Without getting our land use under control, is basically impossible." Impossible or not, this task is likely to become a great deal more difficult if any one of a number of proposals to suspend AB 32 or SB 375 comes to pass.  AB 32 (Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica) charges the California Air Resources Board with devising and adopting emissions regulations by January 2011. SB 375 (Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento) requires CARB, with the advisement of RTAC, to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations must devise "sustainable communities strategies." Those bills were passed in headier economic times. Now, as public support for global warming mitigation is faltering, the state's economy remains stuck in neutral, and developments are dying on the vine, California's landmark environmental legislation is under attack. AB 32 is facing a formal suspension in the form of a potential ballot initiative. And SB 375, though it is distinct from AB 32, is catching some of the AB 32 backlash as well as facing its own informal referenda. "The main way that AB 32 reaches into local government's business is through SB 375," said League of California Cities Executive Director Chris McKenzie. "There's lot of support for the policy underlying SB 375 but there's a growing sense with the economy… there ought to be some relief. AB 32's near-term goal of reducing carbon emissions is in jeopardy due to a loose coalition of legislators, gubernatorial candidates, local officials, and backers of a ballot initiative who are all calling for a halt to its implementation. These opponents claim that the state's economic condition, including 12 percent unemployment and a budget crisis in Sacramento, make AB 32 too expensive. "They're looking at this year as an opportunity, because of the global recession, to attack environmental regulations," said State Sen. Fran Pavley, who authored AB 32 while in the Assembly. "This one happens to be an initiative, but all regulations are under attack in California." Vocal opposition to SB 375 has arisen from cities that consider its provisions onerous and, in particular, are concerned that they do not have sufficient funds to conduct the studies and plan updates that SB 375 calls for. Next week, the board of the League of California Cities will receive recommendations from four different committees about whether to support AB 32 and SB 375. Two of those committees have already recommended that the league ask the governor to suspend both laws. Based on the committees' final recommendations, the league's board could take positions on either, or both, laws as early as next week. "It's not a discussion of the ballot measure," said McKenzie. "It's a question of whether the state is in such precarious economic condition and whether local governments and MPOs have had their own finances strained so much by the economy that...there ought to be some kind of delay." McKenzie noted that many city officials are saying that they simply do not have the funding to do the planning and offer the transit that SB 375 promotes. Sande George, executive director of the California chapter of the American Planning Association, said that APACA will soon discuss the issue of AB 32 and SB 375 suspension but has taken no formal position. The office of State Senator Darrell Steinberg, who authored SB 375, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The attack on California's global warming legislation began in earnest in January when Assembly Member Dan Logue (Republican-Chico) introduced Assembly Bill 118. In its original form, first filed in January 2009, AB 188 would have repealed AB 32 (see Paul Shigley's blog  Jan. 27, 2009 ).  A subsequent version, which Logue revived early this year, would have suspended implementation of AB 32 until unemployment in California dropped to 5.5 percent. Logue contended that AB 32's regulations on greenhouse gas emissions would raise energy prices and exact a wide-ranging toll on the state's economy. "It would be a complete disaster…to implement AB 32," said Logue.  "It would shrink the economy and hurt the middle-class." Though AB 118 failed, a nearly identical voter initiative now appears destined for the November ballot. The "California Jobs Initiative," so called because of its backers' concerns for the economic impacts of AB 32, would suspend implementation of AB 32 until California's unemployment rate dips below 5.5 percent. However, upon review by Attorney General Jerry Brown, the initiative's title was changed to "Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until employment drops below specified level for full year." The initiative's backers, who include members of the Tea Party movement as well as pubic officials from cities across the state, say they do not necessarily object to AB 32's environmental goals but rather believe that they represent expensive and undue top-down regulation. The initiative's supporters had hoped to collect the necessary 433,000 valid signatures by April 16. They missed that deadline but, with a new infusion of donations, have vowed to keep trying. The "California Jobs Initiative" website points to survey results indicating that 56 percent of respondents oppose AB 32 after hearing arguments for it and against it.  Cohen, who opposes the measure, said he expects that it will get on the ballot but also said, "We don't think it will pass. "Our campaign… not opposed to AB 32," said Anita Mangels, spokesperson for the "California Jobs Initiative." "We're simply concerned about the timetable for implementation of AB 32, and what the initiative would do is adjust the timetable for implementation so the economic impacts would not be as harsh." Meanwhile, Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has called for a one-year moratorium on AB 32's implementation, calling it "well intentioned. But…wrong for these challenging times" in an editorial in the San Jose Mercury News. Whitman has promised to suspend AB 32 if elected. As these efforts have gained traction and headlines, concerns have risen among environmentalists and planners that a wholesale backlash against global warming mitigation and related regulations may be afoot. "The same concerns relate to SB 375, and some of those concerns have been expressed to us by local governments themselves," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is co-sponsoring the AB 32 suspension. "I think discussions involving AB 32 are going to necessarily entail discussions relating SB 375 as it relates to local governments. "We've never been big fans of government policies trying to force people into concentrated areas," added Coupal. Supporters of the "California Jobs Initiative," however, maintain that their efforts do not explicitly target SB 375. "SB 375 references AB 32, but it is legislation outside of the implementation of AB 32 that we're focused on," said Mangels. Supporters of both AB 32 and SB 375 note that the two are independent and do not rely on each other to achieve their respective goals. However, both are considered fundamental components of the state's efforts to reduce emissions and, in the case of SB 375, to promote smart growth. More formal challenges to SB 375 are a ways off, even if the "California Jobs Initiative" measure makes it on to the ballot and passes. "SB 375, while it's referenced in the AB 32 scoping plan, is fully its own law right now," said TransForm's Cohen. "To be undone, it would have to be undone by the legislature, or it have to be undone by a wholly separate initiative." "I think there's going to be a stronger movement to have the targets for greenhouse gas reductions in SB 375….to be less ambitious," added Cohen.                  If implementation of SB 375 goes forward while that of AB 32 is delayed, its impact on carbon emissions is unlikely to compensate for the expected carbon reductions that would have been created by a fully implemented AB 32. Whether its facilitation of compact development and walkable environments would in and of itself draw protest remains to be seen. "My own goal right now is to concentrate on AB 32," said Logue. "Once that's achieved, then we'll take a look at SB 375."  Contacts: Stuart Cohen,  TransForm  (510) 740-3150. Jon Coupal,  Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association  ( 916) 444-9950. Dan Logue,  3 rd  Assembly District   (916) 319-2003. Anita Mangels,  "California Jobs Initiative"  (888) 591-4442. Chris McKenzie,  League of California Cities  (916) 658-8200. Fran Pavley,  23 rd  Senate District  (916) 651-4023. --Josh Stephens

Is this the year that CEQA goes down in a flaming pile of EIRs and writs? The year when unwashed masses of tree huggers watch helplessly as greedy developers pave paradise to put up parking lots? Probably not, but there is no doubt the California Environmental Quality Act is under attack these days. Legislation to weaken CEQA is pending in Sacramento, and a ballot measure that would prohibit citizen lawsuits based on CEQA has received clearance for signatures. The CEQA haters argue that the law is stifling California's economy. (You can swap "AB 32" or "SB 375" into that sentence if you want, but that's for another article.) I painted CEQA in a somewhat negative light for a story in the current edition of Planning magazine . I'm convinced that CEQA may – but does not have to – inhibit good development. For that story, I focused on proposed legislation that would permit the secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing to exempt up to 125 projects over five years from judicial review based on CEQA. In my mind, removing EIRs from judicial review is no different than exempting projects from CEQA entirely. With no judge looking over their shoulders, cities and counties will approve whatever they want. So far, that legislation – AB 1805 (Calderon and Nestande) and SB 1010 (Correa and Cogdill) – has failed to go anywhere. The Senate Environmental Quality Committee last week voted down SB 1010. The bills are being pitched as economic development legislation. Democrats, led by Sen. Alan Lowenthal, of Long Beach, demand to know which ready-to-go projects are being held up by CEQA. Proponents haven't had a good answer, because, as anyone in the development industry can tell you, the problem right now is lack of capital. No one is lending money for new development so nothing is ready to go. Still, the notion of exempting some large projects from CEQA is far from dead this legislative session. In fact, the idea could well become a side discussion during state budget negotiations. Other anti-CEQA legislation is also in play. Assembly Bill AB 2165 (Knight) would exempt construction of a hospital in Lancaster from CEQA. Assembly Bill 1704 (Jeffries) would exempt water pipeline replacement projects and new recycled water pipeline projects. Neither one of those bills has passed out of committee, at least not yet. Environmentalists are hot over AB 2313 (Buchanan), which would have the state establish thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions, and require lead agencies to use those thresholds in environmental analyses. That actually seems like a pretty reasonable approach to me, but enviros say it's a sneak attack.  The legislation, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, would permit "developers and other polluters... to avoid implementing better planning and building methods that could otherwise reduce their climate impact." The biggest wildcard, however, might by the ballot initiative by Orange County developer Starpointe Ventures to make the state attorney general's office the sole enforcer of CEQA, and to prohibit citizen lawsuits. Proponents need to gather 434,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Again, the proponents claim CEQA is doing economic harm, an argument bolstered by a generous summary from the Legislative Analyst's Office and Department of Finance. They say: "Unknown, but likely positive, net impact on state and local government revenues from increased economic activity. Unknown fiscal effect, if any, on state and local government costs to mitigate environmental effects of projects." I think the initiative would be a very tough sell in an election, because environmentalism remains good politics in California, and because so many Californians believe a strong economy and a healthy environment are not simply compatible, but mutually dependent. Of course, if the unemployment rate remains at 12 percent, and public budgets force schools to close and prisons to set inmates free, well… anything is possible this election year. - Paul Shigley

One of the least scenic ways to visit Napa Valley is to enter from the south, through the industrial zone between the cities of American Canyon and Napa. The congested traffic and office parks near Highway 221 are a long ways from the idyllic pastoral stretches to the north. But efforts to transform 152 acres of industrial land in the area into a mixed use development has stirred up opposition from Napa Valley residents who fear that its proposed 2,600 units and 6,000 residents � smaller than all but two of the county's cities � will bring sprawl and traffic out of scale with the region's character. The developer, however, claims that the project will actually ease congestion by providing a place for local workers to live, rather than commute from neighboring Solano County. On the former site of Napa Pipe Corp., a manufacturer of large oil and gas pipelines, the project is proposed near the intersection of Highways 221 and 29, in an area that already has many of the county's non-farm jobs, according to developer Keith Rogal. And, in a region famous for empty, vineyard-flanked country lanes, it also has some of the worst traffic in the county. Rogal's firm, Rogal+Walsh+Mol, specializes in converting already-developed properties near wetlands into new uses. A decade ago, the firm built the Carneros Inn resort on 27 acres of unincorporated county land that had been an RV park. The project, which includes cottages and homes set in a village setting with shops and restaurants, garnered national awards from the American Institute of Architects and the Congress of New Urbanism. But Rogal is the first to concede that the Napa Pipe is a different type of project. For starters, it is particularly dense for Napa County, with proposed apartments and townhomes rising to seven stories; it would also include retail, an office park, a small hotel and a continuing care complex for seniors. The property is next to the Napa River, and is envisioned as a walkable community. A marina, river trail and parklands are part of the project's mix. As proposed, Napa Pipe would be the largest project in county history. The Napa Pipe development would add approximately 6,000 new residents, on a site about two miles from the Napa Municipal Airport. Some opponents say the new project would be akin to plopping down a new town the size of St. Helena in the area. Quite unlike the baronial estates of wine country, Napa Pipe will have nearly 2,600 apartments and townhomes, with 20 percent set aside as affordable units. The project is expected to help Napa County meet state-mandated affordable housing goals. Critics of the project include the nearby cities of Napa, Yountville and American Canyon, along with agricultural and environmental groups, such as the Napa County Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club. Rogal also noted that some small local developers oppose the project. The project is adjacent to the city boundaries of Napa, and is located about three miles from Napa's downtown. In comments on a recent draft of the EIR for Napa Pipe, the City of Napa requested that EIR be substantially revised. The city has not been swayed the project's provision of affordable housing and said in a 47-page comment letter that it would prefer to build affordable housing that the project is supposed to provide within its own borders. But the county is moving ahead, said Hillary Gitelman, Napa County's conservation, development and planning director. "We're still evaluating all the comments," she said. "We haven't identified any fatal flaws that make us start all over again." A final EIR should be ready later in the year and come before the county's planning commission and board of supervisors for a vote soon thereafter. Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, whose district includes the city of Napa, said that with two supervisors up for re-election in November, a vote on the project could be delayed. Wagenknecht, who hasn't taken a position on the development, said two major concerns are traffic and water usage. The project is expected to bring 17,600 new trips a day, he said. "It will add to a situation for us that feels like it's already broken." The draft EIR identifies more than ten intersections in the area that are currently near capacity. Rogal's firm contends that Napa Pipe could minimize traffic impacts by becoming a transit-oriented development if train service could be introduced on tracks that run across the property. They are even proposing water taxi service to the City of Napa via the Napa River. The project also envisions highway improvements and an extension of a bike trail through the property in order to mitigate traffic concerns. Even if the project wins approval, it could be years before construction begins, Gitelman said, noting that the site has to be raised for flood protection, and remediation needs to be done on soil contaminated by the sites former industrial uses. In comments on the draft EIR, the Napa Valley Farm Bureau criticized the project. President Jim Lincoln noted that extensive mitigation is required, "most of which has questionable financing and little chance of being implemented in the short or intermediate term." Opponents of the project tried to derail it in June 2008, when they placed a ballot initiative to impose a 1 percent annual growth cap and height limits on unincorporated county land as Measure N (See CP&DR, May 2008 and June 2008 ). The measure lost, garnering 46 percent of the vote. But one leading opponents said another ballot measure could return if county approves the project. "One of our options would be to do a referendum if they approve it," said Mel Varrelman, a former county supervisor and opponent of Napa Pipe. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, residential units at Napa Pipe won't be constructed until 2013, Rogal said. Rogal said only 200 to 300 units will be built annually, and full build-out is a decade away. Napa Pipe will also provide its share of money for traffic improvements and for schools, he said. "The population and car trips will increase on a slow pace over a long period," he said. The Napa Pipe land sits on 3,000 acre feet of groundwater, Rogal said, more than enough for its needs. But Wagenknecht said that the county generally encourages groundwater to be used for agriculture. "There's a priority of groundwater being for agricultural use, but every hotel in the county pumps groundwater," Rogal said. Rogal said the developers have acquired additional water for the site, and will recycle water as well. More water would be used if the site stays in its current industrial designation, rather than with his project, he noted. Contacts: Hillary Gitelman, Napa County Conservation, Planning and Development Director (707) 253-4805 Brad Wagenknecht, Napa County Supervisor, (707) 253-4386 Mel Varrelman, former Napa County Supervisor (707) 963-1040 Keith Rogal, Rogal+Walsh+Mol (707) 251-0123 Napa County website, with draft EIR and comments, is at www.countyofnapa.org Nape Pipe project website is www.aHomeforNapans.com

In supporting the City of Stockton's refusal to accept a lawsuit filed by a citizens group against a proposed big-box store, the California Supreme Court has, for the second time in two months, made clear that if a public agency provides notice of a California Environmental Quality Act decision, legal challenges to that decision may be barred by the shortest statute of limitations, among several that the CEQA statute provides for, applies to legal challenges regardless of the context of the challenge. The April 1 ruling held that a 35-day statute of limitations barred a citizens' lawsuit challenging a proposed Wal-Mart project on the grounds that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court abided by the 35-day statute of limitations, articulated in Public Resources Code section 21167 subdivision (d), because the City of Stockton had filed a valid notice of exemption from CEQA and was therefore protected by the shorter statute of limitations rather than by a 180-day statute that the citizen's group believed ought to apply. The decision confirms the protections granted by CEQA to a public agency that adopts a notice of exemption (NOE) and to a project applicant that complies with the NOE's requirements. The ruling is in line with the court's February decision in Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in which the court ruled that environmentalists had only 30 days to sue over the county's decision to forego an updated EIR for a recreation trail (see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 15, 2010 ). The latest case, Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, involved a project by developer A.G. Spanos. The company had prepared a master development plan for Park West within the larger A.G. Spanos Park in Stockton. As a condition of the city's approval of lower density development elsewhere in A.G. Spanos Park, the city required a density transfer agreement obligating the construction of at least 935 multifamily residential units within Park West. In 2002, the City Council certified an EIR for Park West and approved the master development plan, replete with the separate density transfer agreement. Under the master development plan, the city's Design Review Board and community development director were required to approve proposed projects within the plan area as long as the board and director determined the projects were consistent with the plan's criteria, goals and purposes. Acting on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, land use consulting firm Doucet & Associates subsequently proposed a 207,000-square-foot retail store to be sited on land in Park West that had been designated for multifamily residential units. The director approved the project subject to five minor amendments in December 2003. The next day, Spanos informed the city it would not construct 627 of the 935 units required by the density transfer agreement. Instead, Spanos offered assurance that the company would build the additional units within 10 years at locations in the city. In February 2004, the city filed an NOE for the project, stating the project was a retail use to be constructed in a first phase of 138,722 square feet and a second phase of 68,888 square feet. The NOE did not name Wal-Mart or identify the project as a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The notice did say that the project was consistent with the master development plan, and that the ministerial determination of consistency was not subject to CEQA review. The 35-day period for challenging the NOE expired on March 23, 2004. Not until July 22, 2004 did the group Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning file suit, claiming that the project violated CEQA because the city had not prepared an EIR to assess the effects of the Wal-Mart store. They further claimed that that the project deviated substantially from the master development plan because the Wal-Mart would be developed on parcels planned for high-density residential housing. The city, Spanos, Doucet & Associates, and Wal-Mart demurred on the grounds that Stockton Citizens had not commenced the suit within 35 days of the filing of the NOE. The citizens' group argued that the community development director erred in approving the project and that the statute of limitations for a challenge to the NOE should therefore abide by the (Can a statute abide?)180-day period that applies when no NOE has been filed, and not the shorter 35-day period applicable when public notice has been provided by means of an NOE (Public Resources Code, � 21167, subdivision (d); CEQA Guidelines, � 15112, subdivision (d)(2)). Both the San Joaquin County Superior Court and the Third District Court of Appeal rejected the city's and developers' statutes of limitations defense and accepted Stockton Citizens' argument the city had processed and approved the project in error. The state Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions. It found that flaws in the decision-making process underlying a facially valid and properly filed notice of exemption do not prevent the NOE from triggering the 35-day period to file a lawsuit challenging the agency's approval of a CEQA-exempt project. "We harbor no doubt, on these facts, that the 35-day limitations period � had expired before plaintiffs filed their lawsuit," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the unanimous court. The court explained that when a properly filed NOE complies in form and content with CEQA requirements and declares the agency has taken an action that would constitute final approval of a project under a CEQA exemption, the 35-day period for challenging the validity the approval begins to run. The statute provides that an NOE must contain a brief description of the project and its location as well as a finding that the project is exempt from CEQA. This finding must contain a citation to the statute or CEQA Guideline on which the agency is relying, and a brief statement of reason to support the exemption (CEQA Guidelines, � 15062 subdivision (b)). The court found that Stockton's NOE was adequate because it stated the project was a retail use consistent with the master development plan, specified the exact location of the project and stated that the project was exempt under Public Resources Code � 21080 subdivision (b)(1) and Guidelines � 15369. According to the court, Public Resources Code � 21167 subdivision (d) requires that an action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has improperly determined that a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 21080 subdivision (b) shall be commenced within 35 days from the NOE filing date. The court ruled that a statute of limitations "operates conclusively across-the-board" and "does so with respect to all causes of action, both those that do not have merit and also those that do." This interpretation, Baxter wrote, aligns with CEQA's process of establishing and emphasizing public notification of an agency's action or decision as the event triggering the shortest applicable limitation periods for lawsuits alleging noncompliance with the statute. The Case: Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, No. SI59690, 2010 DJDAR S159690. Filed April 1, 2010. The Lawyers: For Stockton Citizens: William D. Kopper, (530) 758-0757. For Wal-Mart: Judy V. Davidoff, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, (415) 434-9100. For A.G. Spanos: John Briscoe, Briscoe, Ivester & Bazel, (415) 402-2700.

0-and-4. That's the Third District Court of Appeal's record in California Environmental Quality Act cases at the state Supreme Court since 2007. Earlier this month, in Stockton Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Stockton (see CP&DR Legal Digest,  March 15, 2010 ) , the state Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Third District ruling regarding the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit that challenges a city's notice of exemption from CEQA review. The state Supreme Court has issued eight CEQA rulings since mid-2006. Exactly half of the rulings have been reversals of Third District decisions. None of the other five appellate districts has been reversed more than once. A few months ago, when the state high court overturned a Third District decisions concerning a Sacramento County general aviation airport, I suggested the justices in the Sacramento-based appellate district might not understand CEQA . Upon reflection, I don't want to try to defend that notion. But if I were a lawyer with a CEQA case in the Third District, I would be hesitant. To figure out what's going on here, let's have quick look at the cases. In one case, the Third District rejected the programmatic EIR for the Cal-Fed Bay Delta project because the gigantic document lacked detail and did not consider a no-growth alternative for Southern California. In another case, the Third District said Sacramento County must analyze the impacts of not permitting continued operations at a general aviation airport that had skirted county codes for decades. Those two decisions struck me at the time as suspect, and the state Supreme Court later reversed both decisions. In a third case, Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova , (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, the Third District upheld as adequate the water analysis for a 20,000-unit community plan. Something else was in play here, though. The Third District was so strongly critical of the legal tactics employed by the Citizens' lawyer that the court mostly bypassed the merits. The State Supreme Court, however, had no trouble getting to the merits, and it rejected the water study. In the latest case, the Third District in a 2-1 ruling forgave Stockton Citizens from missing the 35-day statute of limitations because the city's approval process was, should we say, nonstandard. The planning director had approved development of a Wal-Mart Supercenter where multi-family housing was not only planned, but was required by the city as a condition of a approval for a master development plan. The planning director's ministerial decision to permit the Wal-Mart store was made without any public notice or environmental review. The city simply filed a notice of exemption (NOE) from CEQA two months later. Not surprisingly, the episode flew under the radar and the normal collection of Wal-Mart opponents and smart-growth advocates was late getting to the courthouse. Tough noogie, said the Cal Supremes. "Whatever the actual defects or flaws in its process of approving the Wal-Mart project under a CEQA exemption, city attempted, by filing an NOE for the project, to comply with CEQA," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote. Thus, there was no excuse for missing the 35-day deadline to sue. Essentially, the court said the law is the law. The justices declined to factor the city's, uh, nonstandard administrative process into their decision on the CEQA statute of limitations. The high court's approach hints at the common thread in the overturned Third District decisions: In each instance, the Third District went beyond a strict interpretation of CEQA. The law does not require consideration of patently absurd project alternatives (e.g. no growth in Southern California), nor does it require a study of the impacts of a private business closure, permit exceptions when a city does a favor for a well-connected developer, or allow judges to blow off an annoying lawyer. As of today, no CEQA decisions by the Third District or any other appellate district are on review at the state Supreme Court. Maybe this means that everybody now is clear on the rules. But I doubt it. – Paul Shigley

Say George Clooney went to Nobu last night and ran into Diddy in the valet line, where they discussed their mutual affinity for Kiton suiting. How do we know? Photographs, of course. Why do we care? Not sure, but USC Planning Professor Elizabeth Currid has taken a stab at it.  Three years ago Currid gratified the hipster set with The Warhol Economy (Princeton University Press), a glowing account of how creative industries -- broadly defined -- have elevated not just the culture but in fact the economy of New York City. Her analysis, which included both in-the-know accounts of things that cool people do as well as a rigorous economic analysis of creative industries, met with generally enthusiastic reviews (including one from me ) from both the trade and mainstream press, in part because her topic itself was inherently seductive. Currid is emerging as a cross between Andres Duany and Michael Musto. While Warhol barely mentioned any place other than New York, Currid's forthcoming book, Starstruck: The Business of Celebrity (Faber & Faber), promises to give a little more love, and hold a little more relevance, to her adopted West Coast. Starstruck does not come out until November, but I had the good fortune of hearing her speak on it yesterday in, of all places, Cambridge, Massachusetts (a place where both the celebrities and the planning go back a wee bit further than, say, Miley Cyrus). I went to find out if her work holds any clues for how California -- at least the famous, sparkly part of it -- can prosper from its association from fame and, more importantly, whether the built environment has anything to do with the fortunes of its stars. If New York has a monopoly on creativity, we know intuitively that California surely has few rivals in the area of celebrity. That is, in fact, the conclusion that Currid draws empirically: Los Angeles and New York are the mega-galaxies in the universe of stardom. London plays a supporting role, and, beyond that, a smattering of odd places – Park City, Cannes, Canada (broadly defined), and Las Vegas – play host to celebrity escapades, accomplishments, and media events. Currid's research employs a new methodology that seems incredibly fun and increasingly trendy. She gained access to Getty Images' database of celebrity-related photos and used Natural Language Processing to comb through over 600,000 photos of over 71,000 people in 200 locations. With some statistical wizardry, she used the photos to identify the hottest celebrities and the hottest places where they appear in public (or at semi-public events). This methodology is rife with biases, but it's a fascinating use of the vast natural database that emerges now that everything is available electronically. With more rigorous testing, it may inform planning for generations to come -- the realization of the potential of Web 3.0. As online databases grow, planners from almost anywhere can find photos of their cities and draw conclusions about how people use space within them. The Warhol Economy was mainly a descriptive piece, but it did conclude with some compelling recommendations that imaginative planners could consider in order that the built environment (and, in some cases, city economic development policy) be designed to promote creative economies. Her thesis is that creative industries thrive almost exclusively on personal contact and that personal contact relies on venues where it can take place. Control and production are one in the same and therefore happen in the same place, unlike, say, industrial production in which headquarters might be located in cities while factories have long fled overseas. Unfortunately for planners, Currid pans out rather than zooms in this time. In her talk she gave little heed to Los Angeles' built environment, noting only that a small handful of neighborhoods (Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood) host the vast majority of celebrity-related events. Otherwise, she takes her theoretical cues from Saskia Sassen to discuss the ways that celebrities create inter-regional linkages between cities that serve more as nodes than actual places. In some ways, this is only appropriate, if you think that celebrities are images and not real people, I suppose. Only in the question-and-answer period did Currid address the irony of celebrity and cities: the super-famous and super-wealthy live within camerashot of many of the least privileged people in the country, living and working in neighborhoods that are far from flashy. Great disparities in wealth and disproportionately large underclasses emerge in many major cities, but in Los Angeles the difference is so much more pronounced because the latter often appears literally in the background of the former. On that point, Currid said, and I quote loosely: I don't know what you do. This is where policy is very important. It policy for stars or for cultural industries. It's policy for equitable cities. Rent or social services that make people's lives all right as they get priced out. Those are real kinds of things we can do that are in many ways removed from the phenomenon I was talking about today. They are more about the global cities with the elite and poor service workers, and that latter group is disenfranchised. Currid seems to approve of stardom and the creative industries, at least to the extent that they create significant economic benefits for their host cities. She is careful to point out, though, that it's impossible to know whether the industries created the cities or vice-versa. As much as her current work is removed from the actual practice of planning, it presents planners -- at least those in Los Angeles -- with the challenge of not accepting this unclear correlation and in fact figuring out how the city can be designed both to keep the celebrities happy and to capture the economic spinoff effects of their wealth. Currid makes it clear that Hollywood (the industry) isn't leaving Hollywood (the place), and yet the industry's urban currency is quite different from that which takes place in New York. It also seems to address the rest of Los Angeles with indifference, if not contempt. Whether planners in Los Angeles and its neighboring cities can create more places not where awards galas can take place but rather where creative folks can get together and share ideas, and figure how to use the celebrity economy to the benefit of the entire place. The first step might be to encourage LA's public to spend less time reading Us Weekly and more time looking around their own city. --Josh Stephens

What appeared last fall to be a major win for property rights advocates may have been a fleeting victory. Earlier this month, an en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to rehear a rent control case from the City of Goleta, meaning the earlier ruling in favor of the property owner is wiped out. Last September, property rights advocates appeared to achieve a breakthrough in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta when a Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 ruling, determined that the city's mobile home rent control ordinance amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ruling was important for two reasons: First, the Ninth Circuit agreed to consider the mobile home park owners' claims, which normally would have been fully litigated in state court and would not have reached federal court. Second, the Ninth Circuit panel struck down the ordinance on its face. There was no instance in which the regulation could be constitutional, the court ruled. It was exactly the sort of ruling that mobile home park owners across the state and property rights advocates in general have sought for years. However, the majority ruling came with a dissent that suggested the ruling may not survive. In that dissent, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote that the property owners had suffered no compensable taking because they bought Ranch Mobile Estates long after rent control was already in place. The archives of the CP&DR Legal Digest are packed with mobile home rent control cases. Although the details vary from case to case, the gist of the mobile home park owners' argument is that mobile homes in rent-controlled parks sell for a premium because of the rent regulation. Thus, the park owners argue, the regulation is an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from the park owner to the mobile home owner. For years, park owners did not make much headway with this argument – until 2004, when a Ninth Circuit panel invalidated a City of Cotati mobile home ordinance . However, the precedent in the Cotati case did not last long, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year in Lingle that the basis for the Cotati ruling – that the rent control regulation did not "substantially advance" a legitimate government purpose – was not proper for a takings case. In the Goleta case, the property owners made the same transfer-of-wealth argument, but this time they passed the Penn Central test – which provides a higher bar than the now-vacated "substantially advances" test – to prove that a taking had occurred. The Penn Central test involves three main planks: 1) the regulation's economic impact on the property owner; 2)  the extent to which the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations; and 3) the character of the government action. In Guggenheim , the court determined that 1) the regulation was a "naked transfer" of wealth; 2) the property owners could argue the law interfered with their investment-backed expectations; and 3) it was improper for the city to single-out mobile home park owners. In his dissent, Judge Kleinfeld agreed the regulation did transfer wealth, but he said the property owners suffered no compensable loss because the basics of the regulation have been in place since 1979. Exactly why the Ninth Circuit agreed to reconsider the 2009 Guggenheim decision is unknown, but I suspect that the two-judge majority's rather expansive interpretation of Palazzolo may be a factor. The general rule is that regulations must be challenged shortly upon their enactment. But in the 2001 Palazzolo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted a landowner to contest a pre-existing wetlands regulation as a taking. However, it is important to remember that in Palazzolo , the same person (but a different legal entity), owned the property both before and after the regulation was established. In the Goleta case, the park owners bought the property 18 years after Santa Barbara County enacted rent control. It was no secret that the government held rents at Ranch Mobile Estates below market rates.  If the property owners can't get past a narrower interpretation of Palazzolo , they may find an opening in the City of Goleta's incorporation – and its perfunctory readoption of the entire county code – in 2002. Technically, a new regulation went into effect after the property owners bought the park. I shall make no prediction except for this one: If the 11-judge en banc panel ends up blessing the original Guggenheim decision, mobile home rent control in more than 100 California cities and counties will be in deep trouble. – Paul Shigley

The California Supreme Court has ruled that a project's air impacts are to be measured against existing ambient conditions, not against a permitted level of operations for the emitter. The unanimous ruling upholds an appellate court's decision that a proposed expansion of a ConocoPhillips oil refinery in Wilmington and Carson must be measured against on-the-ground conditions and, therefore, requires an environmental impact report (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2008). In 2003, ConocoPhillips proposed to modify and augment existing facilities in order to produce an ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. These changes would entail, among other modifications, a substantial increase in the operation of its cogeneration plant and boilers, which were subject to existing permits limiting their rate of heat production. ConocoPhillips applied to the South Coast Air Quality Management District for a permit to make the modifications. SCAQMD prepared an initial study and then a negative declaration, concluding the project would not have any adverse environmental impacts. However, during the environmental review process, the environmental justice group Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) submitted evidence that the project would increase nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by more than 600 pounds per day and that this amount could cause adverse health affects in surrounding neighborhoods. In response to this CBE's contentions, SCAQMD determined the increased steam generation from the cogeneration plant, in addition to other newly proposed activities, would create between 201 and 420 pounds per day of additional NOx emissions. Although the district had adopted a threshold of significance for NOx of 55 pounds per day, it determined that the revised increase was acceptable because the project would not have a significant environmental impact because the increased steam generation would not exceed the maximum rate of heat production allowed under the existing permits. CBE nevertheless filed suit against SCAQM, with ConocoPhilips as a real party in interest. The two mounted a joint defense. The Supreme Court analyzed two questions: First, whether the prior operating permits established a baseline for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of a "new project." Second, whether the record supported a fair argument that the project would have significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, require preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). On the first question, the district and ConocoPhillips argued that using the pre-project NOx emissions as a baseline for analyzing the project's effects would violate vested rights held by ConocoPhillips to operate its boilers at permitted levels. The court disagreed, citing � 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. " he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the court. SCAQMD and ConocoPhillips contended that using the existing conditions as the baseline for analysis would violate the statute of limitations, because CEQA analysis of the diesel fuel project should not constitute review of the district's previous approval of the boiler permits. Again, the court disagreed. It noted that CBE did not attempt to set aside the district's approval of the boiler permits � only approval of the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel project, which was timely challenged. Finally, SCAQMD and ConocoPhillips argued that numerous Court of Appeal decisions supported the use of maximum operational levels allowed under a permit as a CEQA baseline. This is known as the Fairview line of cases (see CP&DR Legal Digest, April 1999). The court rejected this argument and factually distinguished the ConocoPhillips project from the projects in the Court of Appeal cases. The latter had involved modification of a previously analyzed project or the continued operation of equipment without significant expansion of use, the court determined. "We conclude the district's use of the maximum capacity levels set in prior boiler permits, rather than the actually existing levels of emissions from the boilers, as a baseline to analyze NOx emissions from the diesel project was inconsistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines," Werdegar wrote. On the second issue � whether the record provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project would have significant adverse effects � the court held that the district's own negative declaration provided evidence the project would have substantial air impacts. Thus, an EIR should have been prepared. The court remanded the issue of how to calculate the true baseline to the district for analysis in the project EIR. The Case: Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, No. S161190, 2010 DJDAR 3872. Filed March 15, 2010. The Lawyers: For CBE: Adrienne Bloch, (510) 302-0430. For the South Coast Air Quality Management District: Bradley Hogin, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, (714) 558-7000. For ConocoPhillips: Jocelyn Thompson, Alston & Bird, (213) 576-1104. --Katherine J. Hart

This month more Census forms will arrive in California mailboxes than in those of any other state. And, while anxieties about response rates and undercounts persist nationwide, it is likely that California will fill out and submit more of them than will any other state. In its rawest state, the resulting data will give planners their most fundamental piece of data - the sheer number of people the state must accommodate. At the same time, this year's Census will lay some disputes to rest while, possibly, kicking up new ones that may persist for the next ten years. The most pressing issue, therefore, for California's demographers and planners to find out exactly how many people live in the state - a figure that is currently disputed to the tune of 1.5 million people. That's the difference between the 38.3 million residents that the California Department of Finance estimated as of January 1, 2009 and the 36.7 million that the Census Bureau estimated at the same time. Though both figures are based on the 33.8 million logged in the 2000 Census they have diverged over the past decade due to differing estimates of domestic in- and out-migration. That number is "unprecedented," said Hans Johnson, associate director at the California Public Policy Institute. "It's a phenomenal difference. There's no doubt that as a state our population growth has slowed compared to previous decades-the key question is how much." The desire to bridge this gap, and avoid the perennial threat of an undercount, has prompted cities across the state to embark on campaigns to encourage residents to respond quickly and accurately. April 1 is "Census Day," the official point of reference on which responses are to be based. "The Census Bureau has basically been saying that people have been leaving California in greater numbers than people have been coming to California," said Mary Heim, chief of the Demographic Research Unit at the California Department of Finance. "We don't think it is to the extent that the Census Bureau thinks people have been leaving the state." While Heim and others are curious to find out from the 2010 whether their numbers are correct, they of course carry more than trivial value. They will determine how many House seats the state will pick up - two if the state estimates are correct and none if the Census Bureau estimates are confirmed. The latter scenario would be the first time since 1920 that the state did not gain seats. The data will also serve as the baseline for all future demographic projections conducted by the Department of Finance. Most importantly for local and regional planners concrete, the Census will provide authoritative figures on which to base everything from transportation models to the Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) process, which attempts to prescribe the amount and location of housing that a given region needs to accommodate population growth. "That process looks at what kind of housing is there, what's the population, and that process depends on the Department of Finance's projections," said Gordon Garry, director of research and analysis at the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. "We're hoping that this Census bridges divide between the Department of Finance and Census. For our RHNA process that's one less data problem." Other problems, however, may arise at a finer level of detail. What the Census will not include is the long-form questions that have, since 1940, asked one-sixth of American households to reveal fine details about their lives. The long form was scrapped following the 2000 Census, so planners who are accustomed to relying on detailed, nuanced Census data to analyze and plan their communities may not get the detail that they expect. "It's going to be the thinnest Census ever conducted," said Dowell Myers, professor of Urban Planning and Demographics at USC. "The most important thing for planning is the homeownership data. Except, first they threw our air conditioning, then they threw out bathrooms, now they've thrown out the whole housing unit. The only question left is, are you an owner or a renter?" Instead, everyone will receive the standard Short Form, asking for age, sex, race, ethnicity, household size and homeownership. "That doesn't give planners a lot to work with," said Myers. From that data planners will be able to get occupied housing counts and derive average household size and vacancy rates, according to Heim. More detailed information will come from the American Communities Survey, a monthly survey of 250,000 households nationwide that was fully implemented by the Census Bureau in 2006. The Census Bureau will be compiling three- and five-year averages of survey data - with the Census as a baseline - in order to replace the long form. However, even though the ACS is ongoing and not decennial like the Census, its comparatively small sample size has made some researchers wary of its reliability. Because ACS takes only a sample of households, it will have a wider margin of error than will the Census, which is presumed to have a nearly perfect response rate. PPIC's Johnson noted that this sampling problem may affect small cities and counties more than it will large ones and put California at less of a disadvantage than it does more rural states. Even so, the absolute discrepancies and margins of error may be significant. "I have real reservations (about ACS)," said Heim. "I think we don't totally grasp how you use five-year averages, three-year averages, and annual data. It's like a whole new world out there." "That's a challenge for people who study things like poverty concentrations," said Johnson. "You cannot look at the Census to get that anymore." Additionally, the short form obscures some data that planners consider crucial to creating the next generation of transportation plans. SACOG's Garry said that fine details about household demographics can have big impacts on travel patterns, thus making the combined data from the Census and ACS crucial to regional planning. "(Regional planning agencies) are going to be caught holding the bag figuring this out," said Myers. "Our new travel models are much more travel-behavior based we've gone to another level of detail," said Garry. "It turns out that the kind of household makes a big difference in the travel demand and how respond to how far away things are and job locations and what kind of transportation choice will they make." Even with the "thin" short form and questions about how the ACS and Census will match up, demographers are hoping that the deluge of fresh data will answer lingering questions and confirm predictions about what has, by many estimates, been an usual decade for the state. The Census may offer a macro-level account of the recession and foreclosure crisis by allowing analysts to extrapolate the rate of vacancies that have been caused by foreclosures. "Are people doubling up?" said Heim. "Are multiple families in one housing unit?" On the other hand, the Census may reveal less housing density thanks not to economic conditions but rather to the aging of the population and the settling of the state's immigrant population, both of which have a tendencytend to reduce household sizes. The numbers may, therefore, indicate a trend that would give smart growth advocates pause. "One reason density has increased in the past wasn't that we were building more housing units but that we had more people living in housing units," said Johnson. "Over time as immigrants adapt to life in the United States they might start living in smaller households." Moreover, Heim noted that elderly residents are becoming a larger percentage of the state's population. They tend to live alone or in pairs and therefore have less per-unit density than would nuclear families. Eventually, however, those homes will turn over. Concerns therefore persist about the combination of demographic and economic trends and the ability of the next generation of would-be homeowners to fill the state's existing housing stock. "The projections are interesting but also threatening," said Myers. "Older baby boomers are going to be selling, progressively. Are there going to be enough younger homeowners to pay for that built-up equity over the past few decades?" Statewide, the Census will assign hard numbers to the trends that have defined the state's development over the past ten years. "Things that I'll be looking at include changes in inland vs. coastal areas, north vs. south and some of the regional patterns," said Johsnon. "And looking specifically at what were the big changes in terms of racial and ethnic mix? How much have cities been transformed?" From there, California's planners can begin to think about how the state will-and should-be transformed in the next ten years. Contacts: Gordon Garry, Director of Research and Analysis, SACOG (916) 340-6230 Mary Heim, Chief, California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit (916) 445-3878 Hans Johnson, Associate Director, Public Policy Institute of California (415) 291-4460 Prof. Dowell Myers , USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development (213) 740-7095

Regional planning has just won a round in its age-old battle against local prerogative. Earlier this month, an Alameda County Superior Court judge struck down voter-approved housing caps in the City of Pleasanton and ordered the city to zone more land to accommodate the city's fair share of housing. Judge Frank Roesch sided with affordable housing advocates, who have pressed Pleasanton for years over what they consider exclusionary housing policies. The ruling strikes me as very important -- but not quite as important as some people might think. It's not such a big deal because this was a Superior Court ruling that applies only to one city. Unless the case is appealed and a Court of Appeal publishes a similar decision, no legal precedent for any other city has been established. Still, the ruling is a big deal for two reasons: It emboldens affordable housing advocates, and it may portend future skirmishes as regional planning imperatives continue to take hold in California. First, a little background on Pleasanton, a city of nearly 70,000 people in Alameda County. In 1986, city voters approved a growth management ordinance and housing cap. In 1998, they modified the earlier restrictions by approving Measure GG, which limited annual housing permits to 750 units per year and – most importantly – established 29,000 units as the maximum number of units in town. In 2008, voters approved Measure PP, which reaffirmed Measure GG and tightened the definition of a housing unit. Over the years, the city has grown into a substantial job center thanks to development of business parks. By one estimate, at least 40,000 people commute to Pleasanton on a daily basis. Meanwhile, in 2001, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that Pleasanton's share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 1999-2006 period was 5,059 units, including 2,423 units for very low, low- or moderate-income households. As you might imagine, this was not a popular mandate in Pleasanton. Despite studies and promises, city officials never zoned adequate land to accommodate the RHNA housing numbers. The Department of Housing and Community Development refused to certify the city's 2003 housing element update. The San Francisco-based group Urban Habitat Program sued to enforce the housing element law in 2006. The group first had to win a procedural battle even to get its claims heard by a judge (see CP&R Legal Digest , September 2008 ). Judge Roesch's ruling on those claims is straightforward. "It is self-evident that the city cannot comply with the state statute requiring the city to accommodate its RHNA when the city is not permitted by its local law, Measure GG, to allow the number of housing units to be built that would satisfy the RHNA," he wrote. "The question of which law prevails is elementary. State law preempts whenever local laws contradict state law." Roesch ordered the city to strike Measures GG, PP and QQ (another 2008 initiative) from all planning documents and to zone land for housing pursuant to the 1999-2006 RHNA. He also ordered the city to halt issuing non-residential building permits until its general plan complies with state law. The ruling was a home run for the housing advocates. "This is the first time that a court has ordered a jurisdiction to rezone sites to meet the need identified in the previous RHNA," said Richard Marcantonio, attorney for Urban Habitat Program. Other cities also failed to zone adequate land during the last RHNA round, and even more cities in the ABAG region missed last year's deadline for updating housing elements. I can guarantee that Marcantonio knows which cities. I strongly suspect that many of the cities dodging the housing law are hoping Pleasanton does not appeal Roesch's decision because a similar ruling by an appellate court could establish a precedent that those cities don't want to see. At this point, Pleasanton has not announced a course of action. It's too early to appeal because Urban Habitat Program claims of housing discrimination are still pending. A City of Pleasanton spokeswoman said officials have no comment. However, former Pleasanton Mayor and Councilman Tom Pico, speaking on KQED radio's "Forum," defended the city's growth policies and called the RHNA process "seriously flawed" because it penalizes the city for having a BART station and employment centers. There's nothing wrong, he said, with putting the housing for Pleasanton's workers in the neighboring cities of Dublin and Livermore. He further contended the city is nearly at buildout. Pico was not speaking for the city, but it is exactly that sort of attitude that has gotten Pleasanton in its current pickle. In approving SB 375 , the Legislature made regional planning an even greater priority than it has been under the housing element law. The idea behind SB 375 is to force cities with transit and jobs – cities like Pleasanton – to accept lots of new housing as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars. In other words, the conflict that continues to play out in Pleasanton could become commonplace around California. – Paul Shigley

The hottest web meme of the past two days -- in urbanist circles at least (I shudder to think of what the hottest overall meme is) -- is the chart of the most photographed cities and landmarks in the world.  Last year a team of Cornell researchers assumed the guise of part Web trawlers and part econometricians and, with the help of photo-analysis software, identified every photo on the Flickr photo-sharing site that could recognizably be associated with a city.  It ranked the top twenty-five cities and then the top seven most commonly photographed subjects in each.  Not surprisingly, Europe wins the prize for the most photogenic landmarks worldwide.  The Eiffel Tower, Trafalgar Square, the Tate Modern, Big Ben, and Notre Dame cathedral round out the top five, although New York ranks first overall among cities.  But not far down the grid an astounding pattern emerges: three of the top 25 most photographed cities are in California: San Francisco (third), Los Angeles (seventh), and Lee Vining (13th).  Just kidding; 13th goes to San Diego.  This study does not suggest that these are the absolute most popular (or at least photogenic) places in the world, since anything that uses Flickr as a dataset is bound to be rife with bias.  Most notably, the data is biased towards those who have web access and, moreover, have the savvy or sense of exhibitionism to use Flickr.  The demographic traits of that population surely look nothing like that of the world as a whole, and they are in fact likely to be biased towards the very cities that make the top of the list.  Flickr itself is a subsidiary of Yahoo!, which is, naturally, based near San Francisco, so the study may say more about the respective cities' tech savvy than their aesthetic appeal.  Though the study seems to have more to do with the web than with cities per se, it has the unfortunate indirect effect of celebrating landmarks over streetscapes and, indeed, icons over places.  I like San Francisco's Union Square (SF #3) and adore the Santa Monica Pier (LA #5), but I don't even know what it would mean to "go" to the Hollywood Sign (LA #2) and I'm not quire sure what to do about "seals" in San Diego (#4).  Most disturbing to those who believe in California urbanism, some of the state's top scorers aren't so much places as they are artificial attractions: Disneyland (LA #1), Coit Tower (SF #1), and -- brace yourself -- Comicon (SD #7), which isn't even a place so much as a universe all its own.  California's notoriety is heartening, and the study suggests that if all else fails the state can still count on revenue from tourists (and comic book aficionados).  But the study ignores that which California so desperately needs: genuine, attractive, liveable places.  Tourists are not so likely to snap photos of Old Town Pasadena or of the dozens of main streets in the Central Valley, but those are the places that need the most attention and, ultimately, will generate the most economic activity as they enable Californians to mingle with each other.  The best places are, in short, those that don't stand out.  California needs ordinary places that evade the shutter not because they are unattractive but because they they are so intertwined in the fabric of residents' lives that they cease to seem special at all.  Indeed, urban planners should (and probably do) know better than anyone else in California that "special" is not the same thing as "spectacle."  We now have scientific proof that California has plenty of the latter; our challenge is to build more of the former. -- Josh Stephens PS.  Far more fascinating, and less predictable, than the ranking of discrete sights are the activity maps that the researchers extrapolated from the aggregate data: