Today more than ever planners are recommending— and being urged to recommend —"sustainable" development practices. But what makes a development truly sustainable remains an open question, as there is uncertainty over what the sustainable community may look like as little as one generation in the future. In interviews that CP&DR recently conducted with planners, academics, developers and advocates, a rough consensus of sustainable development began to emerge: The sustainable community will be compact, have numerous transportation options besides the car, and be far more energy-efficient than today's neighborhoods and cities. Nearly everyone talks about foot power and solar power. There's also widespread agreement that anything — development patterns, transportation, infrastructure, private enterprise — that relies on large quantities of fossil fuels does not have stable future. Still, this is only a rough outline. There is no definition of sustainability. "You can really crack your noggin over what will be sustainable for the long-term," said David Goldberg, of the organization Smart Growth America. "I don't think anybody knows what will be sustainable 50 to 100 years from now," said Stephen Wheeler, a professor at University of California, Davis. What we do know, added Laura Hall, a San Francisco-based urban designer, is that automobile-dominated suburbs are failing. "It's possible," she said, "that we're all living in a major transition time. It just seems that so many things are coming together." Those converging factors involve the sharp rise in energy and food costs, the sense that those costs are not going to reverse, and growing interest in halting global climate change. As a result, numerous cities and counties in California are preparing climate change plans and making sustainability a key component of long-term planning documents (see CP&DR , June 2008). With this in mind, CP&DR talked to a number of experienced professionals with a wide variety of viewpoints about just what the sustainable community might look like in the future. Here are some of the most thought-provoking responses. __________ Steve Coyle is an architect and urban designer who heads Town Green, an Oakland-based consulting company of "green urbanists." "The basic smart growth principles of compact development, diversity of uses and making it as walkable as possible apply," Coyle said of the sustainable community. "Increase mobility through non-polluting modes, which would be walking, biking, skateboarding or even electric vehicles. It's creating more choice, and less dependence on the automobile." "We know how to do all of this stuff — all of the planners and good urban designers do." But, Coyle warned, "solving the economic part of it is really tough." Coyle is helping the cities of Martinez, Hayward and Salinas put together climate change action plans, and, he said, "The one feature that keeps rising to the top of the heap is the economic impact." The sustainable community, he insisted, will need an economy that is more locally based, less-dependent on fossil fuel, and more environmentally beneficial. Technology may be helpful in the transition to this localized, green economy, but Coyle emphasizes employment of "time-tested" solutions, some of which may be thousands of years old. These solutions include concepts such as incorporating agriculture and food production into urban regions, he said. Farmers may also need to reconsider what they grow. Using all of a region's farmland for commodity crops such as corn, soybeans or rice is not sustainable if it means the region must import most of what the residents eat, he said. Coyle also pressed the need for workforce education and retraining, and flexibility that accommodates new science and technology. For example, he said, the mass production of stand-alone solar power systems appears to be only a few years off. Urban planners need to "make sure we include the possibility of retrofit with that item later on," he said. "If there's a sort of tagline for our approach to sustainability, it's what works best for the long-term that will sustain us in the short term?" Coyle posited. As a leader of the National Charrette Institute, Coyle is helping to design a template for sustainability. "The question," he said, "is not just how can we reduce our carbon footprint, but how can we be economically sustainable and improve the environment and reduce our use of non-renewables?" __________ Dawn Weisz is the coordinator of the Sustainability Team for the Marin County Community Development Agency. "There are some key components," Weisz said of the sustainable community. "First of all, it's powered by renewable resources, and power is generated locally. "Localized food production and sources of water are important," she continued, citing the potential for underground water storage. "As far as transportation, obviously, we would need to unhook off of any dependence on fossil fuels." That means electric vehicles and many options for travel, which itself requires compact cities. In the sustainable community, she said, "there is not such a big need to travel on a day-to-day basis." "There is less cement, and less smoke going into the air," Weisz said of the sustainable community. "It's probably quieter because there are fewer cars. As the scale comes down to walking and biking, it becomes more of a community feel with people out of their cars and interacting." Weisz also called social equity an essential component of the sustainable community. Money and other resources need to remain in the community, not get shipped elsewhere, she said. The Marin County general plan that was adopted less than one year ago (see CP&DR Local Watch, January 2008 ) addresses social equity by encouraging access to lifelong educational opportunities, making child care facilities easy to site, incorporating affordable housing into new developments, ensuring compact development, and offering transportation choices, she said. __________ Stephen Wheeler is an assistant professor in the landscape architecture program at University of California, Davis, and is the author of Planning for Sustainability: Towards Livable, Equitable, and Ecological Communities , and the co-editor of The Sustainable Urban Development Reader . His book Learning from Climate Change is due out later this year. "We are going to have to re-invent our entire society in this century," contended Wheeler, a former lobbyist for environmental organizations. For Wheeler, a critical component of sustainability is ending the unlimited mobility of people and goods that evolved during the 20th Century. "There is no alternative set of technologies that is not going to have huge greenhouse gas impacts on the planet, and other impacts," Wheeler said. That means the sustainable community "is going to be much more of a village-like model, even if it's a fairly large village," he said. This sustainable village will have a fine-grained, organic mix of uses, extensive open space and greenways, and community food systems. There will be "a lot fewer motor vehicles, and more people." "It's going to involve a hell of a lot less mobility than we have right now. It's going to be much more place-oriented," he said. What Wheeler envisions looks a lot like old European cities that were designed prior to the automobile and where people are able to meet many needs within a short walk from home. Buildings, he said, should be carbon-neutral, meaning they only use as much energy as they can generate through nonpolluting means. Locating buildings to take advantage of passive solar light and heat, and installing solar heating or photovoltaic systems and even vegetated rooftops are concepts we know how to implement, he said. The issue of implementation is more political than technical because of the costs involved, he said. Wheeler sees large-scale commercial and office developments as essentially "land banks" that are relatively easily retrofitted into sustainable new communities. "We will make the transition, but it's going to take a long time, and it's going to be painful," he predicted. __________ Laura Hall is a principal with Hall Alminana, Inc., of San Francisco and an advocate of form-based zoning codes. Hall sees reform of transportation as essential to sustainability. "What we all need to do as planners is build as though the car is going to get less important over time, as if the car is not as prominent as it is today," she said. "It's not necessarily about us completely getting small and living in a small world, but being able to cover distances in the most efficient manner," said Hall. Thus, the sustainable community provides for many needs at the neighborhood level, but also offers easy access to transit for travel beyond the neighborhood, she explained. For Hall, sustainability is similar to the precepts of new urbanism and form-based codes, or "smart codes," that emphasize the public realm and connectivity. Urban planners have been perfecting these tools over the last 15 years. Now, she said, they need to employ the tools, especially when reworking suburbia into a form that involves an organic mix of uses such as home businesses and small shops, transforming malls into walkable downtowns, and forging links between single-family neighborhoods and these new downtowns. "So much of California is suburban-oriented, it's going to take a big push," said Hall, who insisted that she is optimistic. __________ Gary Binger is lecturer in city and regional planning at University of California, Berkeley, and director of the Urban Land Institute's Smart Growth Initiative. Binger equates smart growth, especially its heavy reliance on transit, with sustainability. "Smart growth is just good planning. It's woven into the new urbanist approach. I see all of it sort of the same way," Binger said. What's important, he added, is to maintain a state and regional perspective. State and regional entities need to spend infrastructure dollars in a way that encourages smart growth, he said. This works as both a carrot and a stick: If a city plans for high housing densities, it receives money for transportation projects, especially transit. But if a jurisdiction insists on the low-density suburban model, it is on its own for transportation funding. In implementing the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law (AB 32) it is "crucial for the state to do a lot more to reward cities, and to discourage cities from not reducing VMT ," he said. __________ Michael Dieden is president of Creative Housing Associates, a Culver City-based developer of transit-oriented developments. The sustainable community, Dieden said, will place an "emphasis on the pedestrian and the bicycle and transit." To do so, shopping, entertainment, parks and open space will all be within walking distance of homes or easily accessible by transit. In addition, the sustainable community will feature use of photovoltaic and other alternative energy sources, green building materials and recycled products, buildings with more insulation, and drought-resistant landscaping, he forecasted. "After World War II, the development community went brain dead," argued Dieden, who credits the Congress for New Urbanism as a positive influence on development values. "The emphasis should be on the human being, and not on the automobile. You'll come up with a much more livable community." Not surprisingly, Dieden sees transit-oriented developments — such as his 67-unit housing project on the Gold Line in South Pasadena — as sustainable because the close proximity of a variety of housing units to transit and shopping greatly reduces the carbon footprint from the typical suburban, segregated-use development. "The epicenter of South Pasadena moved from the corner of Fair Oaks and Mission down half a mile to Meridian and Mission," he said of redevelopment around the Mission Meridian Village project. "It changed the whole dynamic of the city from an auto-oriented neighborhood to a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. It's Norman Rockwell. You'll see mothers with kids literally pulling red wagons down to the farmers market." __________ David Goldberg is communications director for Smart Growth America based in Washington, D.C., and author of two books, Choosing Our Community's Future: A citizen's guide to getting the most from development , and Rethinking the American Dream . "The only thing that is likely to be sustainable for human society is neighborhoods that are first-rate human habitat — neighborhoods that people cherish and are able to use and re-use over generations," Goldberg said. These neighborhoods are aesthetically pleasing, safe, provide for people's daily needs and are easy to navigate, he explained. Goldberg said the notion of sustainable communities "fuses several different trains of thought that have been out there for several years." These include new urbanism, the green building movement, and interest in ecosystem restoration. Rather than struggling for elusive sustainability, Goldberg said, "I like the term ‘green neighborhood.' Green is sort of aspirational." The green neighborhood, he said, uses both land and energy efficiently and is "literally green."

A premature freeze can destroy a year's citrus crop in rural Tulare County, leaving thousands of people without work. In the small city of Lindsay, where four out of five wage earners work the fields, the frost of 2006 sent the great majority of those workers into the ranks of the "freeze displaced," to borrow a local phrase. The response of officials in this city of 11,000 people was a seat-of-the-pants job-creation program modeled after the federal Works Projects Administration (WPA) of the 1930s. To employ idled workers, city officials conceived a set of public projects, including new housing, a library and athletic fields for the local high school. The most novel of these projects, however, was the conversion of an empty fruit-packing plant into McDermont Field House, a 172,000-square-foot, $14 million sports and fitness complex. The concept behind McDermont Field House took root in 2004, when Lindsay officials visited New York City for a conference on economic development. Among other places, officials toured Chelsea Piers, a 30-acre sports and entertainment complex on the lower Manhattan waterfront. On the site of former cruise-ship piers stand new buildings containing basketball courts, a full-sized soccer field, two skating rinks and much else. When the officials came back to Lindsay, as Brad Albert, assistant manager of McDermont Field House, tells the story, one council member drove by the old McDermont fruit-packing plant, empty since the 1990s, and said, "That's our Chelsea Piers." City Manager Scot Townsend, who would become a prime mover of the adaptive-reuse project, was apparently so interested in the potential of the abandoned building that he broke into it one day with a flashlight to see how the place laid out. The underlying purpose of the project, beyond providing badly needed facilities for indoor sports in a working-class community, was to provide jobs for the local unemployed, according to Albert. "Our whole thing was to develop jobs for freeze displaced workers," Albert said. "Instead of food vouchers and rental assistance, let them earn money." With few resources, the city demonstrated how much could be achieved without the use of actual money. Within a year, the city acquired the building and surrounding land through a property trade. To clean up the site and remove old machinery, the city hired prison labor from a minimum-security facility, Mountain Home, located in nearby Springville. The financing of the project is a case study in aggregating money from different sources, each earmarked for a particular purpose. Money comes from a patchwork of federal, state and local sources. Of the $14 million total, the city contributed $2 million directly from its general fund – a bold step, given that the amount is more than half the city's annual general fund budget. The city's redevelopment agency will contribute $460,000 during the first two years of operation. That sum, in essence, is the cost of operating McDermont for that time period. City officials anticipate that the facility will be self-sustaining after that. The state Department of Housing and Community Development contributed another $2 million of federal job-creation funds to the project, with the goal of providing full-time work to 72 people. (Currently, 83 people are working full-time at McDermont, according to the city.) The remainder of the money, according to City Clerk Kenneth Walker, comes from grants of various sizes, ranging from $25,000 to $150,000. For example, the Integrated Waste Management Board provided a $25,000 grant for using sustainable materials in the project. The project used no bond financing and is debt-free. The basketball courts and an arcade, built within the shell of the original building, opened last fall. Currently, the city is building a three-story tower atop the building for additional attractions, including a rock-climbing wall, exercise equipment and volleyball courts. Laser tag can be found in the basement. Completion of the addition is expected in October. While McDermont was modeled after Chelsea Piers, the building is arguably a new kind of public facility: Essentially, it is an indoor sports park, with regulation-size basketball, volleyball and a full-size soccer field. (Previously, the nearest full-size soccer field was in Fresno, an hour's drive away.) Officials expect these facilities to become a hub of league sports for both children and adults. At the same time, city officials are outfitting McDermont with many high-tech attractions, including several to be leased out to private operators, such as a rock-climbing wall, a mechanical wave machine for simulated surfing and exercise games projected on large video monitors, to help combat the high level of childhood obesity in the city. An animated orange with a big smile, operated by an unseen puppeteer, will greet visitors as they enter McDermont (no kidding). Even if animated oranges might make some people cringe, the business model seems defensible: One child can play volleyball, while another lingers in the arcade and mom relaxes with a Diet Coke while chatting with a friend. What is most interesting about this facility, and what other observers might think foolhardy, is that the city, rather than a private developer, was the developer of McDermont Field House. Moreover, the city remains the owner and operator. If Lindsay had taken the conventional route of hiring a developer, however, it may well have shared the experience of other cities who hired developers to build public facilities subsidized by private real estate, only to watch the public amenities shrink in size or disappear from the project altogether as "unfeasible." By remaining in control of the project, Lindsay has delivered both jobs and a facility in which the public purpose is central. Out of the failure of the orange crop, Lindsay has grown an alternative crop of public works, at a level of risk-tolerance and creativity that may have intimidated larger cities with far bigger budgets. But as they say, necessity is a mother.

The majority of California's unique plant species could lose most of their geographic ranges during the next 100 years because of climate change, according to a newly released report by biologists at several universities. The finding could have dramatic implications for land management in California, especially in areas with local or regional habitat plans. The first-of-its-kind study projects that up to two-thirds of endemic plant species (plants that grow nowhere except California) will experience geographic range reductions of up to 80% within a century because of changing weather patterns. Many endemic species will migrate north or to higher elevations. For example, oak trees may disappear from Central California but find hospitable ground near the Oregon border. Plants that disappear from the San Diego, Los Angeles and Central Valley regions may be replaced with desert plants from Baja and the Sonoran Desert. David Ackerly, an ecologist at University of California, Berkeley, and the study's chief author, conceded that he is not overly familiar with habitat conservation plans. But he said he would expect to see conflicts between shrinking plant ranges and the conservation plans' assumptions and techniques. "The word restoration loses its value because restoration has backward-looking connotation," Ackerly said. "With climate change, we're saying we're going to a future that is unknown." Since 1982, about 150 habitat conservation plans (HCPs) have been adopted in California. These plans are aimed at preserving the viability of anywhere from one to scores of endangered or threatened species, and they cover anywhere from a few hundred acres to thousands of square miles. In addition, California has 32 natural communities conservation plans (NCCPs) that seek to conserve entire ecosystems. Some of the most recently adopted conservation plans serve as both HCPs and NCCPs and cover broad areas. The plans typically are intended to guide conservation practices — as well as urban development — for 50 to 100 years. However, Michael Beck, who heads the Endangered Habitats League's San Diego office, said he knows of no HCP or NCCP that accounts for climate change. The effects of climate change may force the re-examination of some plans, he said. Although the plans typically contain "no surprises" provisions that limit additional regulation on private landowners, the plans may be revisited if there are extraordinary circumstances or if monitoring finds the plans are failing, he said. Work on Western Riverside County's multiple species habitat conservation plan began in 2000 and the plan was adopted in 2004 — a period during which climate change was a niche topic. "At the time, we weren't looking at a relationship between endemic plants and climate change," conceded Charles Landry, executive director of the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority. Still, he said, the plan can respond to climate change. The plan defines large core areas with linkages among them, permitting species to move around. In addition, the plan requires extensive monitoring and allows for "adaptive management" techniques, he said. "As we go through the management piece, we need to see what wildlife and plants are doing," Landry said. "For example, are we seeing more Quino (checkerspot butterfly) migration to higher areas because it is cooler? That could have a major impact on the plan." The climate change study, Beck added, provides further backing for environmentalists' long-held contention that "bigger is better" in land conservation efforts, and that saving small slices of habitat on the margin is the wrong approach. Ackerly insisted that much more study needs to be done. Researchers developed a model, but people should be very careful about basing land management decisions on the model at this point. The model might be helpful at the county or regional level, but probably not when managing a particular site, he said. Ackerly said he hopes to convene a group of public and private land managers in an effort to determine what information would help the managers respond to climate change. "All planning around future biodiversity needs to take into account climate change," Ackerly said. "I would say we're in a transition period," offered Beck. "The psychology of the implications of climate change are so overwhelming to people that it can almost make them freeze." Contacts: David Ackerly, UC Berkeley Department of Integrative Biology, (510) 643-6341. Charles Landry, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, (951) 955-9700. Michael Beck, Endangered Habitats League, (619) 846-3003. "Climate Change and the Future of California Endemic Flora": www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002502 Department of Fish & Game NCCP website: www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp 'A Sobering Picture' The paper "Climate Change and the Future of California's Endemic Flora" was published June 25 on the PLoS One website, an online, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Lead author David Ackerly of UC Berkeley's Department of Integrative Biology was assisted by professors from Berkeley, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Texas Tech and Duke. Here is an excerpt regarding land management: "These results present a sobering picture of the potential impacts of climate change on California's diverse and distinctive flora. The severity of projected impacts is closely linked to the magnitude of climate change. That, in turn, depends crucially on human emissions of greenhouse gases over the next few decades. The projected impacts are also very sensitive to the potential rate of plant movement, and rapid dispersal could mitigate much of the impact on individual species and overall diversity. However, rapid movement by natural dispersal is unlikely on a century time-scale, except for weedy species with short generation time and highly dispersable propagules. Human assisted dispersal must be considered as a critical component of conservation and biodiversity management in the next century. "The results of this study present a dilemma for conservation planning in the face of climate change. Future diversity will likely peak along the coast and to the north of its present concentrations. These areas are sensible priorities for conservation. Some areas of high diversity, however, will be comprised of species expanding their ranges, and these species may not represent important targets for conservation efforts. "Areas that are projected to harbor species with shrinking ranges, on average, include many mountainous areas scattered across the study area. We identify these areas as refugia that may disproportionately contain the most ‘threatened' species. These ‘future refugia' present valuable opportunities as conservation targets. They may protect significant components of biodiversity into the next century. The number of species projected to survive in these refugia depends critically on the ability to disperse, highlighting the importance of landscape connectivity and potential restoration in the face of increasing urbanization, land use change and disturbance."

A property assessment to fund open space acquisitions in Santa Clara County has been invalidated by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the assessment violated Proposition 218. The court found that the assessment on 314,000 parcels spread across 800 square miles provided only general benefits and was therefore a special tax that should have gone before voters. The unanimous court said that property owner's 2001 approval of the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (OSA) assessment was not legal under the state constitution. Under the 12-year-old Proposition 218, "a special benefit must affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from its effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share," Justice Ming Chin wrote for the court. The open space authority, Chin continued, "has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the assessment is based only on the special benefits conferred on the particular parcel and is in proportion to those benefits." The court also made clear that Proposition 218 shifted the burden of proof in litigation over assessments and other levies to the government agency, and said that courts should independently review the levies without deference to the government agency. "I would call it a landmark decision," said Timothy Bittle, counsel for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which helped bring the lawsuit. "The court recognized that taxpayer rights are constitutional rights just like any other rights." The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which filed an amicus brief urging the court to throw out the assessment, also celebrated the ruling. "The county tried to camouflage a general benefit program as one that would help homeowners uniquely," PLF attorney Harold Johnson said. "This ploy was unconstitutional." Local government representatives called the decision a blow to government programs ranging from open space acquisition to mosquito abatement to fire protection that have been funded with property assessments for years. "It may mean that open space acquisitions are very difficult to do in the future," said Michael Coleman, a fiscal policy advisor to the League of California Cities. But, he added, "The kinds of assessments that this decision affects are not widely used." Michael Colantuono, a municipal attorney who advises local government on fiscal matters, said that while only a handful of agencies levy open space assessments, fire suppression assessments are commonplace. Based on the court's emphasis on the need to prove particular and proportional benefits to a specific parcel, some of those assessments might be difficult to defend, he said. The decision might also bring into question county service area fees that are levied for a variety of general government services, he said. State legislation created the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority in 1992 to slow the conversion of land to urban uses, encourage agriculture and preserve quality of life. The authority covers all of Santa Clara County that is not within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In 1994, the open space authority formed an assessment district under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and began levying a special assessment on the district's property owners ($12 for a single-family house) that raises about $4 million annually. Taxpayer advocates lost a lawsuit over the 1994 assessment district. In 2000, the authority considered forming a second assessment district to generate more revenue. By that time, voters had approved Proposition 218, which, as the court described, "tightened assessment requirements and definitions, imposed stricter procedures on agencies, and shifted traditional presumptions that had favored assessment validity." The authority followed the procedures for levying an assessment — as opposed to a tax — in the new district, which was identical to the one created in 1994. The authority prepared an engineer's report identifying areas for potential acquisition and improvement. The proposed assessment of $20 on a single-family home, and more or less for other properties, would generate $8 million a year, according to the authority, which notified all property owners and conducted an informational meeting and formal public hearing. Property owners received mail ballots and about 15% responded by the December 2001 deadline, with 66.8% favoring the charge. When the ballots were weighted in proportion to the assessment for each parcel, as Proposition 218 requires, the assessment passed with 50.9% support. The Jarvis organization and Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association filed suit, arguing the assessment violated Proposition 218 for a variety of reasons. A trial court judge upheld the assessment, as did the Sixth District Court of Appeal in a 2-1 ruling. The case then moved to the state Supreme Court. In his opinion, Justice Chin addressed at length the "standard of review." Prior to passage of Proposition 218, courts afforded deference to government agencies that undertook the quasi-legislative act of forming assessment districts. Such deference was crucial in the pivotal case Knox v. City of Orland , (1992) 4 Cal.4th 132, in which the court upheld creation of a park assessment district even though some assessed parcels were 27 miles from a park. "The drafters of Proposition 218 specifically targeted this deferential standard of review for change," Chin wrote, citing Knox . "Because Proposition 218's underlying purpose was to limit government's power to exact revenue and to curtail the deference that had been traditionally accorded legislative enactments on fees, assessment and charges, a more rigorous standard of review is warranted." Because Proposition 218 amended the state constitution, an assessment's validity "is now a constitutional question," Chin wrote. Therefore, the substantive requirements of Proposition 218 "are contained in constitutional provisions of dignity at least equal to the constitutional separation of powers provision." This portion of the opinion "is huge," said Bittle, the Jarvis organization attorney. "The old days of being confined to the administrative record and the court giving deference to the findings of the legislative body are over — thank god." But municipal counsel Colantuono called the court's holding "a significant loss for local government autonomy." "The court abandoned the 100 years of law of judicial deference to legislators on assessments," Colantuono said. "There's been a transfer of power from elected decision-makers to appointed judges." After making clear the court would exercise independent judgment, Chin turned to the merits. Under Proposition 218, an assessment subject to property owner approval must confer "special benefits" on the property. Notably, Proposition 218, he wrote, "tightened the definition of special benefits and broadened the definition of general benefits." The OSA's engineer's report identified seven special benefits that would confer on all residents and property owners in the district: enhanced recreational areas, protection of scenery, increased economic activity, expanded employment opportunity, reduced emergency service costs, better quality of life, and improved water quality and flood control. The benefits would accrue equally because the authority proposed to acquire land equally throughout the district, according to the engineer's report. This approach did not satisfy the court. "All the listed benefits are general benefits in this case, shared by everyone — all 1.2 million people — living within the district. The report does not even attempt to measures the benefits that accrue to particular parcels," Chin wrote. Proposition 218 requires that assessments be proportionate to the special benefits received. The authority could not meet that requirement here "because the special assessment is based on OSA's projected annual budget of $8 million for its open space program, rather than on a calculation or estimation of the cost of the particular public improvement to be financed by the assessment," the court ruled. The court did not address the question of whether the authority must refund the $56 million it has accumulated from the now-invalid assessment. Taxpayer advocates say the agency should return the money. They also say nothing prevents the agency from seeking two-thirds voter approval for the levy. "Call it what it is. Call it a tax and get the voter percentage that is constitutionally required," Bittle said. The decision has implications for a case involving assessments for a business improvement district (BID) in downtown Pomona. Two years ago, the state high court accepted a case in which a property owner contended the BID assessment was not proportional to the benefits received. The Second District Court of Appeal had upheld the assessment. The state Supreme Court is likely to return the case, Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District , No. S143165, to the Court of Appeal with direction to reconsider in light of the Silicon Valley case. The Case: Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority , No. S136469, 08 C.D.O.S. 8920, 2008 DJDAR 10675. Filed July 14, 2008. The Lawyers: For the taxpayers association: Tony Tanke, (530) 758-4530. For the open space authority: James Parrinello, Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, (415) 389-6800.

To many Californians, the streets of San Francisco are what make the city so enjoyable. Some of the best parts of San Francisco are the lively, pedestrian-oriented streets and plazas near transit hubs that blossom with outdoor restaurants, cafes and performances. But away from these celebrated areas, and despite its scenic hills, San Francisco has many of the same problems with its streets as other aging urban areas. There are countless blocks of treeless roads that are more useful for shuttling speeding cars to freeways, than for providing safe corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists. The city has set out to improve those streets that don't match up to the city's reputation with an ambitious "Better Streets Plan" that was unveiled in June. Still in a draft form, the 250-page plan will probably get more interesting as specific projects are proposed and San Francisco's notoriously active citizens have a chance to debate what the plan will mean to their neighborhoods and city. "The plan creates a unified vision for San Francisco's pedestrian environment, which we haven't really had before," said Cristina Olea, of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and a project manager of the report. (The other major agency involved in writing the report was the city's Planning Department.) "The plan," Olea said, "includes policy recommendations and design guidelines to improve the pedestrian environment through pedestrian safety, accessibility, streetscape design, and storm water management." Streetscape design, she explained, includes pedestrian-scale lighting, landscaping, and furniture such as benches. Under the plan, suggested improvements include the addition of landscaped medians separating traffic lanes from sidewalks, more crosswalks, more mini-parks, expanded sidewalk seating for restaurants, and improved ways of collecting rainwater so it percolates into the ground rather than heading for the bay as runoff. Above all, the plan calls for vastly increasing the number of trees and landscaping along the city's streets. The Better Streets Plan (BSP) notes that many of the city's codes and standards are out of date, reflecting an outdated, single-use vision of the city's streets. "The pedestrian environment is about more than just transportation — the streets serve a multitude of social, recreational and ecological needs that must be considered when deciding on the most appropriate design," according to the plan. The plan is the result of more than 75 meetings with local residents. "They asked for more landscaping, improved maintenance, more enforcement and street designs that slow vehicle traffic," Olea said. According to the plan, 20% of all trips made in San Francisco are by pedestrians, while 1% of all trips are on bicycles. The rest are divided between cars and mass transit. Other planning documents focus on city streets, but Olea said the Better Streets Plan focuses on the pedestrian environment, looking at sidewalks and street crossings. The plan does not explain what will happen to specific streets, but it categorizes streets by defining land use and transportation characteristics, and suggests changes to each particular type of street, if the city chooses. The Better Streets Plan makes streets the focus of urban life. That makes sense, say planners, because one quarter of all land in the city lies within the public right of way. That's more land than is found in the city's parks. Implementing the plan's ambitions, of course, costs money. Plan authors say the city may use state and federal transportation and bond monies to do some of the work. Mayor Gavin Newsom has said some of the money could also come from private foundations. Private property owners would also be expected to play a major role, because most sidewalks are the responsibility of property owners. The primary focus of the BSP is the area between the curb and building facades, said Jason Patton, who chaired the community advisory committee of the BSP. "It doesn't do much with traffic calming," he said. "The BSP assumes that travelways stay more or less the same." Although drawings released with the BSP show narrower streets converted with more landscaping and fewer traffic lanes, the plan does not address specifics of how or when these conversions would be done. The BSP does suggest traffic calming ideas such as landscaped traffic circles, as well as temporary or permanent street closures to vehicles, using parking lanes for temporary restaurant seating, and shortening crossing distances for pedestrians. All of these ideas reduce space for cars and increase space for everything else. "We do want to slow traffic," Olea said, "but the Better Streets Plan does not cover roadway or lane widths." Some activists think the plan doesn't go far enough. "Our quarrel is they took urban design to the curb and not out into the roadway," said Tom Radulovich, executive director of a group called Livable City and a member of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District board of directors. "The real danger for pedestrians is in the roadway – traffic speed, traffic volume," he said. The plan "doesn't get into standards." "The report," Radulovich said, "is a collection of good practices all over the country. It lacks implementation." Olea said city officials looked at a number of other cities for ideas on street planning, including Cambridge, Mass., Portland, Oakland, Sacramento and Berkeley. Radulovich said other cities doing "bold stuff" with their streets include Chicago, New York and Vancouver. With its Better Streets Plan, San Francisco joins a national movement to spruce up streets and encourage people to get out of cars, a movement spearheaded by other cities and a national Complete Streets Coalition, based in Washington, D.C. According to the American Planning Association, the complete streets movement "represents a paradigm shift in traditional road construction philosophy. Instead of a project-by-project struggle to accommodate bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly practices, complete streets policies require all road construction and improvement projects to begin by evaluating how the right-of-way serves all who use it." Newsom recently announced plans to close part of the city's waterfront to cars during two weekends in late summer. As an indication of how difficult it can be to change city streets, that plan was criticized by merchants in Fisherman's Wharf who fear it will harm business during peak tourist season. The Better Streets Plan also suggests implementing pilot projects, but none has been identified, Olea said. The BSP draft says "high level implementation measures" will be further developed in the next stages of the plan process. The plan needs approval from the Municipal Transportation Agency board and the Planning Commission before it makes its way to the Board of Supervisors for final approval, likely sometime during 2009. The city also needs to complete environmental review of the plan. Contacts: Cristina Olea, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, (415) 701-4579. Tom Radulovich, Livable City, (415) 344-0489. Jason Patton, BSP Community Advisory Committee, (510) 238-7049. Better Streets Plan: www.sfbetterstreets.org

The state has gone into the infill and transit-oriented development business for the first time. But it is hard to say whether the state government's newfound interest will reshape California. Using money from Proposition 1C, adopted by the voters in 2006, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recently awarded almost $500 million in infill infrastructure grants and transit-oriented development (TOD) grants. No, it's probably not enough to alter the state's growth patterns. But it is enough to get some projects off the ground that otherwise might have languished in the real estate downturn. And the TOD grants in particular gave HCD the opportunity to concentrate the money in transit-rich areas. There is a natural conflict at work here. The political impulse is to spread government money around and try to make everybody happy. But in the infill/TOD arena, spreading money around won't be much good. The money has to be concentrated to have an effect. The Schwarzenegger Administration was clearly careful to spread the money around geographically. But the TOD funding in particular had such strict geographical criteria that the money actually is concentrated in a few transit-rich areas of the state, especially San Diego, Oakland, and central parts of Los Angeles. The infill funding was spread around more widely, but because HCD attempted to pair up infill and TOD money wherever possible, the net effect was that TOD grants "leveraged" infill grants in a number of locations. Surprisingly, Sacramento – not widely known as transit-rich – scored big with the funds as well. So it will be interesting to see how well the administration survives politically the delivery of so much money in so few locations. Proposition 1C contained $850 million for the infill infrastructure program and $300 million for the TOD program. The criteria were pretty vague in the bond itself, but as HCD worked out the kinks, the program became more clear. The infill grants were designed to support roads, parks, and anything else in infill areas that could be defined as "infrastructure." The TOD grants were earmarked to help subsidize development projects in close proximity to transit stations. HCD generally required either a rail stop or a bus rapid transit stop to qualify, meaning that the TOD grants were inevitably tilted toward big cities. The two biggest winners in the first round of Proposition 1C funding were the MacArthur transit village in Oakland and the Railyards project in Sacramento. MacArthur got $34 million, and the Railyards – the biggest single winner – got $47 million. That means close to 20% of the money given away in this round by HCD is flowing to these two transit hubs. The MacArthur transit village is a one-square-block development project at the MacArthur BART station, bounded by Highway 24, MacArthur Boulevard, 40th Street, and Telegraph Avenue. It is planned to contain 4- to 6-story buildings with close to 700 housing units, a BART parking garage, and a small amount of retail, as well as upgrades to the existing BART plaza. Ironically, a lot of the grant money will be spent on – you guessed it – the new parking garage. The project's proponents say structured parking is a necessary first step to make the rest of the TOD work – and get people out of their cars. Unlike the MacArthur project, The Sacramento Railyards money was sought directly by the project's developer, Thomas Enterprises. (Money could be awarded either to public agencies or to private developers under the terms of the bond.) Again, the money will be used mostly for infrastructure. The Railyards involves the redevelopment of the old rail yards adjacent to downtown Sacramento, alongside Interstate 5 just south of the American River. It is by far the biggest infill project in a not-so-big city, and it is getting piles of public money. In April, the California Transportation Commission gave the city of Sacramento $20 million in Proposition 1B money to realign the railroad tracks on the site. Although Southern California also received a lot of money, Los Angeles projects did not do as well in scoring from both programs. High-profile projects such as the Figueroa Corridor and Grand Avenue in L.A. received grants – but not as much money as the MacArthur and the Railyards projects. And the L.A. projects did not win grants from both programs. Don't think that all the transit villages are in Oakland, though. The Palmdale Transit Village got $12 million, partly from the TOD program and partly from the BEGIN (Building Equity And Growth In Neighborhoods) program. Palmdale can surely use a new multi-modal transit center, but it's a little hard to imagine the Fruitvale BART Station program getting transplanted from Oakland to the High Desert suburb. San Diego did well too, but on a smaller scale. The proposed mixed-use project at the intersection of Commercial and 22nd got grants from both programs totaling more than $26 million. This development is not located downtown, but, rather, east of I-5, more than a half-mile from Petco Park. In addition to the geographical balance – and the geographical concentration – the first round of grants also provides a couple of other interesting lessons in the politics of infill development in California. The first is that big nonprofit housing developers do well. BRIDGE Housing will get a chunk of both the MacArthur and the Commercial and 22nd project. The second is that not all of our transit-rich cities are in the same boat. The most mature transit-oriented places – Oakland and San Diego among them – are seeing money flow not to downtown, but to outlying neighborhoods well served by transit. L.A. and Sacramento see most of their money flow downtown. The last lesson? It helps to be near the HCD office building. Both the Railyards project and West Sacramento's Triangle project – just across the river from downtown Sacramento and a recipient of $17 million in grant funds – are within walking distance of the HCD building. So Director Lynn Jacobs and her deputies will be able to keep a close eye on where their money is going.

A proposed subdivision that undergoes environmental review and receives approval does not become a new project for California Environmental Quality Act purposes merely because the local government's approval expires and a new subdivision map is submitted, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. " xpiration of the tentative map did not convert the Moss subdivision into a new project for purposes of CEQA review. Nothing significant about the activity to be undertaken on the land has changed in any way; all that has changed is the county's previous approval of a map expired," Presiding Justice William McGuiness wrote for the court. "Expiration of a tentative map was an abstract occurrence that had no effect on the project's environmental impacts." Still, the court ruled that a new environmental analysis was justified in this case because of new information regarding water supply and a rare fish species. In November 1997, the Humboldt County Planning Commission adopted a tentative negative declaration regarding environmental impacts and approved a four-lot tentative subdivision map for 94 acres of recently harvested timberland owned by Michael Moss. A group called Friends of Westhaven and Trinidad appealed to the Board of Supervisors, but the board declined to hear the appeal because it was filed too late. The group sued, but a trial court judge and the First District in an unpublished decision upheld the Board of Supervisors. During the litigation, the tentative map expired. In August 2000, Moss asked the Board of Supervisors to postpone the expiration, and the board agreed. The same citizens group sued again and this time won at the First District. In Friends of Westhaven & Trinidad v. County of Humboldt , (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 878, the appellate court ruled that the county could not postpone the expiration date of a map that had already expired. So in early 2004, Moss filed a new application for the same subdivision. This time, county planners said the subdivision required an environmental impact report, not merely a mitigated negative declaration. Moss asked the Board of Supervisors to overrule its staff, but the board adopted two resolutions backing the planners. One resolution called the subdivision a new project with potential impacts in numerous areas. The second, alternative, resolution said additional CEQA review was required because of substantial new information regarding water supply, firefighting capacity, water quality, and two species of fish. This time, Moss sued the county. Humboldt County Superior Court Judge J. Michael Brown determined that the subdivision was not a new project. But Brown ruled that substantial evidence supported the board's alternative resolution, and an EIR addressing the specific water, firefighting and species issues was required. Moss appealed the ruling requiring an EIR; the county appealed the decision that the subdivision was not a new project. A unanimous three-judge panel of the First District, Division Three, upheld the lower court but narrowed the ruling. The county argued that when the original subdivision map expired, all previous proceedings, including the environmental review, became void and the project had to begin anew. But the court ruled that the county's argument "improperly conflates CEQA with the Subdivision Map Act." The latter law does require a new procedure. However, McGuiness wrote, "that new government action taken with respect to the same activity for which approval is sought does not convert that activity into a new project for purposes of CEQA review." On the issue of new evidence, the county leaned heavily on two letters from the City of Trinidad's water commissioner, the listing of a species of salmon as threatened, and observations about coastal cutthroat trout. Trinidad was interested in the project because Moss proposed getting water for three houses from the north fork of Luffenholtz Creek. The city draws its water from the main stem of Luffenholtz Creek, below the proposed subdivision site. Trinidad Water Commissioner Chi-Wei Lin told the county that the city's water usage had increased 73% since 1995, when the county initially determined the subdivision would not have a significant impact on water resources. Lin said the creek was getting close to maximum capacity and the project had become a concern. He also contended the "shortage of water" could hinder firefighting capabilities at a time when wildfires were increasing, and the county needed to address potential water contamination from the proposed houses. The court said Lin's statements regarding increased fires, firefighting capabilities and potential contamination were unsubstantiated opinion. However, "evidence of increased water usage is new and could not have been known at the time the project was previously reviewed," McGuiness wrote. " vidence that demand upon Luffenholtz Creek was at or near the creek's maximum capacity in 2003 indicates that even a slight increase in demand from the project could have significant environmental impacts downstream." On the issue of fish, the county pointed to the federal government's listing of several salmon species as "threatened" in June 2004 and to reports that coastal cutthroat trout — a species of special concern under state regulations — had been observed in the main stem of Luffenholtz Creek. The county argued that the EIR should address coho salmon and the trout species. The court said no review of coho salmon was necessary, however, because the federal listing concerned coastal Chinook salmon, not coho salmon. Plus, the court found, there was no evidence that coho had habitat in or near the project area. The ruling was different on cutthroat trout. " he county's initial study suggests the presence of this species in Luffenholtz Creek had only recently been brought to its attention. Although evidence of the species' presence appears largely anecdotal, we must resolve our doubts on this point in favor of the county," the court ruled. Thus, the court concluded, the county may require supplemental environmental review "only with respect to the project's environmental impacts on (1) water supply to the City of Trinidad, and (2) the population of coastal cutthroat trout." The Case: Moss v. County of Humboldt , No. A114205, 2008 DJDAR 6635. Filed May 7, 2008. The Lawyers: For Moss: Allison Jackson, Harland Law Firm, (707) 444-9281 For the county: Carolyn Ruth, county counsel's office, (707) 445-7236.

Plans to further regulate stormwater runoff in Los Angeles and Ventura counties crashed to a halt in July, when a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge threw out the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's basin plan. The court ruled that the plan failed to balance regulation with economic and social impacts. Superior Court Judge Thierry Patrick Colaw ordered the regional board to halt all activities related to stormwater, national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits, and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for surface waters. The immediate result of the ruling was the regional board's cancellation of a workshop scheduled in Ventura at which local officials were prepared to fight what they consider onerous proposed stormwater regulations (see CP&DR , April 2008 ). Cities that have battled the basin plan and subsequent stormwater regulations argue that the plan is nothing more than a collection of numeric standards, and is not a policy document that takes into account environmental, economic and social factors. The regional board is likely to appeal the ruling in Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board , No. 06CC02974. A peripheral canal "should be part of a long-term strategy for the Delta to serve both water supply and environmental objectives." That is the conclusion of a new report by Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and University of California, Davis, researchers who advocate shipping water directly from the Sacramento River to canals located south of the Delta. Current Delta management practices are neither ensuring water supplies nor protecting the environment, according to the study, called "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta." Although ending all Delta water exports would be environmentally superior, that option is not economically feasible, the study's authors determined. They also rejected the concept of a "dual conveyance" system that would combine a peripheral canal with another canal through the Delta. The report also recommends: • Allowing some Delta islands to flood permanently because protecting the levees is not economically justifiable. • Beginning to transition away from the current Delta management system so that natural forces and disasters do not cause a crisis. • Developing a new framework for governance of a peripheral canal. The report is available on the PPIC website, www.ppic.org . The City of Whittier has become one of the latest to limit expansion of hookah bars. In July, the city imposed a 45-day moratorium on new smoking bars and lounges. Officials may extend the moratorium through the rest of the year. Hookah bars have exploded in popularity among young adults in Southern California during recent years. The bars feature Middle Eastern water pipes through which people smoke a mixture of tobacco, sugar and fruit pulp. Whittier has only one hookah bar, but planners report interest in others. City officials said the moratorium would provide them time to draft new regulations. Owners of vacant dwellings in the City of Temecula must register the units with the city, under a new ordinance the city adopted because of growing complaints about abandoned houses on which lenders have foreclosed. The city has also provided several workshops to help homeowners who are at risk of foreclosure.

Urgency legislation extending the life of all subdivision maps by one year has been signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. The California Building Industry Association (CBIA) praised the governor for signing SB 1185 (Lowenthal). The real estate slowdown has prevented developers from following through with approved projects, and the legislation ensures developers and landowners do not have to go through the entitlement process a second time. "This bill gives homebuilders the ability to respond when the housing market improves," said Ray Becker, CBIA president. Schwarzenegger appears likely to sign a second housing recovery measure touted by the industry, AB 2604 (Torrico). That legislation would encourage local governments to defer collection of impact fees (except school fees) until the close of escrow on a new house, rather than collect fees when issuing a building permit. Builders say the measure would help cash flow. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue to negotiate over two bills with potentially significant implications for planning. Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg) attempts to tie together regional planning, infrastructure funding and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Although builders and local governments still have reservations about the bill, a year's worth of negotiation on SB 375 may come to a head this month. Builders have responded by resurrecting SB 303 (Ducheny), last year's major housing element bill that went nowhere. After a re-write, SB 303 now would require transportation agencies serving populations of at least 200,000 people to develop different regional planning scenarios for implementing the state's greenhouse gas reduction law. The California Air Resources Board would review and could modify the scenarios. The bill still contains some housing element provisions, including a mandate that plans be updated either every eight or ten years and reflect the most recent regional transportation plan. A less sweeping bill is AB 842 (Jones), which would make future infill and transit-oriented development grants dependent on a regional or general plan that reduces vehicle miles traveled by 10%. The Legislature is scheduled to adjourn on August 31.

If Californians – and Americans -- are going to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they're going to have to drive less. But is wonking on policy really the best way to make this happen? Or do we have to create a compelling alternate vision for the next generation's lifestyle – a kind of Carbon-Free Futurama? Blogs and news sources – including this one – have been intensely focused on policy, especially since the passage of AB 32 in California in 2006. How should the law be implemented? What will motivate individuals and businesses to reduce vehicle miles traveled? What is the role of state and regional governments? How should private activity be taxed or regulated? But policy may be too slow and too reactive. At least that seemed to be the consensus at the informal, once-every-now-and-then, and extremely wonky gathering of Neal Peirce's Citistates Group , currently going on at a mountain resort near the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia border. (The event is being held at The Summit Inn near Uniontown, Pennsylvania – giving the participants a first-hand view of early American infrastructure, as the inn is located at the last summit on the 19th Century "National Pike" that connected the Potomac and Ohio rivers.) Perhaps the most compelling argument against policy was presented by a leading transportation policy wonk, Sam Seskin of Portland. Portland is the subject of a lot of attention because it is the only U.S. metropolitan area where VMT has actually gone down. It's down 10% in the last 20 years. But Seskin said that half of the decline is the result of increased gas prices in the last two years – so all the aggressive policy and regulation in Portland has accounted for only a 5% decrease in VMT in the last 20 years. Clearly, that's not enough. Or maybe a better way to say it is that it's not nearly enough considering the amount of political capital and policy wonkiness expended in the process. So how else do we go after this? By presenting a positive alternative lifestyle that focuses on "high efficiency and low impact," at least according to all-purpose policy wonk Marc Weiss and economist Doug Henton. How can people get a lot done – and also enjoy life – while consuming fewer resources in the process? As Weiss, who's promoting the idea of "climate prosperity," put it, people need to believe that "you can get richer by being greener" and "you can get more by using less". The most compelling vision of the suburban age – a vision that comes again and again at meetings like this one – is Futurama , the car-oriented vision of 1960, put forth by General Motors, that was the biggest hit at the 1939 World's Fair in New York. As Weiss noted, Futurama gave people a vision of the future that they wanted. That's a big contrast to the typical wonky discussion of planning policy, which has a kind of "eat your peas" undertone: Driving a sports car might be fun, but you're destroying the world and you should really take the bus instead. So what's the Carbon-Free Futurama? Can you really create a compelling alternative vision for the future that's about walking and bicycling and golf cart type vehicles and so forth? Maybe it's hard for my generation to imagine – and the Citistates Group consists of a lot of old fogies like me. But for the emerging generation – which really does believe that their world will be destroyed unless we go carbon-free – maybe the ideal looks different. I've asked my 17-year-old daughter about this, and I'll get back to you on it. -- Bill Fulton

I get no pleasure out of writing that the most important corner in downtown Redding is soon going to have a vacancy. The corporate honchos in Seattle decided that the Starbucks at the corner of California and Placer streets in downtown Redding will close. The Starbucks with a drive-through window at the edge of downtown? That one stays. So does the Starbucks at the other end of downtown inside of Safeway. But the coffee house at the most visible corner in downtown? The store that was supposed to anchor a cornerstone adaptive reuse project? It's closing. Five months ago, one of downtown Redding's most popular lunch spots closed. Cheesecake's Unlimited had served up salads, sandwiches and other goodies for 17 years. A story in the Record Searchlight newspaper suggested that the local owner, who lost a business partner last year, could no longer keep running two restaurant locations. So he decided to stick with his restaurant across town (located in a strip center between Safeway and a Lowe's big box) and close the original downtown lunch spot. Interestingly, the owner said that a new Shasta College branch located half a block away did not increase his business. That has to be a difficult for downtown boosters to accept, because the attractive community college facility, although small, was supposed to be a "catalytic" project for downtown. As many of you know, Redding is the city closest to where I live. I'd love for it to be an exciting, lively place, but it's not. Boosters argue that downtown is "getting better." I appreciate their enthusiasm, but I can't agree with them. About the same time that Cheesecake's closed, an independent CD, record and paraphernalia shop shut down. Last year, a family-owned men's clothing store closed after decades in business. A Subway was supposed to replace the clothier, but project proponents now say the sandwich shop is doubtful. At the site of the soon-to-close Starbucks, a property owner invested millions on an adaptive re-use project. But once Starbucks closes, only a small clothing store and the property owner's cosmetics business will remain amid the empty storefronts. Redding's downtown mall is still some sort of bizarre joke that must be seen to be believed (although it is undergoing an overhaul that may have promise). Last year, when we ranked downtown Redding the second most disappointing among mid-sized cities in California, some people in City Hall took it as a knock on their redevelopment efforts. Maybe it was, but downtown Redding's failure is far too complete for only the government to get the blame. Property owners and merchants deserve large shares, too. Ultimate responsibility, though, lies with the community. Redding is a town where people rush to the newest franchise restaurant. Earlier this year, they lined up overnight for the opening of a Chipotle in a rebuilt strip center. Seriously. It's a town where Wal-Mart, Costco, Target and Home Depot have big boxes within walking distance of each other – although you'd take your life in your hands trying to make the trip on foot. In other words, most people who live in Redding don't care about having a vibrant, walkable downtown full of local flavor. And no one – including an urban planning journalist who thinks he knows better – can make them care. – Paul Shigley

A logging plan and endangered species permit that were part of the Headwaters Forest deal approved by the state in 1999 have been invalidated by the state Supreme Court. The court rejected the "sustained yield plan" because the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) improperly deferred final preparation of the plan to Pacific Lumber Company (Palco) and because the court could not identify which documents constituted the plan. The court threw out a permit allowing the "incidental take" of protected species because of a "no surprises" clause that prevented the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from imposing new mitigation measures to reflect changed or unforeseen conditions. The unanimous state Supreme Court decision may be more important for the precedents it sets – especially on the no surprises question – than for its impact on the Headwater agreement and Palco. The logging company has been operating under different logging plans since a trial court judge rejected the sustained yield plan in 2003. Furthermore, a bankruptcy court in June gave control of Palco to Mendocino Redwood Company of Ukiah. The decision "is without practical effect for us," Palco General Counsel Frank Bacik told the Eureka Times-Standard . But the court's ruling regarding the no surprises clause included in a state endangered species permit could have ramifications beyond the redwood forest. The court ruled that the no surprises clause in a 50-year permit issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) was illegal because it prevented DFG from imposing additional mitigation measures that may be required by new circumstances or if the original mitigations are found to be inadequate. " he Legislature intended that a landowner bear no more — but also no less — than the costs incurred from the impact of its activity on listed species," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the court. "To the extent that the changed and unforeseen circumstances provisions of the incidental take permit exempt landowners from this obligation, they exceed DFG's statutory authority under CESA." "Particularly in light of the 50-year duration of the permit, provisions that freeze Pacific Lumber's obligations to mitigate in the face of changing circumstances, even when these circumstances are labeled ‘unforeseen,' cannot comply with the statutory mandate," Moreno wrote. The Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), which brought the lawsuit, praised the decision for providing necessary species protection. But Paul Weiland, a building industry attorney with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott who filed an amicus brief regarding the species permit, said the ruling may discourage regional habitat planning. "What we learned is you can get no surprises if you do a natural communities conservation plan," Weiland said. "But if you get a permit under CESA, Fish and Game doesn't have the ability to give you no surprises. It's going to be one less incentive for people to engage in these types of conservation efforts." Pacific Lumber did not prepare a natural communities conservation plan (NCCP), which is authorized by state law. Instead, the company received approval for a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which is authorized by federal law. The state based its incidental take permit for the endangered marbled murrelet and the threatened bank swallow on implementation of the HCP. Weiland said NCCPs are typically more difficult and time-consuming to prepare than HCPs because the former deals with all plants and animals in a planning area, while the latter focuses only on the needs of protected species. The ruling may cause landowners to walk away from the HCP process and simply get permits addressing individual species on individual pieces of land, Weiland predicted. In the late 1990s, Congress and the state Legislature authorized the Headwaters deal, under which the federal and state governments paid Palco $480 million to acquire the 7,000 acre Headwaters Forest of old-growth redwoods. The deal also set a March 1, 1999, deadline for Palco to get all necessary approvals for logging its remaining 200,000 acres — including the HCP and sustained yield plan (SYP). After state agencies issued all approvals, EPIC and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against CDF and DFG challenging the SYP, the incidental take permit, a streambed alteration agreement and California Environmental Quality Act findings. In a separate lawsuit, the United Steelworkers of America challenged the SYP. (The union represents workers at five Kaiser Aluminum factories owned by Palco's parent, Maxxam.) Humboldt County Superior Court Visiting Judge John Golden in 2003 ruled almost entirely for the environmentalists and labor union. More than two years later, the First District Court of Appeal overturned the lower court, ruling almost entirely for the state agencies and Palco (see CP&DR Environment Watch , March 2006 ). The case then went to the state Supreme Court, whose July 17 ruling is closer to the trial court's decision. The state high court rejected the SYP in large part because it could not identify the plan. A sustained yield plan "is kind of a master plan for logging a large area," the court explained. Specific timber harvest plans are used to carry out the SYP. Palco argued that the SYP was found in Appendix Q of the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the entire project. But CDF said the SYP was contained in letters of approval signed by the department director on February 25 and March 1, 1999. The court determined the plan could not be Appendix Q of the EIS/EIR because "voluminous supplemental information" submitted by Palco to CDF was not contained in the appendix. And the letters of approval refer to ambiguous portions of the EIS/EIR and other agency approvals and delegated the task for determining the final contents of the SYP to Palco, which apparently never completed the task. " asic confusion about the contents of an unconsolidated SYP scattered over a voluminous administrative record does not allow the public and decision makers to readily know those contents and use the SYP for the purposes for which it was intended," Moreno wrote. The court also agreed with environmentalists and the labor union that the watershed analysis for the SYP was based on areas so broad that particular impacts of the planned timber harvest could not be adequately identified. On the issue of no surprises, the court explained that the incidental take permit prevented state agencies from imposing mitigations beyond those contained in the HCP, even if circumstances change — and even if circumstances change as a result of timber harvests. The court said that the provisions went too far. The "types of regulatory assurances at issue here" are best provided through the NCCP process, and not through employment of CESA provisions, the court concluded. The court upheld the streambed alteration permit, various CEQA findings and a cumulative impacts analysis. The court sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings regarding remedies for the invalid SYP and the incidental take permit. The Case: Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , No. S140547, 08 C.D.O.S. 9147. Filed July 17, 2008. The Lawyers: For EPIC: Sharon Duggan, (510) 271-0825. For CDF: William N. Jenkins, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5519. For Pacific Lumber Company: Frank Bacik, Carter, Ogelsby, Momsen & Bacik, (707) 764-4212.