To address the state's intensifying homelessness crisis, state senators proposed a $2 billion bill to help provide up to 14,000 units of permanent housing for the state's mentally ill homeless population. California has roughly 116,000 homeless people. The monies, to be raised as bonds, would be repaid over 20 to 30 years with money from the tax for mental health services approved in 2004 (Proposition 63). Backers of the bill say they hope that state funds will encourage local governments to address their respective homelessness problems. The Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Le'n also proposed $200 million from the state's general fund to assist with rent subsidies until the new housing projects are completed. A spokeswoman for Gov. Jerry Brown said, "the administration is supportive of efforts to empower local governments to tackle homelessness, poverty, and mental health issues in our communities and we will take a close look at the proposals in this package." Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said that he embraces more state funding, while others criticized the proposal for not allowing local leaders to make financial decisions. Group Files Pair of Suits Against Warriors' Arena A citizens group called the Mission Bay Alliance recently filed suit to halt the development of The Golden State Warriors proposed $1 billion arena in San Francisco's Mission Bay. The arena was recently approved unanimously by the Board of Supervisors.  Parents fear that game time traffic to the Warriors arena, located 1,000 feet from UCSF Children's Hospital, could block life-saving care. The lawsuit argues that the plan violates California Environmental Quality Act for failing to consider other locations and for causing significant, air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. It also claims that the area plan violates a 1998 redevelopment plan, which, they say, does not include a sports arena. A separate suit filed by the group argues that UCSF Chancellor Sam Hawgood signed memorandum supporting the project without authorization from the UC Board of Regents. Sacramento Considers Rails-to-Trails Greenway            Sacramento officials are advancing a proposal for a defunct railroad right of way in the southwestern part of the city to be converted into a 4.5-mile long paved trail for bikes and pedestrians. Dubbed the Del Rio Trail, the project is currently in the planning stages and estimated to cost $17 million; the city recently received a $2.2 million grant from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments for environmental studies and other preliminary work. Supporters hope it will not only provide recreational space but also become an alternative route for commuters heading into downtown Sacramento. Residents surrounding the right of way, unused since 1978, have expressed support for the proposal, although a few cite concerns about increase in visitors to the area. However, California Department of Parks and Recreation envisions an extension of the Old Sacramento tourist train from downtown Sacramento to the Zoo. There are currently various options and ideas being discussed, and the City will begin community and stakeholder meetings this year. Los Angeles Drafts Regional Strategy to Combat Homelessness The City of Los Angeles released a draft Homelessness Strategy Report, which backers say lays the foundation for a regional approach to addressing the chronic issue. The report calls for expanded staffing, services, rental subsidies, and permanent housing for the city's homeless residents. Its recommendations will guide the Mayor Eric Garcetti's and city council's short- and long-term homelessness policy decisions. The report also identifies potential funding streams and begins to estimate initial costs that will help inform the mayor's proposed 2016/2017 budget. The draft, which is designed to complement a strategy being issued by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, will be heard by the Homelessness and Poverty Committee on January 13, with a follow-up meeting later in the month. It is expected to be considered by the full City Council in February. Garcetti said in a statement that his three top priorities center on "scaling up the Coordinated Entry System; preventing people at-risk for homelessness from landing on the streets; and balancing health and safety concerns with the rights and needs of people who are living in unacceptable conditions." Gas Leak Prompts Proposal to Halt Annexations  Los Angeles city officials are considering placing a moratorium on annexations near Porter Ranch. Since October of last year a gas leak from Southern California Gas Company in Porter Ranch has caused residents to become sick and nauseous while releasing a torrent of greenhouse gases. The SoCal Gas has placed 2,258 people in temporary housing with an additional 3,168 in the placement process. The process has been slow and Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer went to court to force SoCal Gas to speed up the relocation process. In response to the crisis, County Supervisor Michael Antonovich asked County Local Agency Formation Commission Director Novak for a temporary ban on annexing unincorporated county areas into the city if they surround Porter Ranch and Chatsworth. At least one project, 188-home development, is currently planned in the area.  LAFCO will consider the moratorium Jan. 13. San Jose Backs Off of Affordable Housing Fee San Jose has approved a fee on new residential projects to support affordable housing and recently discussed a similar fees on commercial developments. The city council voted 7-4 to postpone a nexus study necessary to the implementation of a fee on commercial developments. Citing his desire to support jobs and businesses, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo voted against the study, telling the Silicon Valley Business Journal, "We're the only major city in the United States with a smaller daytime population than nighttime population." The city has a ratio of 0.84 jobs to employed residents, the lowest of any major city in the U.S. One supporter of the fee stated the vote was not on approving the fee on commercial development but only allowing the study to begin. Originally the motion would require the city to achieve a 1-to-1 ratio of jobs to employed residents before implementing the study. This language has been removed, which gives hope to Zwick and other housing advocates that in a few years this proposal will be discussed again. Three NFL Teams Officially Seek Move to L.A. Three National Football League teams have, after years of discussion and speculation, officially filed requests to move to the Los Angeles area. The Oakland Raiders have proposed a move to Carson while the San Diego Chargers and St. Louis Rams submitted papers asking for approval to move to Inglewood, where they would share a stadium. The applications will be reviewed by an NFL committee in New York before a presentation at an owners meeting in Houston. To move a team at least 24 of the 32 owners in the league must approve. CTC Awards $96 Million for Rail Projects Of this sum, the California Transportation Commission announced that it will allocate $96 million to three main rail projects. The first, with $53.4 million will lower Fullerton Road Grade Separation Project, a $145.2 million project in the City of Industry that is in its final engineering and design stages. The second project with $42.2 million will purchase eight new zero-emission light-rail trains for San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. The last rail project is $1.7 million to the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency for a yearlong demonstration program for the Pacific Surfliner to connect with current transit service providers. The CTC has allocated an additional $1 million to the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority for maintenance on its rail lines between Auburn and San Jose. These investments will improve aging infrastructure, alleviate traffic delays and promote biking, walking and public transportation.    Pershing Square Competition Names Finalists In Los Angeles an international design competition to pick the "redesign" of downtown's Pershing Square, long considered one of the worst public spaces in the United States, is down to four finalists. Sponsored by the nonprofit Pershing Square Renew, the competition began with hundreds of architects and designers. The jury, consisting of city officials, development experts, neighborhood stakeholders and the public, voted end of last year. The finalists, chosen from a short list of 10 teams, are SWA with Morphosis, James Corner Field Operations with Frederick Fisher & Partners, Agence TER with SALT Landscape Architects, and wHY with Civitas. Entrants were charged with redesigning the square to make it more friendly to pedestrians and to integrate it better with the surrounding high-density neighborhood. The winner will be announced in March. There is not yet a timeline or budget for build-out. Tribe Proposes Major Casino in Sacramento County In Sacramento County the Wilton Rancheria tribe has submitted documents to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for an environmental review for a 282-acre casino and hotel resort along Highway 99. The 700-person tribe proposes a development with 2,000 slot machines, 84 table games, and a 12-story, 302-room hotel. The tribe has six other proposals including a shopping center, if the gambling development does not get approved. A public hearing will be held January 29th in Galt.  However tribal chairman Raymond C. Hitchcock said the project will take many years to begin because of the many approvals with agencies, Sacramento County, the City of Galt, and an agreement with Gov. Brown. Coastal Commission Withdraws from Landfill Discussion In North San Diego County, a debate over the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill is approaching an unexpected resolution . Though the site is 20 miles inland, the California Coastal Commission became involved in discussions because of a concern with contaminants flowing into the San Luis Rey River, wildlife, water supply and fish. Last month, the Commission withdrew its application in the debate and said "its initial concerns about the effects the proposed trash dump might have on the coast have been eased". The withdrawal is a victory for developers because of less permits required. However native tribes, city of Oceanside, and environmental groups are disappointed in the decision of the Commission.  Anti-Development Referendum Struck Down in Yuba County In Yuba County a petition  for a referendum to overturn approval of the Magnolia Ranch residential and commercial development has been rejected by the county clerk because of a lack of legally sufficient attachments made available to petition signers. The petition claims that Magnolia Ranch would use valuable agricultural land and harm their farming businesses. The referendum supporters received 3,344 signatures and a minimum of 1,242 are needed to rescind approval or call an election. The developers, CEM Investments, filed a formal complaint that the referendum supporters did not attach specific plan and project maps. The county counsel and county clerk agreed. Referendum leader Ernie Ehnisz said Hansen made a rushed decision and that opponents will go to Yuba County Superior Court. HSR Authority Names Contractor for Third Phase California High-Speed Rail Authority named Spanish construction company Ferrovial the winning bidder to construct 22 miles of the California High-Speed Rail. Ferrovial was the lowest bidder, costing $348 million for the job compared to the other three teams with bids between $377 and $582 million. The authority estimated bids for the contract would fall between $400-$500 million. This stretch would be the third section the High-Speed Rail Authority has contracted since 2013, and will begin north of the Tulare-Kings county line and continue south to Shafter.

The City of Sacramento  released  a preliminary environmental impact report for a new version of the long-discussed  redevelopment  of its downtown rail yards. The EIR describes a dense neighborhood of up to 21,000 residents on the 244-acre site, with residential structures ranging from five stories to 15. Included in the plan is a Kaiser Permanente medical campus, a 25,000-seat soccer stadium, a 1,100 room hotel, and 3.9 million square feet of office space. The plan is designed to discourage the use of cars, by having offices and light-rail stations nearby. The 3,700-page EIR identified expected traffic problems, need for new schools, appropriateness of proposed 450-foot riverfront residential towers, noise and light pollution, as well as the potential use of the transit. Much of the issues are related to the stadium and potential for noise and light pollution and increased traffic before sold-out events. Additionally, the site already has soil and groundwater pollution that must continue to be filtered and cleaned. Construction is estimated to begin in 2018 and will take several decades. L.A. Metro Revises $120 Billion Expenditure Plan The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority  released  a revised expenditure  plan , to be approved by a November ballot measure, that would fund an estimated $120 billion of transit and highway projects, road improvements and pedestrian and bike paths. Titled the Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan, the plan would impose permanent countywide sales tax, augmenting and extending one that was approved by voters in 2008. The Metro board will decide whether to put the plan on the November ballot at its meeting this month. A previous version of the plan had called for a half-cent sales tax that would expire in 40 years. In the revision, the agency is recommending a “no sunset” measure that would raise billions in perpetuity. This means nine projects could be accelerated for a combined 42 years earlier than previously expected and saving approximately $9.4 billion. In addition to funding major projects, the plan would return 20 percent to 88 cities across the county to fix roads, repair potholes and add bicycle and pedestrian paths. A recent survey showed 72 percent of residents were in favor of a permanent tax for sustainable transportation. The new plan would cost the average county resident about $25 more a year. Sacramento Measure B Transportation Tax Moves Forward The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors  submitted  Measure B for the November ballot asking voters to raise sales tax for transportation improvements. The county tax would increase a half-cent for thirty years. Seventy percent of the estimated $3.6 billion revenue would go to road projects with a “Fix It First” theme in the first five years, this includes repaving streets and filling potholes. Thirty percent would go to Sacramento Regional Transit (SRT), which operates buses and light-rail trains in the area. SRT is required to spent 75 percent of its allocation in the first five years on replacing old buses, doing maintenance and improving security, rather than expanding routes. If the sales tax went into effect, Sacramento County’s rate would become 8.25 percent and City of Sacramento 8.75 percent in April. Since the reduction in gas tax, many counties across the state are considering similar measures. Major Redevelopment Approved for Los Angeles Airport Property The Los Angeles City Council approved a major  redevelopment  for the northern edge of Los Angeles International Airport. The 340 acre- LAX Northside Plan Update calls for 175,000 square feet of community and civic uses and 50 acres of recreation and open space to be developed adjacent to the airport on land owned by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), which is a city agency. The plan is a comprehensive update of a denser land-use plan initially conceived in the 1980s. The land was acquired in the 1970s and 1980s as a buffer between the airport and surrounding residential communities. The project is envisioned as a center of employment, retail, restaurant, office, hotel, research and development, education, civic, airport support, recreation, and airport-buffer uses that support the needs of communities surrounding LAX. The plan envisions 175,000 square feet of community amenities like open space, recreation facilities, restaurants, retail space, and a campus-like office space. LAWA will oversee the implementation of the plan. Bus Rapid Transit Line to Break Ground in Fresno After years of discussion, Fresno will finally begin  construction  on two new bus rapid transit lines to provide faster connections from the north and east ends of the city with downtown. The system, operating on the city’s busy Blackstone and Kings Canyon/Ventura corridors, should be operational in November 2017 and will cost around $30 million. Most of the money comes from U.S. Department of Transportation grants that include new buses, reinforced bus parking areas and new shelters, modifications to traffic signals and vending machines to buy tickets. It is estimated that improvements could cut travel times in half. The Fresno system provides nearly 14 million rides annually, with 1.6 million annual passengers on the two corridors that will be upgraded to BRT. Fares will increase 25 cents next year to help pay for the new and improved system. Del Mar Seeks Dramatic Cuts to Energy Use The City of Del Mar became the second city in San Diego County to  declare  its goal of switching to all-renewable energy by 2035. The Climate Action Plan, approved last week, follows many of the same measures as San Diego’s in reducing city’s carbon emissions. The goal is 50 percent reduction by 2020 and 100 percent by 2035. The plan seeks to boost the number of people who commute by bike or on foot, and triple the amount of tree cover to assist in cooling and capturing carbon. Energy use accounts for 36 percent of the city’s baseline greenhouse gas emission levels and adding solar arrays and upgrading buildings to conserve energy is a major step in cutting energy. Transportation accounts for 17 percent of GHG emissions and is another focus of the Climate Action Plan. A rise in sea level would disintegrate the bluffs surrounding the small, coastal city and its streets and structures would be swamped with severe flooding. However, unlike San Diego, Del Mar’s targets aren’t legally mandated and therefore a guide and not a contract. Casino Hit with Lawsuit over Water Use Bertsch-Ocean View Community Services District in Del Norte County is  suing  the proposed new casino by Elk Valley Rancheria, Del Norte LAFCO, and Crescent City for not consulting with them before decided to use their water and tie into the city’s sewer treatment system via Bertsch Tract water lines. It is estimated the casino would use 60,000 gallons of water a day. The Bertsch-Ocean Community wants the decision reversed and claims the correct documentation for the proposal was not received by the city. According to the lawsuit, an EIR or Negative Declaration was not completed which means “Del Norte LAFCO abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily and capriciously.” Adding another building to existing waterlines and pumps will result in wear and tear that the current homeowners will have to pay for. Updates & Quick Hits OCTA unanimously  approved  $26.7 million in funding for 17 community transit circulators, such as shuttles or bus trolleys, for all the local agencies that applied. Funding went to Dana Point’s Pacific Coast Highway Trolley, Lake Forest’s shuttle service and San Clemente’s rideshare proposal to name a few. Smart Growth America released a  report  on foot traffic and Walkable urban places (WalkUPs). The report found that WalkUPs in 30 of the largest cities across the country now have greater market shares do car-oriented suburbs. The San Francisco Bay Area ranked sixth out of the 30; Los Angeles was 17th and Sacramento and San Diego came in towards the bottom, at 23rd and 24th. San Jose city officials have  agreed  to spend more than $100 million over the next decade to reduce tons of trash that flows into creeks and into the San Francisco Bay, repair miles of leaking underground sewage pipes and clean stormwater contaminated with harmful bacteria. This result comes after a lawsuit brought on by Baykeeper, a conservation group based in Oakland, claiming San Jose violated the Clean Water Act. U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff  introduced  a federal bill to create the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the Los Angeles area. The bill would add 193,000 acres of wild lands along the Los Angeles River to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The federal bill would double the size of the recreation area and increase the amount of trails, roads and facilities. Sen. Barbara Boxer is expected to introduce companion legislation in the Senate. A  deal  between China Railway International and a U.S. company to build XpressWest, a high-speed rail from Victorville to Las Vegas has been called off. CRI blames difficulty with federal regulatory requirements: that high-speed trains must be manufactured in the U.S. The Chinese company originally stated it would provide $100 million for the 230-mile route. (See prior CP&DR  coverage .) Three counties in the Bay Area — Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco --will be  asked  to vote on a tax to come up with $3.5 billion to repair and rebuild BART commuter rail. The measure would increase property tax bills between $35-$55 per parcel per year for 30 years. However, this measure will not pay to extend BART nor cover the cost of adding stations to the existing system, instead it will replace tracks and ties, install new electrical cables and tunnels and control rooms.

Embattled California Coastal Commission Executive Director Charles Lester released a twenty-page  memo  (pdf) detailing his accomplishments and reasons for remaining in his position. Several commissioners have called for Lester's  removal , citing poor job Over 17,000 letters have been received from the public, letter with 153 signatures from staff of the agency, and numerous comments from political representatives of the state in favor of Lester as director. Environmentalists and supporters of the current leader of the agency say the ousting has little to do with Lester personally, but is instead a move by pro-development groups to gain control of the Commission. The commission is expected to discuss Lester's possible ouster at its Feb. 10 meeting in Morro Bay.  SGC and HCD Post Notice of Funding Availability for AHSC Program The Strategic Growth Council and the Department of Housing and Community Development announced the 2015-16 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and Application for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program. A copy of the NOFA is available  here  (pdf). Application access is available through the  Financial Application Assistance Statewide Tool  (FAAST); search for 2015-16 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. Concept proposals are due via the FAAST system by 5:00 p.m., Weds., March 16. SGC is holding three remaining statewide workshops this week in Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Diego to assist applicants interested in applying for the 2015-16 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program. Small group or one-on-one consultations will also be offered to interested applicants on a first come, first served basis. For more information click here. Agenda, presentation materials, and additional guidance are also available on the AHSC  website . AHSC Program Staff will respond to questions sent to  AHSC@hcd.ca.gov , with answers to  frequently asked questions  posted on both the SGC and AHSC websites on a regular basis.  Inland Empire Highway Project Faces Lawsuit The Federal Highway Administration is facing a second lawsuit trying to block construction of a 16-mile, six-lane freeway connecting Perris and San Jacinto. Last May, County Transportation Commission brought the initial lawsuit, which was dismissed. The new claim is brought on by a coalition of environmental groups including Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club. The proposed project will cost $1.7 billion and environmentalists argue it will increase sprawl, traffic, increase air pollution and threaten wildlife. Moreno Valley Considers Massive Annexation The City of Moreno Valley is considering annexing 30 square miles of rugged, sparsely populated unincorporated Riverside County north of the city, bringing the city limits all the way to the San Bernardino County line. The move would increase the city's size by roughly 60 percent. Backers of the annexation say it would enable the city to promote hillside residential developments and development of vineyards, both of which are largely lacking in Moreno Valley currently. After the study is completed, the City Council must decide to file annexation with the county LAFCO. (See prior coverage of Moreno Valley.) Bakersfield Hires Firm for Station Area Plan The Bakersfield City Council voted, 6-0, to hire urban planning and engineering firm Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill to design a station area plan for the High Speed Rail project. The Rail Authority is studying two alignments through Bakersfield: one that would bring the train along the Union Pacific tracks through the middle of the city, or one paralleling the Burlington Northern Santa Fe route north of downtown. The conceptual alignment, along the Union Pacific tracks, would require taking of fewer land parcels but could hurt Kern County's chances of receiving a heavy maintenance facility for the train and the station would not be located in downtown Bakersfield. Bakersfield Planning Director Jacqui Kitchen told the Californian that the city wants "to make sure we get as much functionality out of this effort as we can, and that it's a process that really results in something that is useful regardless of whether the station is built or not." Dam Removal on Klamath May Proceed In the wake of a partisan congressional impasse, PacifiCorp has announced that will proceed with removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in Southern Oregon/ Northern California. While many groups, including the states of California and Oregon, have long sought for the removal of the dams, PacificCorp's current proposal would exclude habitat restoration and other provisions of the Klamath Agreement. That agreement, made between farmers, tribes and environmental, promises habitat restoration and a reliable supply of water. PacifiCorp will contribute $200 million and Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed an additional $250 million. Farmland Group to Preserve Land on S.F. Peninsula Palo Alto-basd nonprofit Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), has announced it will spend $25 million over the next ten years to preserve farmland between Pacifica and Santa Cruz County. The group will purchase private property, and resell it at a 90 percent reduction to farmers, with conservation easements in place to ensure that it remains arable. The area has lost an estimated 200,000 acres of farmland since 1984, with farmland in San Mateo County now among the most expensive in the nation. The program is intended to halt developments of hotels, golf courses, and second homes on the Pacific Coast while tripling the acres of protected farmland. Eyeing up to 2,250 acres, POST hopes to promote organic crops and conventional growing, while allowing Bay Area restaurant and markets the option to purchase local produce. Veterans Administration Releases Plan for L.A. Campus In a move to address the growing homeless crisis in Los Angeles, a master plan has been released for converting a neglected West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs campus into a residential community with 1,200 permanent units for disabled and traumatized veterans as well as 700 short-term units. The proposal includes a village for women who have suffered sexual trauma, gardens, theaters, sports fields, gym facilities as well as recreation centers for non-homeless veterans. Mayor Eric Garcetti vowed to house all homeless veterans by the end of this year, and a recent survey suggests there are fewer than 800 homeless veterans in the city, down from over 2,000 the previous year. The development would be on VA land, financed with public and private funds.  S.F., Sacramento Rent Increases Tied for Second Nationally San Francisco and Sacramento are tied for the second-highest rent increases in the country last year. Their 10 percent increases rank second, beyond only Portland, with 14 percent. The analysis from Yardi Matrix, shows in Sacramento "renter by necessity" appreciated 0.8 percent in the last three months while "lifestyle" renters dropped by 0.5 percent in the same time period. The difference between the two groups is those who cannot afford to own, such as younger adults or lower middle-income groups, and those that choose to rent because of location or preference. Sacramento's rise in rental prices is a result of the limited supply of available units, the ratio of new units to overall is 0.7 percent, lowest among the top 30 markets. High Speed Rail Commission Names New Members The nine-member board of directors for the California High-Speed Rail Authority has gained two new members. Lorraine Paskett, a Glendale attorney and CEO of Cambridge LCF Group is a consultant on energy, water and environmental issues. She replaces James Hartnett of Redwood City who became general manager of Caltrain in March 2015. Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) replaces authority vice chairwoman Thea Selby. Lowenthal was a member of the Long Beach Unified School District and City Council before her election to the state Assembly in 2008. Gov. Jerry Brown will appoint the final member.

The California Air Resources Board released a plan that would continue the cap-and-trade program past the 2020 expiration date to 2050. The program has been instrumental in Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to cut emissions by major companies. Money from the program pays for the high-speed rail, electric car subsidies, the sustainable communities programs by the Strategic Growth Council, and many programs in disadvantaged communities. The new plan would provide links with a similar program in Canada, align with federal clean power standards, and be a mechanism to meet Brown’s aggressive GHG reduction targets through 2030. The cap-and-trade program is currently facing many political and legal challenges: such as the argument that it is an unconstitutional tax because it passed in 2006 with a majority vote and not two-thirds. The new plan would increase allowance prices, to push companies to become more innovative and environmentally friendly. The vote by the ARB is scheduled for March 2017. Los Angeles Launches Tenants’ Rights Campaign Amid the City of Los Angeles’ housing affordability crisis, Mayor Eric Garcetti launched a campaign to make tenants living under the city’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance aware of their rights. Called Home for Renters, the campaign is organized through the L.A. Housing and Community Investment Department (HCIDLA). There are around 624,000 units in L.A. that are covered by rent stabilization, meaning the rent can only increase 3 percent each year. While one in two L.A. families lives in an apartment subject to RSO, only a third of those families understand the ordinance. This new campaign will close the information gap by reaching out to vulnerable neighborhoods with advertisements, door-hangers, informational pamphlets, and online resources to tenants and landlords. The campaign was designed by Garcetti’s Innovation Team and funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies which helps to find new, innovative approaches to growing concerns in L.A. communities. Lawsuits Piling Up Against Coastal Commission The California Coastal Commission is facing four separate lawsuits for allegedly illegal secret communications between developers and Coastal Commissioners. The cases, each brought by different individuals and advocacy groups, include a 1950s-era resort in Aliso Canyon, the South Silver Shoals housing project in Pismo Beach, work-live rental units for artists in Laguna Beach, and a storage facility for radioactive waste at San Onofre nuclear plant. These all involve ex-parte communications -- third-party communications between developers and commissioners that are supposed to be revealed publicly. Commissioner Wendy Mitchell allegedly had coaching sessions and private emails with the Aliso Canyon project developer. Coastal Commission attorneys say the emails were forwarded by Mitchell to the rest of the staff and therefore were properly disclosed. A similar situation occurred in Pismo Beach and Laguna Beach, with commissioners being accused of not reporting meetings with developers correctly. The San Onofre lawsuit involved 15 ex-parte communications between commissioners and Southern California Edison on location to store the radioactive fuel pellets. These cases are occurring while a law banning ex-parte communications makes its way through the legislature. Bike Share Finally Arrives in Los Angeles After several false starts over the years, the City of Los Angeles has implemented its first bike-sharing program, which aims to connect Metro bus and rail passengers to thousand of bicycles across the county. The launch of 1,000 Metro bicycles at 65 stations throughout downtown cost $11 million. The system uses the same bus or train fare card- TAP, which makes it the first bike-share program in the country being operated by a transit agency. The rental will cost $3.50 for 30 minutes and will help with commuters “first mile, last mile” connections. (See prior CP&DR coverage .) Grand Jury Slams San Diego Bike Share Program Meanwhile, the San Diego County Metropolitan Transit System is being accused of refusing to support the city’s bike-sharing program. Managed by DecoBike, the system was launched in 2013 and cost $8 million to build kiosks and other required infrastructure. A grand jury found that MTS as well as beach communities has failed to expand the bike-share program as intended. "... hile kiosks are located throughout the urban core, they are not co-located with transit stops, which is crucial to the program’s goal of solving the 'last mile' issue and connecting to public transportation," reads the May 2016 grand jury report, according to the San Diego Reader. MTS claims that concerns about safety in many of the narrow streets where trolley stations are located have stalled expansion. Mission Beach and Pacific Beach have been hesitant because of potential loss in revenue to bike and beach rental shops. DecoBike says these two types of bike rentals are fundamental different and no record of revenue loss has been shown by any shops. ARB Holding Statewide Meetings on Climate Change Action Plan The Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, in cooperation with the Air Resources Board, is holding a series of meetings across the state to hear stakeholder concerns and gather input on air pollution and California’s Climate Change Action Plan. The EJAC consists of representatives from communities most affected by poor air pollution, primarily minority or low-income populations. Input for this Scoping Plan is a requirement of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that aims to cut GHG emissions by 40 percent. The first meeting was July 11 in San Bernardino, San Diego July 14, Oakland July 19, Wilmington July 25, South Los Angeles July 26, Fresno, Modesto, and Bakersfield July 28 and Sacramento July 29. Report: San Francisco Pursues Code Violations A San Francisco Examiner report finds that in San Francisco, building code violations are followed up by city officials more often than in most other major cities in the U.S. Violations range from lack of hot water and heat to rodents and mold. This was tracked by a report written by the Department of Building Inspection from 2012-2015. In those three years there were 36,466 housing code violations which means the housing inspector confirmed the complaint in their reports and cited the owner for the violation: 88 percent of these violations were corrected by the landlord. San Francisco has such a high percentage of correction because of the follow-up steps the department takes. The DBI looked at nearly 24 cities across the country and San Francisco was the only city that tracked its complaint online, held hearings for noncompliance and issues liens to collect outstanding penalties. Updates & Quick Hits  A group of Central Valley land owners will redraft and reintroduce a proposal to divert high speed rail bond funds to water storage projects for 2018. The initiative will make domestic and irrigation the state’s highest priority for water use, giving the farmers in the Central Valley stronger legal standing. The California Urban Rivers Grant Program has opened the first round of its grant cycle. There will be five technical assistance workshops: Sacramento July 13, Los Angeles July 25, San Jose July 29, San Diego August 2, and Redding August 9. Online applications are due October 3. A proposal for a new football stadium for the San Diego Chargers gathered enough signatures to appear on the November ballot. Their initiative would raise city’s tax on hotels from 12.5 to 16.5 percent to pay for the $1.8 billion stadium and convention center. A study by think tank Transit Center found that Los Angeles will get the most return for investments through prioritizing projects serving walkable neighborhoods such as Hollywood and downtown L.A. Additionally, bus shelters are important in improving the riders experience and L.A. is lagging in installing hundreds of shelters over the last 15 years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has given a $3 million loan to the Community Revitalization and Development Corporation that will help build 58 affordable apartments in Bakersfield intended to house migrant farm workers. Five other California cities will receive $3 million as well: Woodland, Sukiah, McFarland, Greenfield and Calexico. The City of Carson is planning to build an outlet shopping center on the former landfill site that was bypassed as the potential home of a football stadium for the Raiders and/or Chargers. The City Council voted to begin negotiations with Macerich Real Estate Co. to develop a portion of the 157-acre site. A former member of Westminster’s planning commission, Dave Phuong Dinh Vo, was arraigned on charges of soliciting and receiving a $15,000 bribe for helping a business owner get a liquor license. FBI officials investigated the case against Vo, whose charges carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The Monrovia City Council voted, 5-0, to approve a new bicycle master plan . The plan includes 3.7 miles of bike paths, 5.1 miles of bike lanes, 17.9 miles of sharrowed bike routes, and 7.1 miles for further study for protected bike lanes. AEG has proposed to build a sports and entertainment arena in the now Seaport Village in downtown San Diego. The privately funded development will cost around $1.4 billion and include three hotels, retail and restaurant space, and office space. No team has been identified for the arena, which would host concerts and other events.

All too often, local politics in America is parochial, narrow-minded, and faction-ridden – if not crudely partisan. This is too bad, because the issues confronting local government in America are usually regional in scope and require far-reaching coalitions of unlikely allies. That's why John Parr was one of my heroes. Parr knew how to get parochial local politicians – and parochial neighborhood activists and profit-driven business leaders – focused on the big picture and working together for the regional good. And as Curtis Johnson, president of the Citistates Group, wrote the other day , "he knew how to do it without raising his voice." (John and I were both affiliated with the Citistates Group, a watering hole of regional thinkers founded by columnist Neal Peirce.) Tragically, just before Christmas Parr was killed – along with his wife, journalist Sandra Widener, and one of their two teenaged daughters – in an auto accident on an icy Wyoming freeway. He was only 59. It's telling that shortly after the accident an impromptu crowd of some 500 people held a vigil in a Denver park near their house. The accident occurred only two months after one of California's prominent regionalists, Nick Bollman, died a similarly untimely death in Florida. Most obituaries referred to Parr as a "Democratic political consultant". I guess this is true, in the same way that calling Yogi Berra a baseball player is true. Yogi was a baseball player, but describing him that way kinda misses the point. In the '70s Parr was among the young reformers who worked for Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm. Later he was a key policy advisor to Denver Mayors Federico Pena and John Hickenlooper . In between he ran the National Civic League and helped found the Alliance for Regional Stewardship . One was a venerable organization and the other was new; but both are dedicated to the idea that the government has to work together with business and nonprofit institutions in order to tackle big regional problems. Though he spent almost his whole career in Denver, while I've been a thousand miles away, I feel his influence every day in the regional civic organizations we have here in California – as well as the regional "blueprints" that are emerging from the regional planning agencies around the state. Nick Bollman, who worked at The Irvine Foundation and founded the California Center for Regional Leadership , was the midwife of all this stuff in California; he laid the foundation for these efforts and directly funded a lot of them. But the concept of creating a nonprofit entity devoted to the well-being of a region – like Joint Venture Silicon Valle y or the Great Valley Center -- was more or less a John Parr idea. That's why he took on the task of starting the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, an organization made up of these entities, so they could trade information and learn from each other. He wasn't afraid of NIMBYs, or developers, or greedy corporate types, or even provincial politicians. He was a big-tent guy, who believed that if you got them all in the same room and got them talking to each other – facilitated, perhaps, by somebody like himself, who could do it with a lot of grace and humor and no meanness at all – the regional good would emerge. The Parr legacy will stretch far and wide, but I like to think that the greatest accomplishments are just coming to fruition in Denver. That's largely because of Parr's old friend, brewpub owner John Hickenlooper, who was elected mayor of Denver in 2003 – not least because Parr leaned on him to run for the office. In Hickenlooper, Parr seemed to find an elected official who embodied what Parr believed: smile a lot, keep talking to everybody, find common ground, park your ego when necessary to get things done. Using these qualities, Hickenlooper – among many others, including Parr – helped pass a regional sales tax to fund a $5 billion transit system. When I saw Hickenlooper give a talk a few months ago, I wrote a blog saying that Denver's mayor was the master of "brewpub regionalism" – a style focused on personal interaction and helping others. As with regionalism in California and Nick Bollman, Hickenlooper was the midwife of brewpub regionalism – but John Parr was its godfather. So hoist one for John Parr the next time you're in Denver. -- Bill Fulton

If California is truly going to reduce — in a meaningful way — its emission of the gases that contribute to global climate change, the state must change how it uses land. That is the inescapable conclusion of virtually everyone who has analyzed the situation. But nearly every detail regarding how, when and who decides remains extremely uncertain at the start of 2008. That uncertainty could begin to change this year as experts learn more about the connection between development patterns and greenhouse gas emissions, and as state agencies start to roll out guidelines and targets. In fact, the planning and regulatory landscape is evolving with remarkable speed, to the point that nearly every discussion of land use policy now includes some consideration of climate change. "There are so many factors that come into play in land use," observed Pete Parkinson, vice president of policy and legislation for the California Chapter, American Planning Association (CCAPA). "If we were to have a conversation 12 or 18 months ago about what drives land use, we would have been talking about housing. That's not true today." Now, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are starting to drive the debate. Where the GHG issue will take the debate remains to be seen, but there is a feeling — perhaps even a consensus — that it will take planning and development further and further away from the post-war suburban model that has predominated in California for 60 years. Why? Low-density, segregated-use development in outlying areas forces people to rely on automobiles, and automobiles account for about 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions. "The traditional sprawl, greenfield development model is falling out of favor," said Parkinson, who is also director of the Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Department. "It's being replaced with infill, dense development. You're not going to implement that overnight in one RHNA or one regional transportation plan cycle. But there is a sea change that's happening, and we're right in the middle of the wave." At the heart of the discussion about more environmentally friendly development is AB 32, the 2006 law that requires the state to reduce its emission of GHG to 1990 levels by 2020. Global emissions at 1990 levels are commonly seen as the maximum permitted for climate stabilization. Although experts are still trying to decide precisely how to measure emissions in California from 1990, most people accept that AB 32 requires a 25% reduction from present day emission levels. The governor's Climate Action Team concluded that about 12% of the total reduction must come from changes in land-use patterns. A detailed report prepared for the California Energy Commission reached the same basic conclusion: "New land use/transportation policies, initiatives and actions at all levels of government in California could provide major energy and greenhouse gas emissions reductions." Similar discussions are ongoing around the country, especially in urbanized and fast-growing states. During a conference last fall in Boston on climate change and land use, Armando Carbonell, chair of the Lincoln Institute's Department of Planning and Urban Form, said, "It may be useful to think of cities as great carbon-reduction machines. We've got to fix the cars, but we've also got to address VMT growth, and that is done by providing environments where one can walk or take transit. Planners are on the supply side of the problem, providing places for people to live with lots of amenities and diversity in housing — and, by the way, such attributes are increasingly in demand anyway." The Urban Land Institute sounded the same theme when it published the book Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change last fall. The book's researchers found that, even after accounting for increased vehicle efficiency and more use of low-carbon fuels, motor vehicle tailpipe emissions would increase 41% from 2005 to 2030. "Curbing emissions from cars depends on a three-legged stool: Improved vehicle efficiency, cleaner fuels and a reduction in driving," said Reid Ewing, a professor at the University of Maryland's National Center for Smart Growth and the lead author of the ULI book. "The research shows that one of the best ways to reduce vehicle travel is to build places where people can accomplish more with less driving." Compact, mixed-use infill development and re-use projects can have climate change benefits besides reducing VMT. Such projects frequently contain smaller living spaces, so less energy is needed for heating and cooling. In addition, they do not chew up tracks of farmland and open space that would otherwise absorb carbon. It appears that climate change considerations will affect California planning and development in three ways: First, analyzing a plan or project's contribution to climate change — and climate change's impact on a plan or project — is going to become a routine part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Second, infrastructure dollars provided by the state are likely to be more and more closely tied to land uses that minimize emission of greenhouse gases. Third, and possibly most radically, there could be some diminution of local land use authority as regional and even state land-use plans and policies start to grow teeth. The CEQA Impact The CEQA portion of the equation is already making an impact. Under Jerry Brown, the state attorney general's office has made clear that environmental review documents must address climate change — and include "feasible mitigation measures." Not only has Brown's office sued (and since settled with) San Bernardino County over the county general plan's handling of climate change issues, but it has also become a routine commenter on regional transportation plans (RTPs). The thrust of those comments has generally been that the plans do not do enough, if anything, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because the plans are too accommodating of the single-occupant automobile. In addition, environmental organizations, including the ultra-aggressive Center for Biological Diversity, have started filing lawsuits over the climate change impacts of plans and projects. The CBD has already sued San Bernardino County and the cities of Banning and Perris. A law approved in 2007 (AB 97, Dutton) confirms that climate change is a subject for CEQA analysis, and charges the Resources Agency with adopting "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions" by January 1, 2010. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has begun work on those guidelines and is due to make recommendations to the Resources Agency in 2009 (see CP&DR Environment Watch , October 2007). A key part of the guidelines is likely to be some form of thresholds of significance, which the state's air pollution control officers and the Air Resources Board are working on. According to OPR, only about 5% of CEQA documents submitted to the State Clearinghouse from April through October of 2007 contained a discussion of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change. The way the documents address the topic is all over the map because there is no official guidance or standards of measurement. Some of the documents have included mitigation measures, ranging from the planting of riparian areas to offset carbon emissions, to requiring delivery truck drivers to turn off idling engines, to requiring preparation of a local climate change action plan. Other documents have concluded a project's potential impact on climate change is simply too speculative to try to mitigate. The flip side — climate change's impact on projects — is even less well documented and understood. The idea is that potential effects of climate change, such as rising sea level, greater flood flows because less precipitation will fall as snow, prolonged droughts, more intense wildfires and loss of habitat, should be considered in plan and project reviews. So far, virtually no agency is doing this. That's understandable, according to Gary Jakobs, a principal in the Sacramento office of consulting firm EDAW. "You're talking about blowing the doors off what we have done in the past," Jakobs said. "Do you want to strap a project with a mitigation measure that could be very expensive to implement when the effects could be 50 years off and are based on a model?" Carrots, Sticks and Mandates Environmentalists and proponents of "smart growth" have complained for years that the state funds infrastructure — especially roads and highways — in a way that promotes car-dominated sprawl. Those days may be winding down. Increasingly, regional transportation agencies are linking transportation plans and funding with land use, and Caltrans is headed in the same direction. The Climate Action Team urged Caltrans to implement a climate action program, along with the governor's strategic growth and infrastructure investment plan and regional growth blueprints. To move some of this forward, Caltrans has funded a "blueprint network" in which 16 of the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) have participated. The basic idea is to closely coordinate transportation and land-use planning because the state needs to reduce VMT. A second round of blueprint planning is coming, and some MPOs are already talking about how to account for GHG in the new blueprints. "You can't reduce VMT without addressing the land use question," said Joan Sollenberger, who is in charge of planning and modal programs for Caltrans. "It's recognized by everyone that we will never achieve the goals that have been set for greenhouse gas emission reductions unless we change how we grow, because of the carbon footprint involved." "We want to make sure our investments pay off in a way we need them to," said Sollenberger. Bob Leiter, land use and transporation planning director for the San Diego Association of Governments, added, "The whole idea of addressing regional climate change planning though the RTP makes sense." With the RTP, regional officials can figure out how better to move people and freight and, therefore, reduce emissions, he said. And in San Diego and other regions, the RTP is closely tied to the regional growth blueprint. Caltrans' climate action program calls for "transportation strategies, plans and projects as a whole contribute to the state's GHG emission reduction targets." Precisely what that means for funding decisions is unclear, although the California Transportation Commission, which makes most funding decisions, appears headed in the same direction with proposed land use criteria. The result is almost certainly going to mean more money to move people and freight in urban areas, and less money for additional freeway capacity on the suburban fringe. And this is where things get truly interesting. Last year, the Legislature came close to approving SB 375, which would have moved some of these concepts into law. The bill would have required every MPO to adopt a "preferred growth scenario" that would show how a region would hit emission reduction targets set by the Air Resources Board. Future transportation funding would then be tied to the preferred growth scenario. The bill's author, Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), argued that this was merely an extension of the regional blueprint planning that Caltrans has subsidized. All of these blueprints emphasize infill and minimizing outward urban expansion. Steinberg's idea was that if a city or county made land-use decisions in conflict with the preferred growth scenario, the city or county would not get transportation funding. Local government officials countered that Steinberg was trying to shift land-use authority away from cities and counties to regional agencies. Steinberg dismissed such arguments — yet many people concede that land use decisions need to be made in a regional context, something that almost never happens. Part of the problem, said the CCAPA's Parkinson, is that California does not have the governance model to carry out these notions. Regional agencies are not used to — and don't have the capacity to — do detailed land use planning. And local agencies are not about to let a regional agency make project-level decisions. Steinberg's bill will return in 2008, and it may not be the only bill on the subject. Other legislation may propose a "cap and trade" system in which cities or regions are given a GHG maximum, and if they do not use all of their GHG allotment, they could trade carbon credits to other jurisdictions. In its Integrated Energy Policy Report adopted in December, the California Energy Commission (CEC) went farther than Steinberg. Finding that "decisions affecting land use directly affect energy use and the consequent production of greenhouse gases," the CEC urged: • Adoption of "a unified statewide growth management plan, based on local and regional plans, aligning state planning, financing, infrastructure, and regulatory land-use policies and programs." • Requiring "regional transportation planning and air quality agencies to adopt 25-year and 50-year regional growth plans that provide housing, transportation, and community services for projected population increases while reducing greenhouse gas emissions to state-determined climate change targets." • Determining how state and local tax policies "encourage growth that is inconsistent with the state's growth management plan." • Ensuring future federal highway programs "include energy reduction and climate stabilization considerations." Ultimately, the Air Resources Board is responsible for most of AB 32's implementation. But the air board is not going to act in isolation, as is evidenced by the depth of policy analysis at the CEC, Caltrans and numerous other agencies. The Schwarzenegger administration wants it that way. Where next? Clearly, California's planners know the ground is shifting under their feet. At least some of them see this big shake up as an opportunity. "Those of us who are planners and environmental planners are finally seeing an opportunity for the things we have been talking about for so long to come into the marketplace," said Jeff Goldman, a planner for EDAW. His colleague Jakobs agreed, adding, "We've been using this term ‘smart growth' for a while. Now people are getting religion. … We're seeing it even in some of the more conservative cities, which is nice." The CCAPA recently issued a policy paper that, in a way, recasts the smart growth argument as a greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Among other things, the paper recommends local governments approve plans and codes that "encourage mixed land use, higher densities (especially around transit), affordable housing, compact form, non-motor vehicle circulation, water and energy conservation, microgeneration of electricity in a manner compatible with surrounding uses, and low-carbon resources for building materials." If the smart growth movement didn't make these things commonplace, maybe the concern over climate change will. "In my 20-plus years in the industry," said Sydney Coatsworth, who manages EDAW's Sacramento office, "I have never seen anything grab the profession with such gusto, and seen so many people thinking creatively." Contacts: Pete Parkinson, California Chapter, American Planning Association, (707) 565-1925. Sydney Coatsworth, Gary Jakobs and Jeff Goldman, EDAW, (916) 414-5800. Joan Sollenberger, Caltrans, (916) 653-1818. Bob Leiter, San Diego Association of Governments, (619) 699-6980. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA Guidelines and Greenhouse Gases: http://opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/index.html Caltrans Climate Action Program: http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/climateaction.htm Governor's Climate Action Team and Climate Action Initiative: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/index.html California Chapter, American Planning Association Climate Change Task Force: http://www.calapa.org/attachments/contentmanagers/711/ClimateChange.pdf

Has climate change lit a fire under California's professional planners? The answer, in a word, is yes. Not since the early days of new urbanism 15 years ago have we seen such passion from planners in California about something new. They're talking about it and thinking about it all the time. Reversing climate change is the latest in a long line of idealistic notions that planners have glommed on to, dating all the way back to garden cities more than a century ago. Since that time, we've seen the planning profession "go passionate" over all kinds of semi-faddish topics, ranging from Jane Jacobs' recipes for urban revitalization during the 1950s to social equity planning during the 1960s to Ian McHarg's "design with nature" philosophy during the 1970s. About once a decade a new idea or philosophy sweeps the profession. And this particular issue is one that's got huge traction. It's the most important environmental issue in the history of humanity – or, at the very least, most people believe it is the most important environmental issue in the history of humanity. Either way, you would think climate change is a great opportunity for planners to have an impact. But remember that planning is a profession made up of idealists who work, by and large, as technicians. So, as is often the case, California's planners are teetering on the brink of advocacy but, mostly, not jumping off the cliff. They are hoping that new laws get passed and new practices get put into place that will allow them to attack climate change; and the more aggressive planners are tackling the issue under existing procedures, especially within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). So how much impact, exactly, will California's professional planners have on the climate change debate? From the 30,000-foot policy level – which, frankly, is where I spend a lot of my time – the answer is probably not much. Planners may be passionate believers but often do not advocates even if their job gives them the leeway to do so. When it comes to lobbying, planners often step back and allow advocates who embody their beliefs, such as environmentalists and affordable housing proponents, to carry the ball. This is partly the nature of their job; and partly the nature of their soul. Indeed, one of the ironies of the current debate in California over implementing AB 32 – the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law – is this: Local government lobbyists are adamantly resisting strong mandates that will require them to alter their land use policies to comply. But a lot of planners – all the while grumbling publicly about having to take on climate change as an issue – are secretly hoping that their local government employers lose in the Legislature, so that planning departments will be given license to take on the challenge. That's because professional planners typically have the greatest impact not by advocating for policy change or shaping policy, but down in the trenches where they slog through the plans, the environmental analyses, and the development reviews day after day. Already, environmental impact reports and other CEQA documents are being supplemented with some kind of "global warming" or "climate change" section. Planners may soon be dragooned into greenhouse gas emissions reductions efforts in a more direct way, depending on what kind of implementing legislation is adopted for AB 32. For example, a bill such as SB 375 – which may yet pass this year – would basically require or induce local governments to engage in smart growth efforts to help meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. All these efforts to use land-use planning as a means of going after climate change come down to one target very familiar to planners: driving. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is emitted by motor vehicles when they are running. Although a lot of greenhouse gas emissions reduction will come from cleaner fuels and more energy-efficient vehicles, the general presumption is that California won't be able to hit the AB 32 target without more alternatives to driving, which means more investment in public transit and an aggressive approach to different land-use patterns. Does this mean that planners – given the chance – will use climate change as just another excuse to promote their ideas of "good planning," which often include less driving and more concentrated development in communities? Sure. Just as they have used lots of other trends and challenges over the last half-century to try to accomplish the same goals. Planners have attempted to leverage concerns about sprawl, vanishing farmland, traffic congestion, endangered species, a lack of water, even previous problems with air pollutants into changes in the pattern of urban growth, usually with middling success at best. But that doesn't mean the problems of urban development aren't real, and that the planners' preferred approaches aren't part of the solution. In the case of climate change, it's worth noting that a technological fix probably won't be enough. In California, a 40-year effort to reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide have been wildly successful in one sense because emissions from each tailpipe are a tiny fraction of what they were during the 1960s. Overall, however, the result has been a wash – more tailpipes and more driving have offset the decrease in emissions in each tailpipe. Clearly, something else has to give. The truth is that the solution to most major environmental problems involves less driving. Planners may or may not be able to use emissions reduction to drive land use change. But they're certainly going to be confronted with the consequences of global warming – and soon. Rising sea level and a dramatic decrease in the Sierra snow pack appear to be happening much faster than we anticipated only a couple years ago. The latest science says the Arctic could be ice-free within seven years. That means – especially in a coastal state like California – adapting to climate change will be an issue by the time the projects that are currently going through the entitlement process will be built. All of a sudden, this stuff is not abstract. Adaptation will inevitably involve large-scale engineering solutions – dikes and breakwaters in the ocean, more reservoirs inland, and so forth. But there will have to be land-use solutions too. Should more coastal development be permitted? How do you handle more growth if there are likely to be more droughts? These are questions that planners are well-equipped to deal with, especially California planners, with their CEQA-driven orientation toward impacts and mitigations. An old joke about planners is that if they believe passionately in something they're not likely to lie down in front of a bulldozer, but they are more than willing to spend all week figuring out whether you have complied with the code or your project may create a significant impact. This may make planners seem like little more than bureaucratic cogs — which is at least partly true — but is not the worst thing in the world. It is likely the way planners will embrace the issue of climate change, and it just might make a difference.

For decades, especially in the period following passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, school districts provided additional classroom space by slapping up portable buildings on parking lots and play fields. Some campuses evolved into mazes of nearly windowless, flat-roofed, "temporary" buildings that housed more students than the main building of the original school. Those days appear to be over. State bond money and local tax dollars are flowing into new school construction at record rates, and school officials are learning that a "green" campus is both better for students and teachers and is less expensive to operate. In the last few years, a collection of state agency officials, school district leaders, architects, contractors, product manufacturers, and utility representatives have put together the Collaborative of High Performance Schools (CHPS). The CHPS has established criteria similar to that of the United State Green Building Council's LEED program for commercial and residential construction (see Environment Watch, Page 3). Twenty-six school districts, including Los Angeles Unified and other large districts, have adopted CHPS standards. "I think it's going to be big," said David Thorman, who, as state architect, is responsible for overseeing all public school construction. "We're just starting. The CHPS program is all-encompassing." Indeed, CHPS covers indoor air quality, thermal, visual and acoustic comfort, energy and water efficiency, indoor fixtures and materials, site development and stormwater control, architecture and even the way the facilities integrate into a neighborhood. There are two primary reasons the program appeals to districts: Both students and teachers perform better in CHPS-certified schools, and plant operating costs are decreased. "They have found that when schools are built to CHPS standards, kids are better learners and are healthier," said Thorman, who believes that studies completed to date are credible. So does Guy Mehula, chief facilities executive for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). "The two biggest pieces that affect the production of the kids is daylighting in the classroom, and the acoustics in the classroom," Mehula said. "And the third piece, I would say, is the indoor air quality, especially here in Los Angeles." Ted Rozzi, assistant superintendent for school facilities in the Corona-Norco Unified School District and chairman of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, agreed that alternative design and project delivery are hot topics in the school business these days. "It's been a subject in our district as we were planning a sixth comprehensive high school," Rozzi said. Although the project has slowed because of site availability issues, district officials envision a school with sustainable architecture and technology, which could then serve as a laboratory for students. "It just seemed to be the right thing to do. From a curricular aspect, it makes sense," he said. Skeptics contend that school officials are "greenwashing" ordinary projects. The skepticism may arise because some of what CHPS involves is very basic: Orientation of the school building so it makes the best use of natural light, skylights, windows that open and provide cross-ventilation, shade trees in appropriate places, low-water landscaping and drip irrigation. Not exactly high-tech stuff. Other features of CHPS-certified schools, however, can be more involved: high-efficiency and extraordinarily quiet heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and ducts, downsized cooling systems where appropriate, recycled or sustainable building materials, carefully selected furnishing and fixtures, abundant insulation, pitched roofs with solar panels or photovoltaic cells, or low-sloped roofs with a white mineral cap sheet to limit heat retention, and — especially in polluted areas — heavy-duty air filtration systems. These schools also often feature highly automated lighting and HVAC systems that rapidly adjust to room conditions. "From the beginning of the design process," the CHPS literature states, "each of the building elements — windows, walls, building materials, air conditioning, landscaping, etc. — is considered part of an integrated system of interacting components. Choices in one area often affect other building systems; integrated design leverages these interactions to maximize the overall building performance." That approach is a significant departure from covering the ball field with portable classrooms. Among the most committed to green school facilities is the LAUSD, the nation's largest school district. For about 30 years, the district built no new schools and invested little in the facilities it did have. But in 2001, the district embarked on a gigantic, $20 billion construction program that is scheduled to result in 132 new schools and the overhaul of dozens more by 2013 (see CP&DR Public Development , December 2002). The district has completed 68 new schools, for which CHPS criteria has been applied to 42. The district has used CHPS for 15 existing school upgrades. All 20 new schools scheduled to open during the next two years will be CHPS-certified, according to an LAUSD spokesman. "Green" schools do cost roughly 5% to 10% more to build. "The additional cost is in energy-efficient mechanical systems," explained Thorman. Yet CHPS proponents contend such systems help schools save 30% to 40% on energy bills. Mehula, of the LAUSD, said that when the green features are integrated into the design of a school up-front, construction cost does not have to cost more. Besides construction techniques and building operations, CHPS criteria also include site selection, land development and neighborhood compatibility. The CHPS best practices manual recommends selecting sites near public transportation and within walking distance of a majority of students to decrease energy use and local traffic congestion. Some school districts are bringing back bike racks and working with other government entities on bike lanes and paths that serve school campuses. CHPS also provides instruction on capturing stormwater in cisterns, ponds and vegetated areas. The LAUSD designs new schools to promote community use of the facilities, said Mehula. Playgrounds are available as public park and recreation space, and buildings are designed so that sections can be locked off while community members use other sections, he said. "We know that schools need to be centers of the community," he said. Thorman's big emphasis is on energy independence for schools. Photovoltaic cells may be installed on existing schools, he said, and solar panels may be designed into new facilities, even serving as shade structures in a parking lot. Contacts: David Thorman, state architect of California, (916) 445-8100. Guy Mehula, Los Angeles Unified School District, (213) 241-7000. Ted Rozzi, Corona-Norco Unified School District, (951) 736-5045. Collaborative for High Performance Schools: http://www.chps.net/

Many things have improved in the past 30 years. Examples are the quality of digital cameras, the design of camping tents and the critical standing of comic books. Others have gotten worse, such as gasoline prices, the narrowing separation between church and state and the reputation of postmodern architecture. But has sustainable planning gotten better or worse? Mere drift seems unlikely: The world of planning has been in an uproar for much of the past quarter century. Urbanism and the repair of aging cities, rather than the endless replication of car-centered suburbia, has become the main thrust of the planning profession. The new urbanism has made a splash and given rise to a pushback in certain quarters. Above all, concerns about the future viability of human life on earth have become a central preoccupation of the culture at large, rather than the concern of a few sky-is-falling nut jobs nattering about rigid insulation and the angle of the sun in late October. The good news is that widespread worry about Spaceship Earth has made sustainable planning a mainstream product. Developers, including homebuilders, are tripping over their LEED certifications to prove their goodwill towards mankind, not to mention their moral superiority to other developers (those despoilers). Green community planning is widespread, and will probably become the norm. Once the applause of self-congratulation dies down, however, the question is whether the current fashionability of green planning represents an advance over the quality of work done when sustainability had granola in its collective beard. For the sake of argument, I have selected a project from the late 1970s – the famed Village Homes in Davis – and a recently approved scheme for Windsor Mill Housing in the Town of Windsor. The choice of these two schemes out of many others entails a long list of disclaimers. Yes, sites differ in topography, biology, climate and cost, and the same designer, working in two dissimilar places, might come up with two very different schemes without any self-contradiction. That said, let's look at what is good and bad, advanced and regressive, in both of these schemes. Village Homes Designed and developed by Mike and Judy Corbett in 1977, Village Homes remains a radical experiment that has weathered well. Landscape, rather than the built environment, seems to dominate and becomes the vehicle of communal life in the form of common gardens, orchards and vineyards. A system of open drainage channels collects stormwater, sparing the developer the need to build conventional storm drains. It's a brilliant innovation if communities are prepared to manage the safety risk of open water. The orderly site plan arranges houses in rows, while public spaces and retail are concentrated on the west (lower right in the illustration). With primacy given to planting, rather than construction, the non-show-offy houses of Village Homes look like adjuncts to a large garden, rather than the other way around. For children in search of exercise and adventure, the development may well look like heaven. But do people want to open heaven to outsiders, or to allow change? In a monograph about Village Homes by Mark Francis (Landscape Architecture Foundation, 2003) the Corbetts reported that some homeowners opposed the construction of the retail space during the 1980s, even though those facilities had been part of the original plan. Windsor Mill Housing The more recent plan is Windsor Mill Housing, designed over a period from 1997 to 2007 by a team led by Lois Fisher when she was principal at Fisher and Hall Urban Design of Santa Rosa. (She is currently principal of Fisher Town Design. Other members of the design included JZMK Group, Ripley Design Group, Carlenzoli & Associates and KTGY Group.) Their site plan for Windsor Mill achieves a fine balance between new urbanist formality and tract-building ingenuity. Faced with a very awkward site—imagine a row of mountains drawn by a child—Fisher has made lemonade by locating a park in the center of the largest triangle and arranging the streets around it. Although streets are almost all different lengths, and intersect at different places, the final result is order, not developer spaghetti. Almost every part of the site looks and feels different from every other part, so residents would always know exactly where they are. Although approved by the Town of Windsor in 2005, no homebuilding has started yet at Windsor Mill, presumably due to the weak housing market. The sustainable bits at Windsor Mill include preservation of existing oak trees, which will form part of a linear park along the banks of Windsor Creek; beyond the creek are disused freight rail tracks. A long row of houses, fronted by porches, face the water and the tracks. Fisher says the plan is intended to "celebrate the public realm," and the houses along the water are dressed for promenade. Is This Progress? Is Windsor Mill, then, an advance on Village Homes? I admire both projects, and would be happy to live in either. The big difference is the notion of public space. In the near-utopian setting of Village Homes, the line between public and private seems intentionally blurred: One visitor complains of feeling self-conscious because he wasn't sure if he was trespassing into somebody's back yard. By not making an explicit distinction between public and private, the designers may have created the unintended consequence at Village Homes that nothing seems completely public. At Windsor Mill, in contrast, the new urbanist plan draws clean lines between public and private, and arguably adds some drama and importance to those areas that are intended for all. Village Homes may win in terms of enchantment, but the cost of that magic spell may be a fully inclusive sense of a public realm. Given the high land values in California, Village Homes, with its low densities and high ratio of open space to housing, seems an isolated experiment, albeit with lessons to share. Windsor Mill, on the other hand, is urban infill designed to plug into the surrounding city. Village Homes taught us how to live amid a living landscape with respect and stewardship; Windsor Mill updates that lesson with urban values and a clear sense of public space. If Village Homes offers a desirable way of life, Windsor Mill gives us a plan of action for a viable urban future. In a world of increasing scarcity, that counts as an improvement.

Marin County has adopted a new general plan that emphasizes "sustainable communities" and reflects a strong concern about global climate change. Although the Board of Supervisors adopted the Marin Countywide Plan only in November, there is already evidence the plan could serve as a model for other jurisdictions in California and across the country. Rather than prepare a separate green building element or sustainability chapter, Marin County planners made an overarching environmental ethic the basis for nearly every goal, objective and policy in the plan. "We opted not to have a sustainability or green chapter, but to have sustainability as an underlying theme throughout the plan," said Marin County Planning Director Alex Hines. "The idea is that it would be a recurring thread throughout the entire document." According to Hines, the plan is the first local comprehensive plan in the country to calculate the ecological footprint of the average resident and to include extensive measures intended to reduce that footprint. The plan has been an "Internet hit" since before adoption, said Hines. In December, the American Planning Association named Marin County's sustainability program that is the basis for the new general plan as the winner of a national award for excellence in planning implementation. The planning process in Marin was long — seven years from start to finish — and included all of the usual "blood and guts" battles over where development should occur, Hines said. In the end, seemingly everyone found something to dislike. Affordable housing advocates said the plan did not offer enough places and policies to encourage homes that poor and working-class people can afford in a county where the median price is about $950,000. Neighborhood activists argued against development in their backyards. Environmentalists decried the amount of commercial development potential. Business interests and landowners complained about what they see as overly burdensome regulation. But what nearly everyone agreed on is the plan's sustainability theme. In Marin County, people do not dismiss global climate change as an Al Gore-inspired conspiracy, and the "Three Es" of sustainability — environment, economy and equality — as mere political correctness. (Marin County, after all, is the home of Senator Barbara Boxer.) Because of this social and political dynamic, Marin County's plan may not be of use everywhere. Larry Mintier, a Sacramento-based general plan consultant, said most cities and counties right now fall into one of two categories: The true believers in sustainability such as Marin County, and the "rest of the world" that simply wants to avoid getting sued over the climate change impacts of their plans. One problem is that climate change has become a local issue late in the process of many general plan updates, Mintier said. Still, even late in the process, it is not a subject to ignore. "These days, in terms of environmental review and looking at the obvious considerations in a general plan update, climate change and water are at the top of the list," Mintier said. What would help planners is coordinated guidance from the Air Resources Board, the attorney general's office and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Mintier said. Those agencies need to define sustainability, provide a set of principles for sustainable development, and discuss sustainability in the context of the larger issue of climate change, he recommended. "Everybody concedes that we're still making this up from month to month because we don't have very much guidance," Mintier said. In Butte County, sustainability is one of the guiding principles in a effort to update a 30-year-old general plan, said Development Services Director Tim Snellings. "The board understands it. Everybody understands it to some degree. But we're really just really getting into what sustainability means," Snellings said. Indeed, sustainability can mean different things to different people. In Marin County, the concept of sustainability clearly means decreasing human kind's negative impact on the local and global environment. But, Hinds emphasized, "It isn't just about people buying Priuses and slapping solar panels on their roofs." Sustainability means making strategic planning choices and encouraging needed, responsible development, he said. "We took the principles of sustainability and strategic planning, and we combined them," Hinds said. To this end, he added, the countywide plan encourages infill and redevelopment projects that "recolonize the asphalt — that take underutilized, unattractive development and create some community gathering places, and transit, and housing next to the transit, and jobs. That's all part of caring about the land. You can't just buy conservation easements." "Green" mixed-use infill can improve community vitality and decrease the use of fossil fuel, Hinds contended. To this end, the plan calls for 1,700 new housing units within about 15 housing overlay designations and on mixed-use sites. These are basically locations within or near a commercial core area. These infill units amount to nearly half of all additional residential units the plan permits at buildout. If those numbers seem low in a county of 606 square miles (87% of which is unincorporated, and, therefore subject of the countywide plan) and 255,000 people, consider that the county has long directed growth into the 11 incorporated cities. Three previous general plans all provided some basis for the county's latest plan. The 1973 general plan sliced the county into three north-south corridors — a coastal recreation corridor composed primarily of federal parklands, farmland and very small communities, an inland rural corridor composed of farmland and small communities, and a city-centered corridor along Highway 101. The plan essentially shifted potential development away from the coast to the strip of cities along Highway 101 in the eastern part of the county. The 1982 plan identified growth areas around the cities. The 1994 plan added agricultural, park and recreation, and economic elements. The new plan keeps the three corridors and adds a fourth for areas between Highway 101 and San Pablo Bay. The plan generally discourages development in this baylands corridor because of the desire to enhance wetlands and because of worries about sea level rise. Although the policies are not entirely new, they were not universally popular because some sites in the corridor have been considered for development. One such site is known as the St. Vincent's and Silveira lands — 1,230 acres just north of San Rafael. The property owners for years have discussed extensive housing development. The countywide plan permits development of only a senior care complex on about 30 to 40 acres. Besides adding the baylands corridor, planners reformatted the new plan into three sections: • The natural systems and agriculture element focuses on biology, water, environmental hazards, atmosphere and climate, open space, agriculture and food. • The built environment element addresses towns and development, design, energy and green building, housing, transportation and public facilities. • The socioeconomic element focuses on the economy, child care, public safety, community participation, education, environmental justice, public health, historical resources, and parks and recreation. Within these three sections are the seven required general plan elements (conservation, open space, land use, circulation, housing, noise and safety) and five optional elements (agriculture, community facilities, parks and recreation, trails and economic). The plan calls for assessing greenhouse gas emissions and setting targets to reduce those emissions. The art, said Hinds, is to set benchmarks that are simultaneously aggressive, achievable and flexible. Marin planners included indicators so they and the public could measure how the county is doing. Strict benchmarks, however, could be setting yourself up for failure, warned Hinds, who recommended planners seek legal counsel. Marin County did not wait for the new general plan to begin implementing a green building program. The program requires new large houses to be ultra-energy efficient and provides incentives for green construction. The larger the development, the more green measures the county requires. Because building codes are dictated by the state, the county enforces its green measures through the discretionary planning process, explained Alec Hoffman, who heads the county's green building program. The result is that the average new residential house in Marin County is 20% more energy efficient that required by California standards. That matters because the built environment contributes about 44% of Marin County's generation of carbon dioxide, including 17% that comes from the unincorporated area, according to the plan. This is in the context of an "ecological footprint" (the amount of land required to sustain the current lifestyle, including natural areas to absorb carbon dioxide) of 27 acres per capita — which is more than the national average of 24 acres, and two to three times the amount of European countries. What is considered "sustainable" worldwide is roughly 4 to 5 acres per capita. In other words, although Marin County residents have a strong environmental bent, they have not been living within their ecological means. Contacts: Alex Hinds, Marin County Planning Department, (415) 499-6278. Larry Mintier, J. Laurence Mintier & Associates, (916) 446-0522. Tim Snellings, Butte County Department of Development Services, (530) 538-6821. Marin Countywide Plan: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/fm/index.cfm The following is an excerpt from the introduction to the Marin Countywide Plan: Planning sustainable communities is the overarching theme of the Marin Countywide Plan. Marin County government is committed to lead by example, promote public participation, and work in community partnerships to protect the natural systems that support life and improve our quality of life. To design a sustainable future, we — the larger Marin community — will strive to accomplish the following: 1. Link equity, economy and the environment locally, regionally and globally. 2. Minimize the use of finite resources. 3. Reduce the use and minimize the release of hazardous materials. 4. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. 5. Preserve our natural assets. 6. Protect our agricultural assets. 7. Provide efficient and effective transportation. 8. Supply housing affordable to the full range of our members of the workforce and diverse community. 9. Foster businesses that create economic, environmental and social benefits. 10. Educate and prepare our workforce and residents. 11. Cultivate ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic diversity. 12. Support public health, safety and social justice.

San Francisco may soon have the country's most stringent environmental building standards. Under a plan endorsed by Mayor Gavin Newsom and almost guaranteed to be approved by the Board of Supervisors, the city would require all new residential buildings over 75 feet tall, all new commercial buildings of more than 5,000 square feet, and renovations to any building of at least 25,000 square feet to meet minimum LEED standards established by the United States Green Building Council (see Environment Watch , Page 3). "We've got to stop playing within the margins and get serious about addressing our reliance on fossil fuels," Newsom said in a prepared statement. Meanwhile, during the first half of the year, San Francisco is likely to adopt solar panel installation incentives worth $3,000 to $5,000 per residence, and up to $10,000 per business. While other cities, including Los Angeles, offer larger incentives, San Francisco property owners are also eligible for Pacific Gas & Electric solar incentives of up to $8,900 for residents and $10,000 for businesses. The combined incentives would cover roughly half the $30,000 the cost of a three-kilowatt solar system. California's "million solar roofs initiative" that gained so much attention when Gov. Schwarzenegger signed it in 2006 appears to have had something of a rough first full year. The California Solar Initiative program is supposed to result in 3,000 megawatts of new solar-produced electricity by 2017. Through the first nine months of 2007, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) received more than 5,000 commercial and residential applications for a total of 160 megawatts of new solar power. The PUC has cast the figure positively, saying it demonstrates "enormous new interest in solar." Critics, however, note that the megawatts reserved through the applications are not the same as megawatts actually generated. A number of applicants dropped out of the program during processing, and new installations were generating less than 10% of the 160 megawatts in applications. Consulting firm SunCentric called the results of the program "extremely disappointing" and said the PUC's switch to a new way of awarding incentives to solar system owners has been a "nightmare." SunCentric and others noted that the number of residential installations fell sharply during 2007. Apparently recognizing that problems existed, the PUC has streamlined some aspects of the program and, based on new legislation, altered rate structures. The Oakland Planning Commission in December approved what would be one of the largest LEED-certified buildings in state — a 23-story downtown office tower. Besides a number of environmentally friendly construction materials and techniques, the 500,000-square-foot tower will be right next to a BART station, and will feature bicycle lockers as well as showers for tenants. Covering the entire block bounded by 11th and 12th Streets, Jefferson Street and Marin Luther King Jr. Way, the tower will be one of the tallest in the Oakland skyline. Retail space is planned for the ground floor, and an underground lot will hold 200 cars. The project is a joint venture of Shorenstein Properties and MetLife Real Estate Investments.

Bren Hall on the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, is a modernist academic building perched on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Housing the university's Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, the sleek collection of geometric shapes includes classrooms, labs, study areas, offices and common rooms, and was completed in 2003 at a cost of about $26 million. Former Vice President Al Gore's 10,000-square-foot mansion was constructed 80 years ago in the Nashville suburb of Belle Meade. Purchased five years ago for $2.3 million, it includes eight bathrooms and an industrial-size kitchen, and replicates the classic plantation architecture of the antebellum South, with a symmetrical facade and two-story Greek columns flanking the formal entrance. Despite their apparent geographic and architectural dissimilarities, Bren Hall and Gore's home share one important attribute in an era of growing concern about the carbon footprint of the built environment and its implications for global climate change: Both structures have been recognized for their eco-friendliness by the nation's leading promoter of sustainable building design, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). Gore's home recently achieved gold status, the second-highest level, under the council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program. Bren Hall has platinum-level LEED certification, the highest rating, and is regarded as the most technologically advanced and resource-efficient laboratory building in the nation. In the case of the Gore home, certification was the result of an ambitious renovation project that included installation of solar panels, a rainwater-collection system, geothermal heating and replacement lighting. Bren Hall, on the other hand, was designed for maximum efficiency from the start. The list of its special features runs to several pages, including photovoltaic panels; site and building design strategies intended to maximize availability of natural light and air flow; building materials incorporating recycled concrete, steel, wallboard and other components; water-efficient plumbing fixtures; and super-efficient motors, boilers and other mechanical devices. Green building strategies are being embraced by a growing number of local and state governments. In some cases, the trend is being driven by a desire to reduce water and electrical use in areas where those critical resources are in limited supply or costly to import. Some elected officials also seem motivated, however, by frustration over the Bush administration's foot-dragging in response to scientific warnings about global warming, and are determined to take steps on their own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cities and counties cannot regulate tailpipe emissions or, for the most part, coal-burning power plants. They can, however, regulate land use and building design, and that's where they are focusing. More than 720 mayors nationwide have pledged to meet the emission-reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to address global warming that the Bush administration opposes. The local governments are using building design standards and zoning ordinances to cut emissions. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, for example, has pledged to reduce the city's greenhouse-gas emissions 35% below 1990 levels by 2030. In November, the Los Angeles Planning Commission voted to require that new buildings with more than 50 housing units or 50,000 square feet of floor space meet at least the lowest level of LEED certification standards. The commission also approved rules that would expedite permitting, perhaps shaving as much as a year off the processing time, for builders who are willing to seek silver certification — the third-highest of the four LEED certification levels — for their projects. Other cities have also adopted strict green building rules for private development, including San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. Santa Monica has rules and incentives similar to those being adopted in Los Angeles, although they apply even to small projects. San Francisco intends to require new buildings of at least 25,000 square feet to meet LEED gold criteria by 2012. There are practical advantages to building green. Although constructions costs can be inflated when builders employ recycled or low-impact materials and ultra-efficient lighting, heating, water and air-conditioning systems, the operating costs for such structures typically save owners and tenants money over time. There is also the appeal to consumer conscience as energy prices — and sea level — rise. But it's easier to make green claims than it is to back them up. To weed out imposters, a number of third-party certification programs have popped up to verify the eco-friendliness of buildings and assure customers that they are getting their money's worth. Green-building certification programs include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star homes project, the American Lung Association's Health House program, the Environments for Living program and the California Building Industry Association's Green Builder program. Some focus on energy efficiency while others concern themselves with encouraging use of least-toxic building materials or reducing use of virgin resources. But the USGBC's LEED program is the most well-established and widely used set of standards, to the point that even developers outside urban areas are seeing LEED certification as a potential marketing tool for buyers with an ecological conscience. Ginn Development, for example, recently announced it would seek LEED certification of homes and condos it is building in association with a ski resort in Vail, Colo. The LEED rating system was developed in 2000 by the USGBC, a nonprofit association of more than 12,400 member companies and organizations. Founded in 1993, the council includes among its membership building owners, real estate developers, architects, designers, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, nonprofits and government agencies. The heart of the LEED certification program is an extensive checklist of materials, site strategies and design elements generally intended to reduce the environmental impact of a structure. The checklist is divided into six categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation in design. Within each category is a set of specific green building criteria and prerequisites; buildings submitted for LEED review earn points for satisfying those requirements. Earn enough points and the building achieves one of the four levels of LEED certification. It's neither easy nor cheap to get your building certified. Although the average fee is only about $2,000 when submitting building documentation for review (the amount varies with the size of the project), producing that required documentation is far costlier — as much as $100,000, according to some experts. That is not much to add to the price of a multimillion-dollar project, but it's a heavy burden for smaller ones. The potential effect of greener structures is vast. According to Doug Newman, executive director of the National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities, buildings account for 65% of electricity consumption and 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. And over the next 25 years, the country will need 427 billion square feet of buildings to accommodate growth, about half of which will be new construction. LEED-certified buildings so far are only a drop in the global-warming bucket. According to the USGBC, there are more than 10,300 homes across the country involved in the LEED certification pilot program for residential structures, and only 400 of them have been certified. That is not much when you consider that the U.S. housing stock increases by about 2 million units a year. But many analysts forecast that the green share of building starts will jump in coming years, and the eco-friendly sector will expand to account for 10% of the market by 2010. The LEED program has recently expanded its focus beyond building design to community design, recognizing that the way you organize land use can have as great an impact on energy consumption as the type of light bulbs and windows you install in the buildings. According to Newman, 70% of a community's energy consumption is influenced by urban land-use allocation, site design and development practices. LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) is a rating system, according to the USGBC, "that integrates the principles of smart growth, new urbanism and green building into the first national standard for neighborhood design." The rating system has been developed cooperatively by the Congress for the New Urbanism, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the USGBC. The LEED-ND program is still in its infancy. The call for applications to the certification pilot program was issued in 2007, and 238 projects from 39 states and six countries were selected. The proponents of those projects are still gathering the information that will be submitted to the USGBC for evaluation. The pilot program is expected to be revised this year before adoption of a final certification process in 2009. Resources: U.S. Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=51 Guide to green building certification programs: http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=20978 National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities: http://www.necsc.us/ Center for Resource Solutions (certification program for low-carbon energy sources): http://www.resource-solutions.org/mv/index.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star homes project: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index American Lung Association's Health House program: http://www.healthhouse.org/ Environments for Living program: http://www.eflhome.com/index.jsp?action=fl_li California Green Builder: http://www.cagreenbuilder.org/