Isolated transit-oriented developments in a sea of automobiles. That's how Robert Cervero, one the country's foremost authorities on transportation and transit-oriented developments, described this country's approach when I spoke to him recently while working on a story about SB 375, AB 32 and other climate change policies for the February edition of Planning magazine. The chair of the University of California, Berkeley, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cervero says we're getting it wrong. "We get it backwards. We do the transportation first, and then we respond to the sprawling auto-dependent growth patterns," he told me. In his extensive research , Cervero has found that people who live in transit-oriented condo developments make four to five times as many trips by transit than people who live elsewhere. But even in urban areas, these condos account for only 1% to 2% of the housing stock. Until there's a critical mass of housing in close proximity to transit stations – as well as employment centers, schools, shopping, government offices and recreational opportunities near transit – we are not taking full advantage of a transit system's benefits, he argues. "TOD can matter," he told me, "but we need to have true visionary planning." Cervero's words ring louder in my ears every day as the pleadings for a huge package of federal public works spending grow more urgent. I'm not against putting money into our badly neglected infrastructure. But there seems to be a great rush simply to throw billions and billions of dollars at highways, bridges, and old school and government buildings. I don't see any true visionary planning. I'm not sure I've seen any planning at all. We have an opportunity to make investments that could greatly benefit society 20 or even 50 years from now. We also have the opportunity to make the same old mistakes that have resulted in "isolated transit-oriented developments in a sea of automobiles." – Paul Shigley

An AB 32 Scoping Plan that places a great deal of emphasis on the SB 375 process was approved on December 11 by the California Air Resources Board. The plan tentatively calls for land use actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Environmentalists and some smart growth advocates argued for a higher land use target, while building industry representatives and some local government officials said 5 MMT should be the maximum. Rather than adjusting the target one way or the other, CARB assigned the SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee – or RTAC, which has yet to be appointed – the task of refining the land use target. "RTAC should recommend a method to evaluate the full potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in each major region of the state, and statewide, using improved land use patterns, indirect source rules, enhanced bike, walk and transit infrastructure, and pricing policies where applicable (including congestion, toll and parking pricing)," the CARB resolution approved on Thursday says. "It is the board's intent that the greenhouse gas emissions reductions associated with the SB 375 regional targets represent the most ambitious achievable targets." Signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in September, SB 375 attempts to tie together greenhouse gas emissions reductions from transportation, regional planning, transportation funding and planning for affordable housing.   One key element of SB 375 implementation is establishment of regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions tied to land use. The principle behind SB 375 is a desire to encourage compact, dense, mixed-use development that allows people to take many trips by foot, bicycle or public transit. Board Member Daniel Sperling, who is director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at University of California, Davis, said he understands why land use received heavy attention, even though it accounts for a very small part of the AB 32 emissions reductions. "There is so much frustration that's been growing over the years about sprawl and desire to create better communities," Sperling said. "Many people are looking to what we are doing here because we have an institutional structure and a legal process." "What we are doing here is breathing life into a movement," Sperling added. "We walk a line here," said CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols, emphasizing that the board is not a land use planning agency. "My sense is we have to find a way … to be clear and to be forthright about what we think is needed." But Board Member Ron Roberts, a San Diego County supervisor, said that while he could accept the 5MMT target, it will require "drastic measures" to achieve. Plus, he pointed out, the state is handing the emissions reductions mandate to regional and local governments at the same time the state has eliminated all funding for transit. Greatly improved transit service is essential to meeting the goal, he said. Richard Lyon, senior legislative advocate for the California Building Industry Association, applauded CARB's decision. "It certainly is an ambitious plan. As it relates to land use, it tracks pretty close to Senate Bill 375, and we firmly believe that is the appropriate process to determine emissions reductions in each region," Lyon said. The coalition of builders, labor, environmentalists, local government officials and planners who endorsed SB 375 is broad, but tenuous, Lyon added. "Holding that coalition together is important," he said. "Being true to SB 375 is important. That process is where we decided the limits should be set." Meanwhile, Matt Vander Sluis, global warming program manager for the Planning and Conservation League, said he was disappointed that CARB did not establish a high target for emissions reductions due to land use changes. In November, the board appeared headed toward a target of 10 MMT to 15 MMT, he noted. Still, he said, the RTAC has the opportunity to set an ambitious, science-based goal. "The SB 375 target-setting process is a great opportunity. We'll continue to make the case about reducing sprawl as part of our global warming solution," Vander Sluis said." It's good that we are going to continue to have that dialogue." The air board staff in January will propose an RTAC membership composed largely of metropolitan planning organization members, according to CARB Executive Officer James Goldstene. The committee should have recommendations for the board by late 2009, and will finalize regional emissions numbers during the later part of 2010, said Lynn Terry, CARB deputy executive officer. She insisted that 5 MMT "is not the maximum achievable target." Both Roberts and Board Member Ron Loveridge, the mayor of Riverside, said collaboration between the state and local and regional government is essential for success. "This is not the end, but really the start," Loveridge said of the scoping plan. Aside from land use, the Scoping Plan includes a "cap and trade" program under which some emissions will be sold and others given away. The program, however, remains very much a work in progress that will not be finalized for another two years. Assembly Bill 32 requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which amounts to a 25% to 30% reduction from business as usual. Cap-and-trade transactions would be responsible for about 20% of the greenhouse gas reductions under the Scoping Plan. Other major reductions would come from cleaner automobiles, lower-carbon fuels, more efficient buildings and appliances, dramatic increases in renewable energy production, and different refrigerant gases. – Paul Shigley

The California Air Resources Board is scheduled to decide this week on a broad plan for implementing the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction law. The board's decision could have profound implications for both growth patterns and individual development projects.   The Proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32 covers many subjects, including automobile efficiency, alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions statewide by 169 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent annually by 2020. This is about a one-quarter reduction from "business as usual." An early version of the scoping plan attributed 2 million tons of reduction (1.18% of the total) to local government actions and changes in land use. The 2 million-ton target disappointed environmentalists and smart growth proponents who advocate growth that encourages walking, bicycling and riding transit – and which discourages driving everywhere. Those who were disappointed by the draft scoping plan had more positive things to say about the revised (or "proposed") scoping plan released in October . It raised the land use target to 5 million tons annually, and called for local government operations to reduce their emissions by 15%. During a day-long public hearing in November , environmentalists and the smart growth crowd encouraged CARB to keep the land use target at 5 million tons or even increase it. Builders cautioned against the 5 million ton target. Cities were divided, with suburban towns deriding what it called an "unfunded state mandate," while some big cities and other jurisdictions urged CARB to go even further. And further is where the board just might go. Board members directed their staff to explore a land use target "somewhere in the range of 10 to 15 MMT." A target in that range is expected to be part of the final package the staff presents to the board on Thursday morning in Sacramento. The land use target in the AB 32 plan is crucial because it will be used by CARB when it allocates emission levels to the regions in 2010 – a step required to implement SB 375 . A metropolitan planning organization must draw up a "sustainable communities strategy" that conforms to the regional emissions figure. The strategy will provide the basis for the regional transportation plan and for fair-share housing allocations. Which gets me back to where I started. The higher CARB sets its target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions attributable to land use, the greater the pressure on cities and counties to adopt plans for compact land use. Both sides are flooding CARB with emails in advance of the noon on Wednesday deadline for submitting written comments on the Proposed Scoping Plan. In an email blast to members, the California Building Industry Association said, "Homebuilders have a vested interest in the success of SB 375 and AB 32. Homebuilders also have a vested interest in assisting the state out of its current and profound economic malaise. Imposing out-of-proportion burdens on California's homebuilders and consumers will neither help our struggling economy nor realistically achieve our AB 32 goals." Environmental groups, meanwhile, are telling CARB to adopt a land use target in the 11 to 14 million ton range, based on an analysis that says CARB's model underestimates the benefits of dense, mixed-use development. "Setting a higher target for the land use sector will signal to the world that new land use patterns are a high priority in the fight against global warming," the Planning and Conservation League said in an email blast sent Monday. The intense lobbying is very telling. Although the Schwarzenegger administration, CARB and state lawmakers insist that local governments will continue to make land use decisions, the air board could greatly influence those decisions. The board, in fact, could signal the end of the low-density, single-family housing tract. – Paul Shigley

WASHINGTON – Industry and environmental groups in California are awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that could determine how far the state's coastal power plants must go to reduce their fish-killing intake of ocean waters used to cool generating facilities. The justices heard arguments on December 2 in the Bush administration's industry-backed effort to overturn a federal appeals court decision that bars the use of cost-benefit analysis to determine what power plants have to do to minimize their impact on fish and aquatic life. Environmentalists argue that a cost-benefit analysis violates the Clean Water Act's mandate that cooling-water intake structures employ the "best technology available" to reduce the fish-kills resulting from the use of river, bay or ocean waters for cooling purposes. Environmental and industry groups in California filed friend-of-the-court briefs that took opposite sides on the legal question in the case: whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has discretion to use cost-benefit analysis in applying the statutory requirement contained in § 316(b) of the act. But the groups also disagree on the broader policy question whether the alternate cooling technologies available to minimize the collateral damage on aquatic life are needed at all and, if so, whether they are economically viable and logistically feasible. The Supreme Court's ruling in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. , could have significant effects on the operations of the 19 electricity-generating plants that dot California's coastline and that environmentalists say take in 17 billion gallons of water a day. The California Supreme Court put on hold a challenge to operations of the Moss Landing power plant, sited at the midpoint of Monterey Bay, pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. (The California Supreme Court case is Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Board , No. H028021; see CP&DR Legal Digest , April, 2008 , March 2008.) The plants' use of water to cool generating facilities adversely affects the marine environment by killing fish and aquatic organisms in the water itself and then discharging the water as much as 40 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the ambient water temperature. The existing "open cycle" or "once-through" cooling systems pass water through the facility once and then release most of it back to the body of water. Environmentalists say the impact can be reduced by use of "closed cycle" systems that recirculate water through the facility several times or "dry cooling" systems that use air instead of water. Electric utilities say conversion to the alternate technologies is expensive – a particular problem for economically marginal, aging plants like many of those on California's coast that may be operated only for peak power demand instead of all the time. The Supreme Court case stems from separate challenges filed by industry and environmental groups to rules adopted by the EPA in 2004 for existing power plants. "Phase I" rules adopted three years earlier generally require closed-cycle cooling systems for new plants. But the "Phase II" rules list closed-cycle systems only as one alternative for existing plants and allow permitting authorities to weigh costs and benefits in determining the system to be used. Industry groups challenged the Phase II rules altogether, arguing that § 316(b) does not apply to existing power plants. At the same time, environmentalists – including the Hudson River advocacy group Riverkeeper – argued that the EPA had no discretion to use cost-benefit analysis in enforcing § 316(b). The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the industry's argument and agreed with environmentalists. The Supreme Court agreed to review the decision solely on the cost-benefit issue. In urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, lawyers for the Bush administration and electric utilities argued that the "best technology available" requirement did not preclude the kind of cost-benefit analysis permitted by and routinely used to enforce other environmental statutes. "There is no reason to think Congress would want greater protection for fish through intake structures than for people through the discharge of pollutants," Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer told the justices. Representing the environmental groups, Richard Lazarus, a Georgetown law professor currently visiting at Harvard Law School, said regulators could give some weight to costs in deciding what technology is "available" or in determining whether to grant a variance to a specific plant. But the statute prohibits the agency from making a direct cost-benefit comparison, he said. "It doesn't allow them to weigh one against the other," Lazarus said. Lawyers for the administration encountered skeptical questioning from, among others, Justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy. A cost-benefit analysis was inappropriate, Souter said, because "you're dealing with such incommensurables." Kennedy sharply challenged the government lawyer by depicting the "best available technology" requirement as "the most rigorous standard in the statute." On his side, though, Lazarus had a difficult time fending off questions from, among others, Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr., who both viewed it as difficult if not impossible to completely disregard costs in enforcing the law. "Of course, you take those things into account," Breyer said. Without some comparison, Breyer said, the law could lead to "insane results." In California, Stanford law professor Deborah Sivas said the State Water Resources Control Board is considering rules to require closed cycle or other alternative cooling systems and some plants are moving to install alternate technologies. "Our fear is that even though you've started to see this trend on the California coast, it may reverse if the Supreme Court says you can use cost-benefit analysis," she said. As director of Stanford's environmental law clinic, Sivas is representing the challengers in the Moss Landing case and filed an amicus brief in the Riverkeeper case. But Robert Lucas, a consultant to the industry-backed California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB), said that the expense and practical difficulties of converting to closed-cycle cooling could force some plants either to close or go offline for long periods. "If that financial viability test is not allowed and there is no other choice but to change over to closed cycle cooling, then people are playing a potentially reckless game with the stability of the California electrical grid," said Lucas, a Sacramento lawyer-lobbyist and onetime civil engineer. A decision in the Riverkeeper case is due before the justices take their summer recess at the end of June. The Case: Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. , No. 07-588. The Lawyers: For the administration: Daryl Joseffer, Office of the Solicitor General, (202) 514-2217. For the industry: Maureen Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, (202) 637-2200. For the environmentalists: Richard Lazarus, Harvard Law School, (617) 495-1000. Kenneth Jost, former editor of the Los Angeles Daily Journal , is Supreme Court editor for CQ Press.

The California Redevelopment Association has filed its threatened lawsuit over a state budget provision shifting $350 million from redevelopment agencies to schools. The CRA argues that directing tax increment revenue away from the redevelopment agencies violates the state and federal constitution and even amounts to an uncompensated taking of property. But I have to wonder: Is anyone listening? State lawmakers and the Schwarzenegger administration used the $350 million shift – or 5% of tax increment revenues, whichever is greater – to "balance" the 2008-09 state budget (see CP&DR Capitol Update , October 2008 ). The move reduces the state's education funding obligation. The Legislative Analyst's Office recommends increasing the shift to $400 million and making it a permanent part of the budget . The last time the state grabbed redevelopment agency revenues, it extended the life of redevelopment project areas by one year under the theory that the agencies could make up the lost revenue during the additional year. This time around, there was no time extension. Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court by CRA, the Moreno Valley Redevelopment Agency and CRA Executive Director John Shirey against state Finance Director Michael Genest, the lawsuit points to California Constitution Article XVI § 16, which voters approved in 1952. That section says tax increment revenues shall be allocated to redevelopment agencies to pay off indebtedness used to finance redevelopment projects. In 2004, voters approved Proposition 1A, which, among other things, protected local government revenues from state raids. But Proposition 1A specifically excluded redevelopment agency tax increment because the state constitution already protected those revenues, notes the CRA, which quotes from the ballot pamphlet argument signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. (Read all about the suit on the CRA website .) The CRA argues that the funding shift violates state and federal constitutional provisions protecting the integrity of contracts, as the shift takes money that redevelopment agencies have pledged to bond purchasers. Breaking the contractual bond amounts to a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the CRA suit argues. If the shift is allowed to occur, agency bond ratings will fall, the cost of borrowing will go up, and fewer redevelopment projects will be completed, according to the CRA. The CRA had asked for volunteers to join the suit and ultimately selected Moreno Valley. The shift would cost that city's redevelopment agency about $1.1 million this fiscal year, potentially forcing the cancellation of a storm drain project and water system improvements that would ensure adequate fire flow in the Edgemont area, and portions of the Sunnymead Boulevard Revitalization project.   All of this is a really big deal to redevelopment agencies, their host cities and counties, and people who work in the redevelopment industry. But the lawsuit appears to have generated little more than a shrug at the Capitol. Remember, the state is facing a $28 billion shortfall for the current and next fiscal year. Everyone is insisting that their programs and projects can't possibly be cut. The redevelopment lobby is no different than the proponents of education, public health, law enforcement, transit, parks or anything else that's on the chopping block. I'm not arguing the CRA's legal contentions are faulty. In fact, they sound convincing to me. What I am suggesting is that there are no painless solutions to the state's dire fiscal condition. Compared to what's coming, we have felt barely a pinprick. – Paul Shigley

The Art and Economics of Building Green Friday, December 12, 9am-4:30pm UCLA Extension at Figueroa Courtyard 261 S. Figueroa St., Room 107 Los Angeles, California Urban Planning 891 0.6 CEU $350 Reg# U6078U 6 hours of MCLE credit available. (Fee includes refreshments and course materials. After November 28, fee increases to $375.) Concern about climate change as a result of greenhouse gas emissions is becoming a major driver of public policy. Since buildings and transportation contribute the major share of greenhouse gas emissions, everyone involved in planning and development will be challenged to change the way they do business. Despite CEQA, standard development practices cause major negative impacts on the environment including wasteful consumption of scarce natural resources, significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions, major contributions to landfill, and harmful impact on occupant health. Growing recognition of these impacts has led planners, architects, engineers, developers, and the greater public to explore how to integrate new sustainable planning, design, construction and operational practices for development and infrastructure. In its broadest definition, "sustainability" applies to three inter-related components: environment, economy, and equity (or, social well-being). Without considering this real triple bottom line, what kind of future are we building for our children? The need for sustainable development has gained increased publicity and credence as policy makers and the public focus on global warming and legislative mandates for the reduction of greenhouse gases. One of the critical tools helping to educate, shape and measure the movement towards achieving meaningful advances in sustainable design is the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) rating and certification program developed by the U.S. Green Building Council to address New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors and Neighborhood Development. Increasingly public institutions, major corporations and developers are stepping up to meet the challenge of LEED certification and discovering that it is possible to do well by doing good. This seminar will review the importance of sustainability and discuss land development, building design, infrastructure, and landscape practices that are being implemented by municipalities and developers in project design and construction. The economics and realities of these practices will be discussed from the perspective of planner/urban designer, architect and developer. No refund after December 5. Seminar SpeakersWoodie Tescher , Principal Technical Professional/Planning + Urban Design, PBS&J , has managed General Plans for many communities, and won awards for those in Los Angeles, Newport Beach, Corona, West Hollywood, Huntington Beach, and San Clemente. His collaboration with Kate Diamond for the City of San Gabriel Valley Boulevard Neighborhoods Sustainability Plan has been honored by SCAG as the recipients of the Compass Blueprint Award for Visionary Planning for Sustainability. Kate Diamond , FAIA Principal, NBBJ , is an award-winning architect with more than 30 years of experience in both private sector and public institutional projects, joined NBBJ's Seattle office in the fall of 2006 as a Design Principal/Lead Designer with a focus on commercial and civic projects in the context of city making. Prior to joining NBBJ, Kate spent 5 years as the Design Principal of RNL's Los Angeles Office and prior to that she built a strong design reputation as Principal and Lead Designer of her own practice, Siegel Diamond Architecture. Kate has designed multiple sustainable projects that have achieved LEED ratings of certified, silver and gold. To enroll Call (310) 825 - 9971 or go to http://www.uclaextension.edu/ * For more information please call (310) 825-7885

Copia – the $80 million wine, food and arts center that was supposed to help anchor downtown Napa's revitalization – has closed and filed for bankruptcy. This is an unfortunate turn of events, but it's not overly surprising. (Read the details on the Napa Valley Register and the Sacramento Bee .) Inspired and partially funded by Robert Mondavi, Copia: The American Center for Wine, Food and the Arts was intended to educate people about wine and food, serve as a cultural and artistic center, cement Napa Valley's place in the wine world and spur further rejuvenation of a marginal downtown. But the place struggled since it opened in 2001 and I maintain it was largely because of the location. Napa Valley is hallowed ground for the wine industry. The narrow valley has some of the best wineries and grows some of the highest quality grapes in the world. But Napa the city, located at the southern end of the valley, has long been a blue collar town. For many years, Napa's fortunes were more closely tied to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard (which closed in 1996) than to the wine industry, which was centered in St. Helena and Yountville. Everyone drives right on through Napa to get to the wineries. Napa civic leaders have worked tirelessly to revitalize a downtown that used to roll up the sidewalks no later than 6 o'clock, and they have had some success. There are new restaurants, wine tasting rooms, hotels, day spas and a restored opera house. What is now called the Oxbow neighborhood – an extension of the historic downtown – has evolved a great deal since Copia opened in 2001. A 160-unit Westin Verasa resort recently opened, joining the fabulous, year-old Oxbow Public Market and other new attractions. A Ritz-Carlton is proposed. But Copia never drew the expected crowds. Of the 5 million visitors to the Napa Valley each year, Copia attracted maybe 2%. Some people blamed the prices, some people said it was dull, some people said they couldn't figure out what the place was about. I go back to the old real estate saw: Location, location, location. Copia would be thriving if it were located in Yountville or St. Helena, two cities that visiting wine lovers and foodies know well. The great irony, though, is that Copia appears to have done at least one thing right. Downtown Napa may now be healthy enough to withstand the closure. – Paul Shigley

No president in more than 40 years has been better positioned to reshape American urban policy than Barack Obama. But the new president faces three challenges in dealing with urban policy. First, Obama must focus most of his domestic policy attention on reviving the economy, so he'll have to wrap urban policy inside his approach to the economy. Second, in order to succeed, Obama must tackle a broad range of policy issues that deal with human settlements, not only central cities. He will have to find a way to incorporate transportation, economic development, housing, environmental protection, and a whole host of other things into an "urban" policy that is really about suburbs as well as cities. And third, he's going to have to reshape urban policy without any money – or, at least, by using the money already in the budget in different and more creative ways. Not since Lyndon Johnson has a president appeared so focused on urban America. Johnson was forced into action by the urban riots of the 1960s. Not only did he create the "Great Society" federal programs, he also consolidated federal housing and urban programs into the Department of Housing and Urban Development – then an agency central to the federal government but now considered an underfunded backwater. Obama comes from a more urban setting – the South Side of Chicago – than any president in American history. On its face, his resume is that of not of a president-elect but that of the HUD secretary. Given his background as a community organizer, traditional HUD issues, such as urban poverty and local economic development in poor neighborhoods, clearly have great meaning to Obama. Indeed, one of Obama's first announcements after the election was the creation of an Office of Urban Policy in the White House. But even this move – intended to show quickly and decisively that urban policy is important to Obama – underscores the challenges the new president faces, especially in integrating different federal programs and using urban policy to reach metropolitan-wide issues, not simply HUD-style issues of central cities. The pervasive federal role in planning and development derives from a vast number of federal activities in many different agencies. By linking all these activities together, a president such as Obama could have enormous influence over growth patterns in communities all over the nation and everyday activities that result from those growth patterns. Ultimately, Obama's record will probably be shaped not by HUD-type programs – which amount to a tiny amount of money in the federal context – but by how he wields the federal government's Big Carrot and Big Stick. The HUD programs are very important to central cities, but other programs have broader significance to how human settlements are organized across the landscape. The Big Carrot is the federal transportation program – a carrot that, frankly, has not been so big lately. Funded by federal gas tax revenues, transportation spending is probably the biggest-ticket item available to Obama in shaping communities. In the campaign, Obama picked up on the agenda long pushed by the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, which calls for coordinated federal spending on transportation infrastructure projects to reinforce metropolitan economies (see CP&DR Insight , October 2008 ). However, the current federal program is overbooked – largely because gas tax revenues have been flat. So Obama's biggest opportunity here would be the big "public works" program currently being pushed by congressional Democrats – about $60 billion to $100 billion. This money could set the tone for growth patterns nationwide, but there will be tremendous pressure to spend it immediately for projects that states and regions already have in the hopper. Caltrans Director Will Kempton said the other day he has $1 billion in projects ready to go. Such a rush would seem to increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood of pork-barrel spending. How Obama will use the Big Stick – federal environmental policy – is a little harder to discern. Most of the policy work done by his campaign focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and on energy policy. It's clear that these will be his highest environmental priorities, and he is likely to be deeply influenced by recent California experience on both, whether or not he appoints Californians such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols to his cabinet. A greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program seems inevitable with Obama as president. But many questions remain unanswered. Such a program could provide the largest new revenue source for the federal government in a long time. Will Obama follow conventional thinking and push that money back into "clean coal" and alternative fuels? Or will he follow the smart growth party line and put more of the money into public transit and other actions that could alter growth patterns and reduce overall driving? Indeed, will Obama attempt to address the question of driving head-on – as the California greenhouse gas debate has suggested is necessary – or will he focus instead on technological fixes? A frontal assault on driving would be politically unpopular, but Obama could instead use the federal levers at the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and even the Interior Department to create powerful federal incentives for compact development patterns. The rest of Obama's campaign environmental positions – on wetlands, land and water conservation, and the like – were little more than conventional Democratic boilerplate. But Obama will face significant challenges on these fronts once in office, thanks in large part to the legacy of President Bush. The Bush Administration has devoted a lot of effort, for example, to weakening the Endangered Species Act administratively, especially through last-minute "midnight rules." Finally, there's economic development. In more ordinary times, this would mean a discussion of how Obama would approach the Commerce Department and, especially, the Economic Development Administration. But these are not ordinary times. Obama has made it clear that the economy is his highest priority, and "economic development" will clearly mean a wide range of policies. These could extend from a new approach to financial markets at the Treasury Department to additional encouragement for alternative and clean energy at the Department of Energy (which Obama, like all Democrats, touts as a major economic opportunity) to a revised strategy at the Commerce Department. Obama's early actions also suggest that he is trying to grapple with the age-old federal question of how to get the executive branch all moving in the same direction. It's not clear yet whether the Office of Urban Policy will focus only on cities or, instead, on broader metropolitan issues, which is the Obama policy position. The latter approach would make the Office of Urban Policy an interagency clearinghouse. His decision to appoint Tom Daschle as both the Health and Human Services secretary and a White House advisor on health care suggests the new president is grasping for new ways to deal with this age-old problem. There is little doubt that Obama, by nature and temperament, is America's first urban president. The question is whether he will be an effective urban president who can move the entire federal government in one direction.

Dear Miss California Planning, My name is City of Ontario, but if you print my letter, could you kindly change my name to something more anonymous like … Ms. C. of O.? (I want to avoid the prying eyes of sarcastic journalists, who like nothing more than to snark at young, vulnerable, economically viable cities.) Here's my question: Do you think I've done anything wrong? I realize that what I did was very unusual, especially for a California city with a population of 173,000 on the western end of San Bernardino County. I have been told that I have behaved forwardly, even to the point, and here I hold my breath, of being "innovative." That kind of talk frightens me. At the same time, the very thought of my deed fills me with pleasure. And yet I lie awake tormented, asking: Have I done the right thing? I keep going over in my mind every detail of the plan, looking for some flaw or fatal wrinkle—and yet I can't find one! It's all too perfect. I must tell you now, or I will burst: I have built a $150 million hockey stadium entirely with my own money, and I did so without selling bonds or going into debt. I sold land to a developer to raise the money! There, I said it. And that's not all: I continue to own the arena and I'm going to rake in $12 million a year, or possibly more, on this baby. It's not just hockey, mind you, as much as I love to watch large men swatting each other with their enormous arm guards. (Swooners!) No, the sports facility is only the centerpiece of a 92-acre, mixed-use development being built by the Panatonni Corporation of Sacramento, with housing, retail and restaurants, known as Piemonte. (That's pronounced pee-MON-tay, by the way, not PIE-monty.) And the arena itself, far from being only for hockey, will double as a concert venue for name-brand concert attractions like … oh, what's their names? Bruce Sticksteen? The Dixey Lips? Puff Diddle, the predominant hip-hug artist? (Note to self before mailing letter: Check those spellings. His first name might be Bryce.) My sole tenant will be a billionaire corporation known as AEG (for Anschutz Entertainment Group) of Denver, Colorado. Mr. Philip Anschutz, who cut his teeth in railroad real estate, is just the smartest man in the world. He is the largest owner of movie screens in the country and claims to be the second largest concert promoter. Mr. Anschutz is also the owner or co-owner of sports teams, including the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer club and the newly minted Ontario Reign. (As in Inland Empire. Get it?) Mr. Anschutz is also a very fine developer who is currently building the splendiferous LA Live, a theater-sports-nightclub-hotel-restaurant extravaganza right in the heart of downtown L.A. We like to think of the Piemonte project as a small-scale version of LA Live. It's like the mini-SUV version. You may think that I'm a ditz, but I've got a head for business. The hockey team will pay us $1 million a year in rent. In addition, Ontario – I mean, Ms. C. of O. – stands to make an additional $11 million in tax increment and sales tax revenue from the entire Piemonte project. And that's not a shabby return on investment. Wouldn't you do the same if you were in my shoes? Still, I fret. Will journalists, especially Mr. You-Know-Who (he knows who he is) ridicule me for building a sports arena for a multi-billionaire who could buy the City of Ontario and still have enough left over to buy the Texas-Sized Breakfast at Mama's Daughter's Diner in Dallas? Oh, please, tell me what should I do? – Inwardly Troubled in the Inland Empire Dear Ms. C. of O., Please put your pretty little business head to rest. You have done nothing wrong. You are, in fact, the envy of all the cities around you. Not only are you job-rich, but you are also rich in land, which gives you the ability to wangle deals such as Hockey Heaven in Piemonte. Yes, your business decision was audacious, almost unprecedented. Building a stadium for cash? Whoever heard of that? Plus, it must be acknowledged that many cities who build sports facilities or offer big cash incentives to team owners often come to regret it. (Think of another city whose name begins with "O".) In fact, your act would have been reckless, foolhardy and downright ill-informed if you hadn't lined up that guaranteed rental income of $1 million a year. (Many cities with minor league hockey charge a lot less in rent for an 11,000-seat facility.) Don't worry about fuddy-duddies, much less journalists, scolding you for building palaces for rich people. You know perfectly well what you're doing. The hockey-retail juggernaut is a brilliant play for the city: The games bring in couples who stroll before the puck drops, and then eat and drink afterwards, then stroll and buy a magazine or a mystery, then have a late-night coffee before going home. At which point, those older than 35 lie in bed and read their magazines. With your comparatively high median household income of $55,589, it's a win-win-win for the developer, the sports-team owner and the smarter-than-average city. The only losers are sore-heads, hockey haters and fiscal sticks-in-the-mud. Plus, those pesky journalists, who like nothing better than to drive your publicists clean out of their minds. If I were you, honey, I would ignore all of them. You're on the road to riches. Who cares what anybody thinks? – Miss California Planning P.S. Can you possibly snag some complimentary golden circle tix to the Sticksteen show? Hubby's a big fan.

A referendum on a redevelopment plan for San Francisco's Bayview and Hunters Point districts will not appear on the ballot. The First District Court of Appeal upheld a Superior Court judge's ruling that referendum proponents violated elections law by not including a copy of the redevelopment plan in referendum petitions. The referendum petition contained the ordinance adopting the plan, but the ordinance was mostly a series of findings. All of the key ingredients – such as boundaries, eminent domain provisions, affordable housing and community development components – were in the plan, the court noted. Without being able to review the plan itself, petition signers would not understand what was at issue, the court concluded. " he focus and substance of the challenged measure was found in the text of the plan which, although incorporated by reference in the ordinance, was not attached to or included in the petition," Justice Sandra Margulies wrote for the court. This was a violation of the Elections Code. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the plan for the Bayview Hunters Point project area in mid-2006 after 10 years of planning and community outreach. The plan covers about 1,300 acres east of Highway101, near Candlestick Point. The area is largely African-American and one of the city's poorest. The plan devotes 50% of redevelopment tax increment to affordable housing, limits use of eminent domain, and emphasizes localized economic development and community enhancements (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , September 2006 ). Bayview Hunters Point residents, however, have been skeptical of the city's intentions, fearing the city sought to gentrify the area at the expense of existing residents. After supervisors approved the redevelopment plan, a group called Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee (DBHPC) circulated referendum petitions and gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. However, in September 2006, City Attorney Dennis Herrera advised the city clerk that the petition did not comply with Elections Code § 9238, which requires that each referendum petition contain "the text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum." The city clerk notified the DBHPC that she would not accept the petition. Referendum advocates went to court, but San Francisco Superior Court Judge Patrick Mahoney ruled for the city. On appeal, DBHPC argued that Judge Mahoney had misconstrued § 9238 and relevant case law. The group argued that prior court rulings proved the group did not have to attach a document that was merely incorporated by reference in the ordinance to be voted on, nor did the group have to include an exhibit that was not physically attached to the ordinance. In rejecting these arguments, the First District undertook an extensive discussion of the earlier cases. In Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt , (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 159, the state Supreme Court upheld the state's decision not to include the full text of the general bond law when placing a water bond on the ballot. The court accepted the state's approach because the omitted material was an existing law that would remain in place and because the general bond law "was entirely peripheral to the substance and purpose" of the water bond, Margulies explained. The situation with the redevelopment referendum was different. In three appellate court cases, courts blocked referenda because the petitions lacked crucial exhibits of the ordinances in question. (The cases: Billig v. Voges , (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 926; Chase v. Brooks , (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 657; Nelson v. Carlson , (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 732.) " Billig , Chase and Nelson all found that exhibits incorporated into ordinances are part of the ‘text' of the ordinance for referendum petition purposes," Margulies wrote. The DBHPC argued that none of the cases involved an exhibit that was not physically attached to the ordinance, but the court said physical attachment was unimportant. In all of the cases, courts ruled "that lengthy or highly technical documents may not be omitted from the petition if they provide necessary information for prospective signers," Margulies wrote. "Here, the critical text enacted into law by the ordinance was the text of the plan, not the printed words of the ordinance. The plan supplied vital information about the effect of the ordinance, including the boundaries of the redevelopment project area, the allowed use of and limitations on eminent domain, the development of affordable housing, the promotion of jobs and business opportunities for local residents, and the community's role in the planning process," Margulies continued. "We don't hold here that all documents a local legislative body chooses to incorporate by reference in or attach to an ordinance must be included in a referendum petition. We hold only that when a central purpose of the ordinance is to adopt and enact into law the contents of an incorporated or attached document, a referendum petition of the ordinance does not satisfy Elections Code § 9238 unless it includes a copy of that document," Margulies explained. The court rejected the argument that its interpretation of the statute would burden DBHPC's free speech by requiring petition circulators to carry around huge stacks of paper. " he state's interest in ensuring that prospective signers understand what they are signing fully justifies the requirement," the court ruled. The Case: Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee v. City and County of San Francisco , No. A119061, 08 C.D.O.S. 13374, 2008 DJDAR 15977. Filed October 21, 2008. The Lawyers: For DBHPC: Michael A. Grob, (916) 441-0996. For San Francisco: Therese M. Stewart, city attorney's office (415) 554-4700.

SunCal Companies filed for federal bankruptcy protection for two Southern California projects in November – the Marblehead development in San Clemente and a 45-story condominium tower proposed for Los Angeles's Westside. Since the failure of Lehman Bros., which had invested about $2.5 billion in SunCal projects, the privately held Irvine-based developer has sought bankruptcy protection for about 20 projects in California. None of the other projects, however, has a history to match Marblehead's. Since the 1970s, developers have attempted to build thousands of homes, shopping centers and even the Nixon presidential library on the 250-acre bluff top site. Environmentalists and San Clemente residents successfully fended off proposals before finally reaching a compromise with the landowner, the Lusk Company. In 2003, the Coastal Commission approved a plan that designates about half the site as open space and parkland while accommodating 313 houses and a 675,000-square-foot commercial center. SunCal later bought the project and began grading in 2007, but construction has largely stopped. The 177-unit condo tower on Santa Monica Boulevard was designed by French architect Jean Nouvel and intended for upper-end buyers desiring a Westside location. In 2006, SunCal outbid Donald Trump, paying $110 million for the 2.4-acre site. Although Nouvel's drawings for a slender glass tower with greenery ringing the floors have received attention, SunCal has not gotten entitlements for the project. The Desert Hot Springs City Council has formally voted to end all consideration of the 2,000-unit Palmwood Golf Club housing and resort development and has decertified the project's environmental impact report. For years, Desert Hot Springs was a holdout in the creation of a multiple species habitat conservation plan for the Coachella Valley, largely because the plan designated the 1,700-acre Palmwood site for conservation (see CP&DR Environment Watch , April 2006 ). However, the project has run into numerous hurdles, including litigation filed by environmentalists and feuding among project investors. In addition, new Desert Hot Springs city officials changed the city's position and began negotiating into the habitat plan, which was finalized in June. Four dams on the Klamath River , including three in California's Siskiyou County, could be removed by 2020 under an "agreement in principle" signed in November by the Department of the Interior, state officials in California and Oregon, and utility company Pacificorp. Indian tribes, fishermen, local governments in Humboldt County and environmentalists have sought dam removal for years because the structures block access to historic salmon spawning grounds and alter the river's natural flow. In 2001, Klamath Basin farmers and federal officials engaged in a physical standoff when the Bureau of Reclamation wanted to release more water to aid fish. The following year, the bureau provided more water to farmers, leading to poor downstream conditions and a huge die off of salmon while they migrated upriver. Under the agreement, the federal government has until March 2012 to assess the costs and benefits of dam removal. California agreed to put up $250 million for dam removal, while Pacificorp would pay $200 million through a 2% surcharge on ratepayers. In the meantime, Pacificorp will provide an additional $500,000 annually for salmon fishery restoration measures. The ultimate dam removal and river restoration project would require the passage of legislation in Sacramento, Salem and Washington. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors is unanimously opposed to dam removal, arguing it would harm the region's economy and cost the county government more than $500,000 a year in taxes paid by Pacificorp. Westlands Water District has until January 21 to submit a plan for discharging irrigation waste. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board recently set the deadline for dealing with one of the region's most troublesome environmental concerns. Since Westlands first began providing farmers with Central Valley Project water during the early 1960, irrigation runoff has been a problem. The Bureau of Reclamation began constructing a 188-mile drain canal during the early 1970s but opposition from the Bay Area halted it in 1975 after only 85 miles had been built. The unfinished drain terminated in Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. In the 1980s, biologists determined that an epidemic of bird death and deformity at Kesterson was the result of unusually high concentrations of selenium, an element that occurs naturally in the Westlands Water District soil. Selenium was picked up by the irrigation runoff flowing from Westlands into the drain, and grew more concentrated in Kesterson as water in the refuge's shallow lake and marshes evaporated in the summer sun. The Bureau of Reclamation shut down the drain in 1986. In 2000, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Interior Department to build a drain, but nothing has happened. With nowhere to flow, irrigation runoff is raising the level of, and fouling the quality of, groundwater to the detriment of farmers, wildlife and communities that rely on wells. "We understand that the Bureau of Reclamation has the statutory duty to provide drainage service … and that your district and Reclamation have been working on a resolution of this problem," says the letter from the water quality control board. ""However, due to the magnitude of the problem and no foreseeable agreement, we must turn to your district to address this problem." Caltrans has launched a new website for the California Transportation Plan 2035. Rather than identifying projects, the CTP provides policy direction to the 44 regional transportation planning agencies. The existing CTP 2030 calls for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system. Scheduled for adoption in 2010, the new plan is expected to build on those principles while also addressing climate change. The website is www.californiatransportationplan2035.org .

The vagrants were getting aggressive while they panhandled in the parking lot between Starbucks and CVS. "Bitch!" an angry-looking man in his 40s shouted at one woman who denied his plea for spare change. A different fellow whom I turned down remained menacingly close while I opened my car door and quickly climbed inside. "Let's get the hell out of here," my friend said while jumping into the passenger seat. We were on the edge of downtown in a mid-sized California city that shall remain nameless. Like countless other places, the city's downtown began to fail decades ago, went through a period of neglect, but is making a nice rebound. Still, its recent successes have not offset a whole lot of vacant storefronts and empty sidewalks. OK, we were in Riverside – at the Starbucks on Market and Third streets, to be precise. To the north and west is the Fairmount neighborhood, an older residential area whose fortunes are closely tied to downtown. The neighborhood has some classic Southern California bungalows and craftsman homes, but maintenance is spotty. Some of the neighborhood's apartment houses look downright threatening, and a mini mart posts a full-time security guard at the front door. On a quiet Sunday morning, Starbucks provided refuge. The baristas and counter help made eye contact with every person walking through the door and offered a hearty "good morning." The place was bustling with moms pushing strollers, hipsters, a couple guys enjoying the newspaper, and people on their way to work. I'm sure a few of the latte sippers were "urban pioneers" who live in attractive new housing nearby. Essentially, this was the multi-cultural crowd that delights downtown boosters everywhere. But what about all of the angry guys outside the door demanding spare change? Who wants to put up with that all the time? Even if you're willing to tolerate, is it safe? Would you feel comfortable letting your elderly mother – or your 12-year-old daughter – catch the bus in this neighborhood? I'm not picking on Riverside. Homelessness and myriad issues related to mental illness and chemical dependency plague many cities. I have no answers. It's apparent to me that no one does. What I do know is this: A downtown that could tip in either direction has less chance of success if ordinary folks who want to grab a cup of coffee or fill a prescription have to run a gauntlet. Because, no matter how good a city's redevelopment plan is, those ordinary folks eventually will go elsewhere. That would be a shame. – Paul Shigley