Climate change has a lot of people talking about "alternative" energy and water resources. Fine, say some people, let's built more dams for hydroelectric power and impound more surface water. But that's not what environmentalists have in mind at all. It's a conundrum, and it's one I deal with in a story on dam removal that appears in Planning magazine's special edition on water. (Sorry, the story is available only to American Planning Association members.) What I learned in reporting my story is that 273 dams have been removed in the United States since 1999. In general, these were small structures that were obsolete or unsafe. We recently reported in CP&DR on the removal of two of these dams from Alameda Creek near Fremont. But what to do about larger dams that generate a decent amount of electricity and provide water for farms and cities? The dams might be bad for the health of the river's ecosystem, but we need the carbon-free electricity and the water, right? This is a question that's bound to arise as California develops ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and as the state wrestles with a water shortage that seems to grow more acute every week. I feel safe predicting that we won't build the Auburn Dam on the American River. It's a proposal that's too expensive ($3 billion? $6 billion?), too politically unpopular (the dam would flood a recreation that has more than 3 million visitors a year), and, well, too shaky (the dam would sit atop an earthquake fault). But proposals to create an "off stream" reservoir in western Colusa County and build a dam on the San Joaquin River above Friant Dam are very much alive. It's possible that climate change concerns could aid the cause of dam advocates, which demonstrates that climate change is far more than a simple environmental cause. – Paul Shigley

Denial of a conditional use permit renewal is a "project" requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court ruled for the owner of an airport in Sacramento County whose application for a conditional use permit (CUP) renewal was denied by the county Board of Supervisors without any environmental review. While the CEQA portion of the ruling is important for practitioners, the court also ruled that the State Aeronautics Act did not preclude the Board of Supervisors from closing the airport — a ruling that was a big victory for the county and local governments in general, and a potentially lethal blow to the airport. Operation of Sunset Skyranch Airport near Elk Grove has been the subject of extensive litigation since the early 1990s. Sacramento County first issued a two-year CUP for the airport in 1971, when the facility was little more than a dirt landing strip for a handful of crop dusters. Owner Daniel Lang never renewed the use permit, but he did dramatically improve and expand the facility. By the late 1980s, it was home to two paved runways, about 20 hangars, at least 60 airplanes, and an estimated 30,000 annual takeoffs and landings. In 1989, the county denied Lang a business license because he was out of compliance with the zoning ordinance, which required airports to have a CUP. In 1990, the county declined to issue a certificate of nonconforming use, resulting in an airport owner's lawsuit. In an unpublished 1993 decision, L ang v. Board of Zoning Appeals , No. C013642, the Third District ruled that the airport's expansion had ended its status as a conforming use and that Lang needed a CUP. Lang and Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association finally applied for a CUP in 1997, and in October 1999 the county approved a five-year CUP. A neighboring property owner sued over the negative declaration the county adopted for the CUP, but the Third District upheld the county's environmental review in Fat v. County of Sacramento , (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , June 2002 ). Days before the 1999 CUP was scheduled to expire, the pilots association applied for a renewal. The Planning Commission approved the renewal for two years with the understanding that no further extensions would be granted because urban development was encroaching on the airport. Representing area property owners, development consultants Taylor & Wiley appealed to the Board of Supervisors, which voted 4-1 to deny the CUP renewal. The board found continued use of the airport incompatible with new homes in the area and a proposed school, and determined other air facilities were available in the region. This time, Lang and the pilots association sued the county, arguing that the State Aeronautics Act (SAA) pre-empted the county's decision, and that the decision violated CEQA because the county conducted no environmental review before rejecting the application. Lang and the pilots also argued the county's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that it was an unconstitutional taking of property. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Jack Sapunor ruled for the county. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Third District Court of Appeal upheld all of the lower court's ruling except for the portion regarding CEQA. The county argued that no environmental review was required because CEQA Guidelines § 15270 states: "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." But the court said the project here involved more than mere denial of an application. The project involved closure of an airport — something the county had vowed to enforce within 180 days, the court noted. The project had implications for the airport facilities and the pilots who use them. "We conclude the county's plan to enforce its zoning code, by ensuring the airport closure and transfer of pilots to other airports, are part of ‘the whole of the action' of the CUP denial, and the whole of the action has the potential for physical change in the environment," Justice Richard Sims wrote for the court. "Accordingly, the county's action constitutes a CEQA ‘project' requiring preparation of an initial study." Sims quickly pointed out that the court was not determining whether the project would have significant environmental effects or need a environmental impact report. "We merely hold the county has skipped an essential step," Sims wrote. The court rejected the arguments of the airport owner and pilots that the aeronautics act was contrary to and superceded the county's decision. They said the basis for the act was to protect the orderly expansion of airports and, therefore, required the county to permit continued operation of the facility. But the court said the SAA did not abridge the local police power. "The airport says we must look at the SAA as a whole," Sims wrote. "However, looking at the SAA as a whole, we do not see protection for airports against closure resulting from local land use zoning decisions." " he airport cites no specific SAA provision which is ‘contrary to' the county's denial," Sims added. " he SAA, as it stands, does not prevent the county from denying CUP renewal, even if it results in closure of the airport." In an unpublished portion of its opinion, the Third District rejected arguments that the county lacked substantial evidence for its decision, and the court ruled that the takings claim was not ripe for judicial review. The Case: Sunset Skyranch Pilots Associates v. County of Sacramento , No. C055224, 08 C.D.O.S. 8471, 2008 DJDAR 10193. Filed July 2, 2008. The Lawyers: For the pilots association: Lanny Winberry, (916) 386-4423. For the county: Krista Whitman, county counsel's office, (916) 874-5544. For real party in interest Taylor & Wiley, John Taylor, (916) 929-5545.

Earlier this week, the author of a bill that seeks to place regional planning, transportation funding, affordable housing and greenhouse gas reductions into a "smart growth" package conducted a press conference to announce that builders, local governments and environmentalists had reached agreement on the legislation. But the following day, the parties were back at the negotiating table and the legislation was not heard as scheduled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Senate Bill 375 did make it out of the Committee today (Friday), but it remains a work in progress. Affordable housing advocates — to whom bill author Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has close ties — are not on board. Plus, I have a difficult time believing that environmentalists and builders are going to be able to agree on precise language of California Environmental Quality Act streamlining for compliant projects, a provision that is the price for builder support of SB 375. Further, the bill would change the way the state allocates fair-share housing requirements among the regions, which is the sort of systemic change that is tough to pass in the Capitol. Senate Bill 375 is getting portrayed as the most significant land use legislation since state lawmakers passed the Coastal Act in 1976. The system under SB 375 would work like this: The California Air Resources Board, after consulting with local governments, would set regional greenhouse gas reduction targets. A regional transportation planning agency would then incorporate the target into the regional transportation plan. The transportation plan would contain a land use component (like the newly popular regional blueprints ) that would be called a "sustainable communities strategy." The Department of Housing and Community Development would have to consider each region's sustainable communities strategy when allocating regional fair share housing needs (known as the RHNA numbers). The regional planning agency would also apparently have to consider the strategy when allocating RHNA numbers to cities and counties within the region. The RHNA process and corresponding housing element updates would occur every eight years, rather than every five (although the current five-year mandate is often ignored). Development projects that implement the strategy would receive less environmental scrutiny than they would under CEQA as currently written. But projects that do not comply with the sustainable communities strategy would be on their own for infrastructure funding because the projects would not be covered by the regional transportation plan. The California Chapter, American Planning Association, has a more complete explansion of the bill on its website . Essentially, Steinberg is trying to force the development of compact, transit-oriented communities, and he's using transportation funding as both the carrot and stick. At a press conference on Wednesday, Steinberg rolled out support from the California Building Industry Association, The League of California Cities and the California League of Conservation Voters. The builders and the league had been SB 375 opponents. Both the Sacramento Bee and the San Diego Union-Tribune responded with stories suggesting SB 375 passage is near. Those news stories were only hours old when all the parties reconvened behind closed doors for further negotiations. Maybe the bill will pass before the Legislature wraps up its two-year session at month's end. And maybe the governor will sign it. But I wouldn't assume anything at this point. - Paul Shigley

Everything in the world here is under construction. So said my wife as we attempted to maneuver through downtown Portland recently. It seems that you can't walk more than a few blocks in the central part of Portland without encountering temporary construction fencing, cranes, pile drivers and hordes of steelworkers. Apparently, these people don't realize there's a real estate recession going on. Central Portland continues to thrive in ways that like-size California cities — namely, Sacramento, Fresno, Long Beach and Oakland — can only dream about. Mid- and high-rise mixed-use projects are going up all over downtown Portland and adjacent districts, often within site of condos or adaptive reuse projects that themselves are relatively new. Ten thousand housing units have been built in the 3,000-acre central Portland planning area since 1988, and another 7,000 units are either under construction or in the planning pipeline, according to a Central Portland Plan assessment released a few months ago. While new condos appear to be selling in the range of $400 to $500 per square foot, 59% of all central area housing units are available to households earning 60% of median income. Sacramento, Long Beach and Oakland count new central area housing units by the hundreds not the thousands. Fresno needs only the digits on a couple of hands. The housing slowdown that has stalled or killed dozens of central city housing projects in California appears to be having little impact on central Portland. In fact, prices are rising modestly in Portland's core area. Ridership on the regional MAX light rail system, which is concentrated in central Portland, has increased twice as fast as population, and about one-quarter of east-west commuters to the central area ride MAX. Bicycles make up 10% of vehicles on the four primary bridges across the Willamette River. It's true that plenty of people drive in central Portland; however, especially in downtown, around the university and in the Pearl District, it sure seems like more people get around via light rail, the streetcar, bicycles and their feet. The four California cities I mention above have nothing like Portland's rail system, nor the huge numbers of people who commute and run errands on their bicycles. I've written before about how Portland far exceeds Sacramento as a city . Recent visits to both cities only confirmed my earlier observations. Downtown Portland throbs with life day and night, weekday and weekend. Public gathering spaces, streetcars and sidewalks are jammed all the time. The only California city that can match Portland's urban vibe is San Francisco. Compared with Portland, downtown San Jose and Los Angeles are nighttime and weekend ghost towns. In some ways, Portland is blessed with decisions made long ago. The central area has an extremely tight grid with many blocks only 200 feet long. The tight grid makes walking easy and inviting. Compare this with downtown L.A., where walking three blocks can take 10 minutes. A public university (Portland State) campus is integrated into downtown and the cultural district. Compare that to Sacramento, Long Beach and Fresno, cities where the CSU campus is isolated in a suburban area. In the early 1970s, retired painting contractor Walter Powell decided to open a downtown bookstore; it grew into the largest bookstore in the English-speaking world. Compare that with Tower, Sacramento's homegrown chain of music stores that no longer exists. One might argue that with these sorts of building blocks, Portland planners have had it easy. Plus, they had public support for urban growth boundaries that limited the sort of low-density sprawl that has funneled capital and energy away from downtowns in Sacramento and Fresno. Still, Portland has the reputation of being the city that planners built. That makes the Central Portland Plan update that commenced earlier this year intriguing. When the current Central Portland Plan was adopted in 1988, the city's goal was to bring 5,000 new housing units and 50,000 additional jobs to the core area, explained Stephen Iwata, project manager for the plan update. In 1995, the city updated those goals to 15,000 housing units and 75,000 jobs. The housing units have arrived. But the number of jobs in the central area has remained flat at about 122,000 for two decades, suggesting that Portland planners – gasp! – failed in one area. What went wrong? Iwata said bank consolidations have cost downtown several bank headquarters, and the dot-com bust of earlier this decade turned out the lights in numerous offices. Plus, the suburbs still have room for new Class A office space with abundant surface parking. Central Portland office development means going up or down, and that's expensive. In addition, the retail vacancy rate in the core area is surprisingly high at about 12%. Naturally, Portland wants to tackle the jobs issue with planning tools. For example, the city is behind a 6 1/2-mile extension of the light rail line that will connect downtown, Portland State, a new campus of the Oregon Health and Science University, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, and Portland Community College. The system extension will use a new bridge over the Willamette that provides for light rail, streetcars, bicycles and pedestrians — but not cars. The idea is to employ transit and mobility to capitalize on existing assets and create an education and tech corridor. It's the sort of bold idea you expect to see in Portland. Would any California city be so brave? – Paul Shigley

While the newspapers today are full of stories about Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed "temporary" sales tax increase, the papers are not mentioning a proposed permanent shift of money away from local redevelopment agencies. The California Redevelopment Association is sounding the alarm about the proposed $200 million shift, which would apparently come in the form of increased, mandatory pass-through payments to school districts. According to the CRA, this would amount to a little more than 4% of gross tax increment that local redevelopment agencies receive every year. The proposal reportedly originated in the Legislative Analyst's Office. Compared with Schwarzenegger's plan to raise $5 billion annually with a sales tax increase, the redevelopment tax shift sounds like peanuts. But to redevelopment agencies that have issued debt based on certain revenue expectations (in other words, all redevelopment agencies), the governor's proposal is worrisome. Fearing that the state would tap local revenues to help solve the state budget crisis, the League of California Cities recently launched a new website that features video clips from several years ago in which the governor repeatedly promises to leave local revenues alone. However, the political difficulty inherent in the sales tax increase makes the redevelopment tax increment look like low-hanging fruit. For several years, we've seen lawmakers pass "get out of town" budgets. Everyone knows the budgets are hokey, but lawmakers just want to get back to their district or campaign or go on vacation – anything besides work on California's complicated system of raising and spending money. This year, I predict we'll see a "get to the convention" budget. The Democratic National Convention starts August 25, and no Democrat wants to miss this blowout. (The Republican National Convention is scheduled the following week.) Legislative update The governor on Monday signed a bill that specifically authorizes local governments to defer collection of development impact fees until as late as the close of escrow on the sale of new buildings. The bill, AB 2604 (Torrico), was the third and final piece of what the California Building Industry Association calls a "homebuilding stimulus package." Cities and counties typically impose impact fees, which pay for transportation improvements and various public facilities, when they issue building permits. That system has proven deadly to builders who are seeing many buyers cancel the purchase of new units built on speculation. The CBIA says deferral of impact fees until a housing unit is sold helps builders' cash flow and will boost speculative building. A handful of agencies have already begun deferring fees. The bill signed by the governor is not mandatory on local government, so one wonders how much it will get used. Local governments have their own cash flow issues, and they are still expected to provide the infrastructure to serve new homes. The other pieces of the CBIA package were SB 1185 (Lowenthal), which automatically extended the expiration date of subdivision maps by one year, and AJR 45 (Coto), a resolution that urged Congress to pass housing legislation. The governor signed SB 1185 last month. The Assembly passed AJR 45 about five weeks ago, and Congress has since approved a housing package that contains many of the provisions requested by the building industry. – Paul Shigley

There's a national debate going on nowadays about how the issue of cities, metropolitan areas, and growth is lacking from our national debate. Recently, for example, UCLA planning professor Randall Cran e argued that cities are the most important issue that the presidential candidates aren't talking about. But will the usual arguments about infrastructure and prosperity carry the day? Or do cities and metros need to play the climate change issue to be relevant in Washington again? Some policy wonks are still trying to put planning and development issues on the national agenda. Perhaps the best recent example came last week in Pittsburgh, when Bruce Katz, longtime head of the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program delivered his "MetroNation" pitch to the Alliance for Regional Stewards hip, the national association of regional civic groups such as Joint Venture Silicon Valley. Katz has been beating the "metro drum" for a decade, but his message is now finely honed – and one that planners and developers ought to pay attention to. His argument is that the United States is a "metropolitan nation" – the top 100 metros account for an enormous percentage of the population and economic activity – and future American prosperity depends on how well these metropolitan areas compete in the world economy.  (Brookings most recently came out with a report on "Mountain Megas" – the five big metropolitan areas in the Intermountain West.) Katz further argues that the four building blocks of metropolitan prosperity are innovation, infrastructure, human capital, and quality place – a kind of mash-up of land use planning and economic development. The most interesting part of Katz's argument is his call for a more forceful – or least clearer and more consistent – federal role in helping metropolitan areas pursue these four goals. Calling for a strong federal role – especially in economic development – has been out of fashion in Washington for at least two decades. But Katz's argument is that the federal government creates policies and spending strategies anyway, so the feds should be more conscious in using these efforts to support metros, whether it's in infrastructure or innovation. Katz claimed to be spending most of his time focused on Congress rather than the presidential candidates. He argues that the Democrats who control Congress will be very powerful no matter who's president. "Obama has begun to get a lot more specific / concrete," Katz said in Pittsburgh. "He's also picking up some of what Senator Clinton proposed in the primaries. McCain is still a work in progress. We know what he doesn't like, he doesn't like earmarks. We don't what he likes." Katz's prosperity-based argument might get only so far no matter how bad the economy gets. After all, even if the Democrats are in control, there's still considerable political resistance to a strong federal government. But I'm betting if there's one issue that makes Katz's agenda pop, it's climate change. Like most other policy wonks, Katz has begun to work climate change into his policy agenda. Sometimes it feels a little like an add-on to the four "building blocks" he talks about all the time. But it's probably the only overarching issue that the feds will be able to tackle without resistance during the next couple of years. And it's an issue that plays well on the metropolitan level, because emissions reduction and adaptation transcend local boundaries. -- Bill Fulton

A general plan that does not address the issue of climate change appears to be an endangered species. Numerous cities and counties in the process of updating their general plans are addressing climate change with policies for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and, to a lesser extent, adapting to changing conditions. Some localities have adopted climate action plans that affect the general plan and other long-term planning documents, while others have written specific general plan policies and implementation measures. There is plenty of motivation for cities and counties now, and there may be more in the near future: • State Attorney General Jerry Brown insists that cities, counties and regional planning agencies consider climate change in long-term land use and transportation plans. • The California Air Resources Board appears headed toward adopting mandates for emission-reducing land use plans and development projects. • The Legislature is considering a bill that would require six of seven mandatory general plan elements to include policies aimed at reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. Most everyone involved says that the desire to reduce California's carbon footprint will force local government, to varying degrees, to approve "smart growth" policies and urban development patterns — and to reduce automobile-dominated suburban development. "There is a lot of enthusiasm among planners to deal with this issue," said Janill Richards, coordinator for global warming initiatives in the attorney general's office. "This is an opportunity for planners to do things they have wanted to do for a long time. This issue of climate change has given us an opportunity to talk about land use issues we've wanted to talk about for the last 20 to 30 years." The attorney general's office got everyone's attention last year when it sued San Bernardo County for not addressing a newly adopted general plan update's impact on global warming. The county got the attorney general's office to drop the lawsuit when the county agreed to adopt a general plan policy outlining ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributable to discretionary land use decisions, and to prepare a greenhouse gas reduction plan (see CP&DR In Brief , September 2007 ). Since then, the attorney general's office has made a regular practice of telling cities and counties that they need to provide similar attention to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Although the AG's office has used threatening letters, representatives are willing to talk informally and provide guidance to cities and counties, Richards said. "We're trying to engage in discussion and collaborate with agencies," Richards said. Local planners offer mixed reports on the attorney general's involvement, with some clearly feeling threatened. But the City of San Diego's experience, said General Plan Program Manager Nancy Bragado, was positive. Although the AG's office did not enter the process until near the end, it did so in a "cooperative and helpful" fashion, Bragado said. The AG's representatives worked with city planners on strengthening and revising policies already in the draft plan that addressed greenhouse gas reductions, she said. In the end, San Diego incorporated a climate change matrix into the general plan's conservation element. The matrix essentially lists in one spot all policies related to climate change that are sprinkled throughout various elements of the plan. Although the AG initially insisted that San Diego prepare a separate climate change element, there was no point in writing a separate element, Bragado explained, because all general plan policies have equal weight. Eventually, the AG's office accepted the matrix. "We felt we were addressing climate change through our smart growth strategies, but it became clear we needed to focus on climate change," Bragado said. So the city refined and tightened up policies regarding urban design, green building, water management, transit, urban runoff and other issues that essentially fall into a "sustainability" rubric. The City Council voted unanimously to adopt the new general plan in March. Key to the city's approach is the "City of Villages" strategy, which, according to the general plan, "focuses the city's growth into compact, mixed-use centers of various scales that are linked to the regional transit system and preserve open space lands" (see CP&DR Insight , August 2002 ). Woodie Tescher, a vice principal for PBS&J who assisted with San Diego's plan, said that he has begun recommending cities and counties use the matrix approach. If a local government has employed sustainability policies, it will be "80% to 85%" of the way toward providing what the AG's office wants to see, he said. For Sacramento's general plan update, planners used the matrix as the first appendix in the general plan, he said. In San Diego and Sacramento, planners were well into general plan updates before climate change became a central issue. Thus, the matrix approach was one way to avoid greatly changing draft plans after years of public input, environmental analysis and planning. But Tescher said he recommends the matrix approach even to jurisdictions just beginning an update because a separate sustainability or climate change element would likely be redundant. The bigger issue, though, is the policies themselves. In March, the AG's office released a guidance document that suggests 30 climate change policies, programs or goals for conservation elements, nine for land use elements, 12 for circulation elements, eight for housing elements, five for open space elements, three for safety elements and four for energy elements. Some of the suggestions are fairly simply and noncontroversial, such as targeting grant funds to assist affordable housing developers with energy-efficient designs, promoting a range of housing choices near jobs, services and transit, and protecting existing trees. Other suggestions get to the very heart of community planning, such as: "Enact policies to limit or discourage low-density development that segregates employment, services and residential areas." Another suggested policy: "Give funding preference to investment in public transit over investment in infrastructure for private automobile traffic." Richards insisted that the document only provides suggestions and that her office remains sensitive to different contexts. In the Central Valley, for example, emissions from confined animals and trucks may be a bigger issue than the urban form, she said. "Urban infill is definitely part of the solution, but it is not the only answer," she said. "We're all kind of learning as we're doing it right now. What my office is looking for is a good-faith effort." Tescher, however, sees conflict coming. Suburban communities that have slow-growth policies, whether adopted by initiative or the city council, are likely to reject mandates for substantial increases in housing in already developed areas as a means of combating global climate change, he said. "In a lot of communities where the backlash already exists against any kind of infill development or growth, this is going to set off some serious debate about whether the city is going to address greenhouse gas emissions or not," he said. Soon, they might not have much choice. Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg), last year's blockbuster bill that stalled at the last minute, remains alive in the Legislature. The bill would use transportation funding as leverage to require local governments to make sustainable land use decisions (see CP&DR Insight , September 2007 ). More directly, AB 2093 by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) would require that greenhouse gas reduction policies be included in a city or county's next general plan update, or when cities and counties update their housing elements after 2009. It's unclear whether either bill will pass this year, especially with the Legislature focused on the budget. But many people expect such legislation to pass before too long. Jones and supporters of AB 2093, chiefly the Health Officers Association of California, contend that what they are looking for in general plans is easy to identify and incorporate. Cities and counties could simply pick and choose from policies that have already been written by other local governments, state agencies or the federal Environmental Protection Agency, they say. The legislation, they say, is not prescriptive. But Bill Higgins, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, contended that AB 2093 in fact is prescriptive because it requires inclusion of policies in six general plan elements. Yet the broader question of whether climate change should be addressed in environmental review documents or long-term planning documents themselves has not been settled, he said. Even if the Legislature does not act, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) intends to. By the end of June, the board is scheduled to adopt a "scoping plan" for implementing AB 32, the state's greenhouse gas reduction law. That scoping plan is going to address planning and development, possibly in a very top-down fashion. The scoping plan's land use and transportation planning sections will apparently be based on three primary documents — two brief recommendation papers developed at an April symposium, and one detailed report prepared by the Land Use Subgroup to the Climate Action Team (see sidebar.) All of this is aimed at achieving the goal in AB 32, namely reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and reducing emissions to only 20% of 1990 levels by 2050. In the meantime, cities and counties are headed toward the goal in a variety of ways. The City of Alameda, for example, adopted a local action plan on climate change earlier this year. Two of the plan's top four priorities involve land use — adopting green building standards for private development, and implementing alternative transportation strategies. While some cities are amending local action plans into their general plans, Alameda intends to keep the action plan as a stand-alone document, said Cynthia Eliason, supervising planner for the city. "There isn't a lot that needs to be added to our general plan. One of the things that's already in our general plan is a de-emphasis on the automobile, and an emphasis on mixed-use on the northern waterfront," she said. But the City of Albany, which is just beginning work on a climate action plan, does intend to incorporate the document into the general plan, said Nicole Almaguer, an environmental health specialist for the city. Although the process is still very young, she said the plan would likely encourage open space preservation, mixed-use development, redevelopment and green building. Increasingly, long-range planning documents are encouraging or even mandating green building principles, such as proper building orientation, environmentally friendly stormwater management techniques and deceased water consumption, noted David Javid, a senior planner with RRM Design Group. "Most of the specific plans we have written in the last year have contained a sustainability chapter," he said. Although some cities find public resistance to infill, higher densities and putting transit ahead of new roads, planners report there is overwhelming interest in the broader issue. "There's great public interest in climate change," said San Diego's Bragado. "We heard from environmental groups, we heard from some our community planning activists, and just from people who felt compelled by this issue." Contacts: Janill Richards, state attorney general's office, (510) 622-2100. Nancy Bragado, City of San Diego, (619) 533-4549. Woodie Tescher, PBS&J, (310) 268-8132. Cynthia Eliason, City of Alameda, (510) 747-6880. David Javid, RRM Design Group, (415) 331-8282. Attorney general's global warming website: http://caag.state.ca.us/globalwarming City of San Diego general plan: www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/index.shtml Land Use Subgroup of the Climate Action Team: www.climatechange.ca.gov/luscat/index.html Action Plan, Declaration Guide State Air Board At the California Air Resources Board's Haagen-Smit Symposium — an annual, invitation-only affair in April at the Seascape Resort in Aptos — participants prepared two documents intended to provide land use and transportation policy recommendations for the board's AB 32 scoping plan. The scoping plan is scheduled to be complete in June and will address land use and transportation, as well as numerous other areas related to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). One document from the symposium is called the Seascape Action Plan and the second is the Haagen-Smit Declaration. The two documents are available on the CARB website at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/hsmit2008/hsmit2008.htm . The action plan says that the state will provide public outreach "to discuss the link between land use and transportation planning decisions, and GHG reductions" and will "support" local and regional planning efforts. The plan further promises to implement AB 857, the long-ignored law that requires the state to plan and invest in a way that focuses growth into developed areas, limits outward development and preserves natural resources. The action plan goes much further, though. In a section titled "Define Regional Land Use and Transportation GHG Targets," the plan says the state, and regional and local governments will define greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, which will be implemented through comprehensive regional plans and transportation plans. "Local governments will adopt either a climate action plan or similar policies in their general plans that are consistent with the regional blueprint," the action plan states. The plan calls for revising the California Environmental Quality Act "to support greenhouse gas efficient growth" and asks the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to convene a strategic growth council "to examine ways to improve land use coordination and goal attainment." Here is the Haagen-Smit Declaration in its entirety: These are priority actions needed to meet AB 32 goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation and land use and are recommendations from the Haagen-Smit Symposium for ARB consideration as it develops the AB 32 Scoping Plan • Set Targets. Establish quantitative targets on a regional or local level. Targets will be emissions based considering population (i.e., per capita). • Use the Blueprint Framework with Local Accountability. Implement the blueprint model in the major urban areas. Encourage development of local climate action plans and local targets. Link these local plans and targets back to regional blueprints. • Promote High-quality, Low-impact Communities. Establish a variety of mechanisms that support building large-scale, low-carbon footprint, livable, innovative projects and communities. These mechanisms could include regulatory actions, targeted incentives, and targeted funding to demonstrate the market for these types of projects and communities. • Secure Funding. Secure new and continuous funding. Make better use of existing funds. Funding is needed to support the enabling infrastructure to make the blueprints happen and incentivize the desired high-quality, low-impact projects. • Use CEQA to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Establish statewide significance thresholds and improve the CEQA process to support low-impact development. • Adopt Proven Measures. All levels of government pursue proven emission reduction strategies, such as indirect source rules and other measures. Strategies with co-benefits should be a high priority. • Rethink Zoning. Remove the barriers to mixed-use projects in California's existing zoning and eliminate the incentives for sprawl. • Improve Measurement through Partnerships. Develop local government quantification protocols, improve VMT estimation tools, and develop more refined land use and transportation models that reflect the benefits of high-quality development. Use these tools for planning and to measure progress. • Exert State Leadership. The state builds, operates, and coordinates across all levels of government in a way that promotes low-impact development and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

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

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

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

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

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