Three bills that would have established "green" building standards for housing, commercial structures and state government buildings were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor also vetoed a controversial planning bill that would have limited cities' ability to satisfy regional fair-share mandates with non-residentially zoned properties. In addition, the governor rejected a bill that would have placed new requirements on mobile home park conversions to resident-owned subdivisions, and a bill that would have mandated additional disclosure of economic development subsidies. Overall, Schwarzenegger vetoed 214 of the 964 bills (22%) sent to him by the Legislature, according to Peter Detwiler, staff director for the Senate Local Government Committee. Schwarzenegger has consistently vetoed more than 20% of bills that reached him, a higher percentage than any governor of the last 40 years. While the governor has attempted to bolster his standing among environmentalists, he rejected the three green building bills because, he said, they took the wrong approach. The bills were AB 1058 (Laird), which would have required the Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to adopt green standards for residential structures by 2010; AB 888 (Lieu), which would have required commercial buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to meet the U.S. Green Building Council's "gold" standard by 2013; and AB 35 (Ruskin), which would have mandated the gold standard for new and renovated state government buildings. In his veto messages, Schwarzenegger said he supports "development of green building standards." But, echoing the California Building Industry Association, the governor said neither private entities such as the Green Building Council nor state lawmakers should determine the building standards. Instead, Schwarzenegger said, "I am directing the California Building Standards Commission to work with specified state agencies on the adoption of green building standards for residential, commercial and public construction for the 2010 code adoption process." While the green building vetoes generated substantial publicity, Schwarzenegger's rejection of AB 414 (Jones) was of interest primarily to city planners and affordable housing advocates. The bill would have permitted cities and counties to count only 50% of the potential housing units in commercial zones for the purpose of meeting fair-share affordable housing numbers. Housing advocates said the bill was necessary to prevent local governments from using dual zoning — mixed-use or commercial areas where housing is permitted — to fulfill all of their Regional Housing Needs Assessment affordable housing mandate. Planners and cities countered that the bill would discourage infill, promote sprawl and limit local flexibility — a message that appears to have reached Schwarzenegger. In his veto message, the governor said HCD should evaluate housing elements on a case-by-case basis. Other land use bills receiving vetoes: • AB 1542 (Evans). The bill would have amended the Subdivision Map Act to impose new requirements on the conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owned subdivisions. Park residents and affordable housing advocates contend the conversions are a way to skirt local rent control regulations. The governor expressed some understanding but said "mobile home issues require a comprehensive approach." • AB 1091 (Bass). The bill would have altered criteria for awarding $300 million in transit-oriented development housing funds by requiring developments to be within one-half mile — rather than one-quarter mile — of a transit station. The governor said the looser standard "could substantially reduce the effectiveness of this program." • SB 103 (Cedillo). The measure would have required local agencies to prepare a report, conduct hearings and post information on their websites regarding any economic development subsidy worth at least $100,000. Schwarzenegger said local governments "already provide sufficient information" about such subsidies, and the bill would add to government expense and delay projects. • AB 1743 (Huffman). The bill would have delayed construction on a planned death row project at San Quentin State Prison until after the state studies possible alternative sites. Many locals would like to see the 40-acre site in question used for a transit station or affordable housing. The governor, however, said lawmakers earlier concluded San Quentin is the best place for the project, and delays only add $1 million a month to the $340 million project. • AB 1219 (Jones). This district bill would have permitted the state to make deals with the City of Sacramento to provide for development of The Docks mixed-use project along the Sacramento River, and for redevelopment of the rail yards adjacent to downtown. Schwarzenegger said he was open to selling state land but only if the deals were exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; otherwise, the state would incur additional costs. The governor did sign a number of land use measures: • AB 1053 (Nuñez). Drafted during the last hours of the session, this bill makes business improvement districts eligible for Proposition 1C housing funds for infrastructure. The speaker carried the bill on behalf of developer AEG, which wants to tap the funds for an entertainment-oriented mixed-use project in downtown Los Angeles. • AB 641 (Torrico). The bill permits affordable housing developers to delay paying development fees until the certificate of occupancy stage. • AB 1259 (Caballero). This measure extends by a year the deadline for jurisdictions in the Monterey Bay Area Governments region to submit updated housing elements. The new deadline is June 30, 2009. • SB 2 (Cedillo). A compromise among local governments and homeless advocates, the bill requires cities and counties to identify specific sites for homeless shelters and not impose on transitional and supportive housing projects any restrictions beyond those that apply to any residential project. • AB 373 (Wolk). This bill overhauls the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District law and the school facilities improvement district law. • SB 162 (Negrete McLeod). Under this measure, local agency formation commissions must consider environmental justice when deciding on boundary changes. The governor also signed six flood control and land use planning measures .

A water supply analysis for a proposed development in the Santa Clarita Valley appeared at first glance to have passed a California Environmental Quality Act test laid out earlier this year by the state Supreme Court. However, the Second District Court of Appeal in mid-October vacated its decision of the previous month regarding the environmental impact report for the West Creek project to make way for a rehearing. The court initially ruled that the EIR adequately addresses the likely availability of long-term water sources. For a short time, the ruling was the first published decision issued since the state Supreme Court handed down four principles for analyzing water supplies under CEQA in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova , (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 (see CP&DR , March 2007 , CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2007 ). Two of those principles covered arguments presented by Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) over the West Creek EIR, but the document — which was certified prior to the Vineyard decision — appeared to survive nonetheless. Arguing that the court relied on a portion of the Vineyard decision that was revised and that the court got other aspects of the Santa Clarita Valley case wrong, slow-growth advocates and environmentalists requested a rehearing. Usually, a rehearing request is merely a procedural step before a petition to the state Supreme Court is submitted. But the Second District, Division Six, took the unusual step of granting the rehearing, which automatically vacated the September 25 opinion. The rehearing could be scheduled before the end of the year. Antonio Rossmann, an attorney in the case for the Planning & Conservation League, contended that the court's decision to re-hear the case opens the door for a completely different outcome. But Robert McMurry, an attorney for developer Newhall Land and Farming Company, expressed little concern. "I think this is a language issue, and sharpening of the language," McMurry said of the rehearing decision. The case provides an interesting portrait of water supply policy and environmental analysis. Naturally, the case comes from the Santa Clarita Valley, which is ground zero in disputes over water availability for urban growth. At least three times during recent years in the valley, courts have rejected water supply analyses, and those earlier rulings figure to varying extents into the case at hand. Newhall Land and Farming Company's West Creek project is proposed to contain 2,500 housing units, 180,000 square feet of retail space, and 46 acres of community facilities. In 2003, the Second District rejected Los Angeles County's water analysis for West Creek, concluding that it relied on "paper water" the State Water Project may not be able to deliver. ( Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles , 106 Cal.App.4th 715 ( SCOPE I ); see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2003 ). After the county and Newhall revised the EIR, a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge upheld the new analysis. In its now-withdrawn opinion, the court upheld the lower court. The court explained the four principles from the Vineyard decision: • First, an EIR must provide sufficient facts for decision-makers to be able to "evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will need." • Second, an EIR must analyze supplies for an entire project, not merely the early phases of development. • Third, an EIR "must address the impacts of likely future water sources, and the EIR's discussion must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water's availability." • Fourth, there must be some discussion of alternatives if anticipated water is not available. The third and fourth principles were at issue in the case at hand. SCOPE argued that the availability of future water sources is in doubt because the primary source is a transfer of unreliable State Water Project (SWP) water from the Kern County Water Agency to the Castaic Lake Water Agency. That transfer of 41,000 acre-feet of water annually has been controversial since the agencies agreed to the water sale during the 1990s. The sale was based on the Monterey Agreement, a 1995 document that outlines how the Department of Water Resources (DWR) allocates SWP water. Among other things, the Monterey Agreement permits the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of water from the agricultural Kern County Water Agency to urban entities. In 2000, however, a court invalidated the EIR for the Monterey Agreement in Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources , 83 Cal.App.4th 892. Less than two years later, a court rejected the EIR for the Kern-Castaic water transfer because it tiered off the invalidated Monterey Agreement EIR. ( Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency , 95 Cal.App.4th 1373; see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2002 ). Nevertheless, Castaic began receiving the transferred water in 1998 and has continued to get the water ever since. In SCOPE I , the court rejected the West Creek EIR because the analysis assumed the entire 41,000 acre-foot transfer would be available every year, even though the SWP often fails to deliver full allocations because of droughts. In the latest round of litigation, SCOPE argued the revised EIR fails because it does not disclose that the Kern-Castaic transfer is not final and permanent. Under this argument, the EIR would violate Vineyard 's third principle. In its withdrawn opinion, the court disagreed. The EIR concludes "that as a practical matter an adverse outcome in the Monterey Agreement litigation is unlikely to ‘unwind' the transfer agreement," Justice Arthur Gilbert wrote for the court. "Contrary to SCOPE's argument, this conclusion is supported by reasoned analysis." In the request for a re-hearing, Rossmann contended the court was assuming too much because the Monterey Agreement (now called the Monterey Amendment) remains in doubt. In fact, DWR released a new EIR for the project on October 22 and scheduled hearings around the state on the document for November and December. Considering recent federal court orders slowing pumping from the Bay Delta, it is possible DWR could drop the Monterey Amendment, which would eliminate the basis for the Kern-Castaic water transfer, Rossmann argued. The court had noted that the transfer may be made permanent even without the Monterey Agreement and "the legislative policy of this state is to facilitate water transfers." Agreeing with this conclusion, Newhall attorney McMurry contended there is virtually no chance of ending the transfer because Castaic has paid $47 million, the farmers who formerly used the water entitlement have stopped farming, and water has been flowing to Castaic for nine years. As for alternatives in the absence of the water transfer — a subject of the fourth Vineyard principle — the court cited the original Vineyard opinion, which was later amended. Rossmann argued that under the correct version of Vineyard , Newhall must identify replacement water sources and their environmental consequences. McMurry, however, said the Vineyard revision merely makes clear that the "substantial evidence test" applies to water reliability, and the West Creek EIR passes the test. The Case: Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles , No. B189116, Opinion filed September 25, 2007. Opinion vacated and re-hearing granted October 15, 2007. The Lawyers: For SCOPE: Alyse Lazar, (805) 496-5390. For the Planning and Conservation League: Antonio Rossmann, Rossmann & Moore, (415) 861-1401. For the county: Elizabeth Cortez, county counsel's office, (213) 974-0684. For Newhall Land and Farming: Robert McMurry, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, (213) 683-6000.

Get ready for the Great Eminent Domain War of 2008. Jim Madaffer, the San Diego city councilmember who's the incoming president of the League of California Cities, traveled all the way to Ventura Friday – by train – to encourage local elected officials from the Central Coast to help collect signatures for the League's eminent domain initiative. The League's measure is an alternative to a measure being circulated by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The League's measure – which failed to pass the Legislature this year – would prohibit eminent domain on owner-occupied housing. The Jarvis measure includes a much more sweeping eminent domain prohibition, along with restrictions on zoning similar to those contained in Proposition 90 – and a prohibition on rent control as well. Proposition 90 lost by 5 points in 2006 , even though there was a significant campaign against it and little campaign for it. Because the League was unable to get the measure on the ballot through the Legislature, League officials are now scrambling to gather signatures. At the Friday night event, Madaffer said the League is asking each local elected official in the state to collect 50 to 100 signatures – mostly as a way to reduce the cost of the signature-gathering campaign, which is expected to cost upwards of $3-5 million. (The Madaffer plan would gather between 100,000 and 200,000 signatures at no cost to the campaign.) The League is making a big stink out of the idea that the Jarvis association played ball in the Legislature, then bailed – a "bait and switch," Madaffer called it – before the Legislature passed the limited eminent domain initiative. This required the League and its allies to, first, decide whether to mount its own initiative – a Yes/No campaign instead of a No campaign, as Madaffer put it – and, second, gather a lot of signatures in a short period of time for their own initiative. Meanwhile, the Jarvis measure has the backing of a large range of property owners, including landlords, because of its expansive provisions. Madaffer scored "smart growth points" with Central Coast electeds for riding the train. (He boasted about "getting a lot of work done" on the five-hour ride.) But he admitted that he was not well-briefed about his itinerary in Ventura, and hailed a cab – which someone else had called ahead to obtain – for the 600-yard trip from the Amtrak station to the Crowne Plaza Hotel. He apologized and said he easily could have pulled his roller-bag down Harbor Boulevard if only he had known. Plus he would have gotten a pretty good tour of locations that have become famous because of the movie Little Miss Sunshine, in which Ventura played the role of Redondo Beach. - Bill Fulton

The housing market slowdown appears to be running straight into the state's new flood control laws. It makes one wonder which way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is close to homebuilders, will turn when the collision occurs. Schwarzenegger signed a collection of six bills aimed at limiting urban development in flood-prone areas of the Central Valley on Wednesday. Ironically, on the same day, backers of a San Joaquin County project that helped spur the bills — partly because of Schwarzenegger's interference — said their development is on hold because of the flat housing market. The project is River Islands in the City of Lathrop, about 10 miles south of Stockton. As approved by the city in 2003 , River Islands would have 11,000 housing units a 325-acre "employment center" and a mixed-use town center 4,800 acres along the San Joaquin River. The city approved the project even though floodwaters had inundated the site six years earlier. The developer, the Cambay Group, said it would prevent future flooding by building 300-foot-wide levees known as "high ground" and by strengthening other levees. Still, the project needed the approval of the obscure Sate Reclamation Board. After the board and its staff asked hard questions, Schwarzenegger dumped the board and appointed all new members. River Islands soon had its permit. River Islands is not dead. The British-funded developer is in it for the longer term and continues to build infrastructure in anticipation of future housing. But would the project have been approved if provisions in the six new flood bills had been effective in 2003? Probably not. The primary reason is not the legislation's new requirement for 200-year flood protection and general plan hazard policies. The primary reason is liability. One of the bills signed on Wednesday is AB 70, by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento). Although the language is a bit vague, AB 70's premise is this: If a city or county approves development on a flood-prone farmland protected by a state levee, the city or county is partially liable should that development flood. The legislation came in response to a 2003 Court of Appeal decision that said the state was solely liable for property damage caused by the 1986 failure of a levee in Yuba County, a decision that ultimately cost the state $500 million. The Jones bill is effective only until 2015, when other legislation requiring general plan policies and 200-year flood protection takes effect. The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties opposed AB 70 because they see it as a poison pill. If AB 70 had been in place four years ago, would the Lathrop City Council have approved 11,000 houses on real estate that was underwater only six years earlier? At the time of approval, Lathrop's mayor brushed aside flood issues by saying they were the state and federal government's problem. But if the city were liable for property damage from a future flood, that thinking changes. Property damage from only one flood could easily bankrupt the city. AB 70 aside, would River Islands survive under other bills signed on Wednesday? Again, probably not. The cornerstone of this year's flood legislation is SB 5 by Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden). Among other things, the bill requires the state to prepare a Central Valley flood protection plan by 2012, and for cities and counties to incorporate the plan's data, policies and implementation measures into general plans and zoning ordinances by 2015. It's hard to imagine how a flood protection plan for the entire region — by which Lathrop would have to abide — could allow development on the River Islands tracts. The property is adjacent to a river that has a history of flooding, and lies upstream of the City of Stockton and on the edge of the Bay Delta. Yes, the developers could probably spend enough money on levees to protect their project from floodwaters. But that only sends floodwaters into Stockton and the fragile Delta more quickly — a prospect that a regionwide plan would likely discourage. Love it or hate it, River Islands is here to stay. The project actually has a pretty intriguing land use plan . But under the new rules approved by Schwarzenegger, the project is possibly the last of its kind. That was the point of the legislation. For a more complete rundown on the bills, check our recent story " Lawmakers Approve Flood Measures ." - Paul Shigley

There were lots of highlights, and some lowlights, at my first state planning conference. Here I list the best and the worst of my experience at the California Chapter, American Planning Association conference last week in San Jose. I'll let you decide which is a highlight and which is a lowlight. 1. Flew up Monday morning (October 1) after playing musical chairs to get a seat in Southwest Airline's "open seating." I was surprised the cab driver from the airport knew San Jose was the 10th largest city in the country. 2. Arrived just in time to sit down to a self-appreciating speech by Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. San Jose has made great strides to produce affordable units, but I didn't think his outfit was as great as he kept saying it was. 3. Went to "Successful Infill Projects – Past Present and Future," where William Anderson showed us a bunch of projects in San Diego. The city is going for a "City of Villages" strategy. He said wide sidewalks and lenient parking requirements are the keys to successful infill. Anderson cautioned that "right-size density" is important and that some projects with too much density have made them infeasible. A flourishing redevelopment district hinges upon the success of failure of the projects proposed. The City of Villages plan has been percolating for many years, as Bill Fulton's Insight column from 2002 suggests. 4. Meandered over to "'Ground-truthing' Smart Growth and New Urbanist Developments." I sat down in one of the only available seats in the front and thought I was in the wrong room for about ten minutes while I was lectured on permeable surface pavements. I finally noticed "Groundtruthing" was in quotes and this was basically another LEED workshop. Sarah Sutton of DC&E spoke inspiringly about green rooftops. She mentioned they're great for birds and butterflies and I started thinking about how green roofs wouldn't need to be mowed if there were deer on them. Go to stopwaste.org and follow the Bay Friendly Landscaping link to learn more about green roofs. 5. Who'd have thunk a workshop about parking would be the most entertaining of the conference. "Smart Parking for Smart Communities" opened with the most creative PowerPoint I've seen when Dr. Rick Willson of Cal Poly Pomona played the role of a disheveled car who is homeless and confused by new pushy regulations with "unbundling" and "peak demand." Distraught with the system, Dr. Willson, the car, went to his therapist to hear, "It's probably you." Then Dan Zack of Redwood City explained how he read Dr. Donald Shoup's book, The High Cost of Free Parking, and used it to model the city's downtown parking strategy. Patrick Kennedy, a well-known developer from Berkeley, later commented that Zack was the Tom Cruise of parking and that the Italians don't make very good parking lifts. Dr. Willson's "My Homeless Car" PowerPoint can be found at his website, http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/ and Redwood City's parking management plan can be found at http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Downtown%20Redwood%20City%20Parking%20Plan.pdf . Patrick Kennedy's website is www.panoramicinterests.com/index2.html . check out the ARTech Building with 21 apartments and only 17 parking spaces fitted with lifts. 6. The next workshop was "Implementing Infill Development: Moving Beyond CEQA." But the discussion never strayed too far from CEQA and EIRs. There was plenty of talk about statutes and tiering. The purveying message seemed to be that LEED certification should be enough to streamline infill projects, but I wondered about other important stuff like affordable housing and proximity to transit. 7. The next morning I attended "Smart Growth and the Workplace," an excellent tag-team presentation by Ellen Greenberg and Dena Belzer. California doesn't have the same traditional strong-centered metropolitan employment areas as the East Coast. So, in order to obtain the vibrant, dense transit corridors with a variety of services that serve as the template for great smart growth design, the West Coast needs to look beyond the "creative class" of the new economy and also target older industries and retail for smart growth clusters to be linked by transit. 8. Form-based codes seemed like a black-box to me so I decided to attend "Implementing Your Community's Vision with Form-Based Code." Daniel and Karen Parolek presented detailed descriptions of how form-based codes provide holistic and prescriptive regulations that can be used to streamline the approval process. Daniel said every time he looks at how specific districts plug into the city of Grass Valley's form-based code he finds something new. It made me wonder about unintended consequences and what affect form-based codes have on the "givings and takings" associated with zoning. Our own Bill Fulton followed with a witty synopsis of Ventura's implementation of the code for the downtown area. He said rather than dividing the entire city into transects, it is sometimes more efficient to implement the codes only in specific areas. For more on this visit formbasedcodes.org . Grass Valley's new code update is at http://www.cityofgrassvalley.com/services/departments/cdd/DEVELOPMENTCODE/GVDeveloCode041007_Article2.pdf . Ventura's downtown specific plan is at http://www.cityofventura.net/depts/comm_dev/downtownplan/pdfs/dtsp.pdf 9. My last workshop was El Toro/The Great Park: Setting New Standards in Sustainability. I learned that Lennar is the greatest sustainable developer ever, according to Bob Santos, president of Lennar. The park, as envisioned, does sound nice, with photovoltaic solar panels on every home and tentacle-like tracts of open space extending from the park into the town center. It sounds like Lennar is using the development as a guinea pig for integrating sustainability into all of its projects, but I bet new homes in Irvine have a lot more financial wiggle room than Lennar's eight new developments in Bakersfield have. 10. We left the conference a little early to check out Santana Row, a new urbanist development west of downtown. I was impressed and thought it superior to similar developments in Southern California, such as Valencia Town Center. But when we asked a policeman leaning against the wall at the entrance to the main drag if it was a public street, he replied it was not and that the Row has a contract with the police department. One of my counterparts commented the development was "fake" and I didn't believe her until then. Developments like the Row, while aesthetically pleasing, may not be the next best thing for California if they choose what diversity, if any, to permit walking on their streets. The Santana Row website http://www.santanarow.com/ describes the development in more detail, while CP&DR 's Morris Newman offered his take on Santana Row in a Places column four years ago. - Aaron Engstrom

The reactions to our latest downtowns list has been interesting — and telling, because they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of "placemaking." The strongest reactions concern our list of the most disappointing mid-sized city downtowns in California. First, let me say congratulations to the folks in San Bernardino and Redding. Although we still think those downtowns are awful, at least people in those cities reacted with "We've got great plans" (San Bernardino), or "It's better than it used to be" (Redding). When we named Fresno the worst big-city downtown in California earlier this year, we detected not a squeak of protest from anyone. In Chico, whose downtown we ranked third, we were heros, sort of. Check out the Dog's Breakfast blog and comments, and the Bullfight blog and comments. In Redding, the reaction was a bit different, as is evident in this Record Searchlight column and the comments. What's telling is that some people see our list as a ranking of "the city's" efforts — as in, the plans and execution of the people running City Hall. This is where the misunderstanding lies. The work of elected and appointed municipal officials is only one factor in the success or distress of a downtown. Planning, public investment and government leadership are important. But just as important are property owners who are willing to invest, developers with long-term vision, merchants who take a few chances, and hardworking community organizations that have their own pride of ownership. Without all of these pieces, a downtown will suffer to some extent, no matter how well City Hall is doing its job. And if you think we were hard on some cities, check out Sacramento Bee columnist Marcos Breton's Sunday piece on downtown Sacramento, which he calls a "caldron of neglect." Yes, Breton blames City Hall. But he also points the finger at slumlords and apathetic parents. - Paul Shigley

Norman Mineta, possibly the most important transportation policymaker of the last 20 years, closed the 2007 CCAPA Conference on Wednesday with a speech that was less than inspiring. Not that Mineta wasn't entertaining. He told a number of humorous and self-depreciating stories from his 40-year career in public service. But he was speaking to a group dedicated enough to stick around for the fourth and final day of a very full conference. I think they were counting on more from a guy who understands both politics and policy. Mineta was the mayor of San Jose before heading to Congress for more than 20 years. In the House, he was the lead author of the ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation that overhauled federal transportation programs and spending priorities. He was Commerce secretary during the last year of the Clinton Administration and then was the lone Democrat in the Bush cabinet, serving as Transportation secretary from 2001 to 2006. Fairly early in the 25-minute presentation, it appeared Mineta would talk about details. He clearly knew what the planners had been focused on for four days, and he contended that nothing has a greater impact on qualify of life than the ability to get from point A to point B. "You simply cannot have a conversation about transforming the urban fabric without discussing transportation," Mineta said. "Those areas with the strongest transportation systems will thrive the most." Mineta then candidly described President Bush's insistence that the 2005 transportation bill not include any gas tax increase. The president even scratched Mineta's plan for a CPI inflator that would not take effect until Bush was out of office. The former Transportation secretary did not criticize Bush directly but he did say, "Our current approach is broken." He said he we need more public-private partnerships and market-based initiatives — and leadership from groups like the American Planning Association. And that was about it. The audience asked no follow-up questions. A few final notes from the conference … Co-Chairs Juan Borrelli and Hing Wong announced that 1,800 people attended this year's conference, the most ever … … The final half-day of the conference was quite well-attended. In past years, the final session has drawn some embarrassingly small "crowds." This year, however, conference organizers cleverly saved the CEQA update panel for the final morning … … As usual, though, the room for the CEQA update was not large enough to accommodate everyone. It almost never is … … The feather boas handed out by one consulting firm were a bit hit. Twice, I found feathers floating around on Caltrain passenger cars in the evening … … The 2008 CCAPA conference is scheduled for September 21 through 24 at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel in, yes, Hollywood. - Paul Shigley

The tension between planners and engineers is well-known. Planners have little patience with their counterparts down the hall, and vice-versa. Both sides think the other side doesn't "get it." This tension was the subject of a panel presentation — "Putting Design in the Driver's Seat" — during Tuesday's CCAPA conference in San Jose. Essentially, the planners in the room blamed the engineers for creating ugly streets that carry lots of automobiles and discourage every other potential use of the right-of-way. And engineers, said one planner, are easy compared with fire chiefs who insist that every residential street must be 40 feet wide. But the real theme was that we all can get along if we're all just a little bit flexible, and don't consider guidelines to be mandatory standards. The panel members — Jeff Williams of DC&E, UC Berkeley Professor Elizabeth Macdonald and Christopher Ferrell of Dowling Associates — provided some great resources for planners. (You can find those online resources here .) One of the best resources, though, was the streets of downtown San Jose right outside the Fairmont Hotel. Numerous streets around the conference hotel serve automobiles, light rail and pedestrians quite well. Sycamores, redwoods, ficus and other trees provide shade and visual relief. Many sidewalks are wide enough for outdoor dining. The panel emphasized that the car should not control the landscape. And in downtown San Jose, it doesn't. Just ask all the planners walking around the Fairmont. - Paul Shigley

You can't turn around at this year's CCAPA conference in San Jose without hearing the terms LEED, sustainability, carbon footprint, greehouse gas emissions and zero waste. Forget about floor-area ratios, design review standards and conditional use permits. These people think land use planning can save the world. Clearly, land use planners have gotten the green religion. Every session — heck, every conversation in the hallway — seems to touch on global warming. Monday's sessions specifically on AB 32 (the greenhouse gas law) and climate change were overflowing. Even sessions on dense subjects such as indirect source review were well-attended. The big question for CCAPA attendees is how the need to address global climate change will affect their day-to-day practice vis-a-vis general plans, CEQA conformance and project review. The fear that Jerry Brown will sue every city and county over each and every general plan amendment that doesn't take climate change into account is one big factor. But it's not the only factor. Stuart Cohen, of Transportation and Land Use Collaborative and a member of the Governor's Climate Action Team, said the bigger quetions are about policy and technical work. What policies will emerge from implementation of AB 32? Will local governments be required to quantify emissions from new development projects? How do you compare emissions from different development scenarios? Cohen said the Climate Action Team will likely focus on three things: • Using better planning tools • Shifting money around to promote green goals • Requiring mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from new projects. All of this really comes down to increased air pollution regulation, which means, according to Joe DiStefano of Calthorpe Associates, more pressure to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from every project. And, as Walter Arenstein of Writrac Consulting pointed out, the science of measuring and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions has not advanced much in many years. Clearly, this is all headed toward a far greater emphasis on infill development, mixed-use, public transit and anything else that will decrease vehicle miles traveled. And that means it's going to be far more difficult for NIMBYs to defeat the six-story building proposed next to the local transit station. - Paul Shigley

Downtown San Jose sure has changed since the last time CCAPA was at the Fairmont. That was in 1989, when the Fairmont had just opened up. The idea of a fancy hotel in downtown San Jose – or a fancy anything, for that matter -- was kind of a new idea. Today, the Fairmont's practically a venerable institution compared to the newer cool things, like light-rail and high-density housing and the Adobe "vertical" campus and the excellent "urban interface" between downtown and San Jose State … The opening reception at the Tech Museum featured a lot of planners doing nerdy things (imagine!) like making little water turbines at the exhibits. CP&DR collected a few tidbits as well …. … Rick Willson reports that there's a proposal to eliminate the College of Environmental Design at Cal Poly Pomona (that's the college planning has been in forever) and merge it into a new school that includes agriculture and natural resources. They're not happy about this! … Bill Anderson, the San Diego city planning director, and Planning Commissioner Kathy Garcia report that the city's General Plan – still called "City of Villages" will come before the Planning Commission within a month. Anderson shocked everybody by leaving Economic Research Associates after 23 years to become the planning director, but he seems to be thriving; Bill now oversees planning, economic development, redevelopment, facilities finance, and urban design… Well, it wasn't o ur fault: As the city's redevelopment manager, Shawn Tillman was always downtown Redding's biggest booster. CP&DR , of course, recently rated Redding as having one of California's worst downtowns . But Shawn says he moved on to the City of Chico to be in charge of neighborhood planning three months ago – before we came out with our ratings … And appropriately enough – especially considering yesterday's blog on Warren Jones – a number of California's most distinguished planners adjourned from the Tech Museum last night for their first annual Dan Curtin Memorial Dinner. Everyone in San Jose this week misses Dan … Hands-down best "after-party" last night was the Civic Solutions casino night at The Montgomery – which included not just blackjack but also some pretty ferocious bocce ball … Receptions we've heard about … Tonight * Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Paragon Restaurant, 5 pm (BEFORE CPF Auction) * DC&E party, The Loft Bar & Bistro, 90 S. 2nd St., 8-11 pm (AFTER CPF Auction) Tuesday night • Call Poly Pomona, Atherton Room at the Fairmont, 8 pm If we hear about more we'll keep you posted.

Fittingly enough, the memorial service for Warren Jones – the founder of Solano Press Books, who died back in May – took place yesterday, on the eve of the annual conference of the California Chapter, American Planning Association, in San Jose. Like most conferences, CCAPA is all about exchanging information – practice tips, job leads, business cards. And Warren devoted most of his career to making sure that planners in California had access to the information they needed. Warren's memorial service wasn't conducted here in San Jose, where the CCAPA conference is being held. Rather, the memorial service took place four hours to the north in the tiny Mendocino County town of Point Arena, where for the past 19 years Warren had lived his life, served his community, and – improbably enough – operated one of the most important institutions in California planning. The memorial service was held at the Point Arena Community Library, which, as anybody who knew Warren could readily guess, would not have existed without his organizational know-how and financial support. Most of the attendees and speakers were Point Arena locals, who clearly loved the fact that this kindly curmudgeon had made the city his home for so long. Among other things, they wouldn't have had a general plan of any substance if he hadn't volunteered his time to write one almost as soon as he move there from Berkeley. But for those of us in the planning profession, Warren Jones's legacy is much broader. Warren founded Solano Press in 1985, and since then the company has published more than two dozen books – almost all of them geared to assist the planning practitioner in California. These books include Guide to California Planning , written by Paul Shigley and me, as well as such classics as Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law, by Dan Curtin, and a series of NEPA and CEQA books written by the likes of Ron Bass, Al Herson, and Ken Bogden. When you asked Warren how he had come to found Solano Press, he would claim that it was kind of a fluke. The truth was, it was the culmination of his life's work. Born in 1929, Warren came of age in an era when information was plentiful but difficult and expensive to obtain. The knowledge planners needed was available not online but in print – on planning department bookshelves, in libraries, and, most importantly, inside the heads of the state's leading land-use lawyers and planning practitioners. Warren spent the majority of his working life making sure that useful, easy-to-use practice information was available to practitioners at a low cost. In 1972, as an adjunct professor at the Department of City & Regional Planning at UC Berkeley, he was appointed to run the planning school's continuing education programs. In that capacity, he essentially invented the now-familiar UC Extension land use course – the pithy and informative half-day or full-day class. And it wasn't long before the impresario found his first star – Dan Curtin , then the city attorney of Walnut Creek, whose basic land-use law seminar quickly became the staple of the UC Extension circuit. The thick binder from Curtin's class soon became one of the most sought-after commodities in the world of California planning, and after a few years Jones and Curtin realized that it had market value. So Warren started Solano Press Books for the express purpose of publishing Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law , which is still a best-seller after 27 years. Over the years, Warren found many other authors and nurtured many other excellent practice books. In 1987, Warren traveled to Ventura expressly to ask me to write Guide to California Planning – a book he had always wanted to write himself but, as he aged, realized that he never would. Always quick to seize a market opportunity, I turned him down – and then, two years later, begged him to let me write it. The recent passing of both Warren and Dan Curtin – there were four years difference in age between them and they died five months apart – is a sober reminder that a seminal generation of California planners is moving on. These are the unsung heroes from the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, who brought planning from the dark ages into the modern world of the seven-element General Plan and CEQA. But it's also a reminder of how different the world of information is today. For those of us who deal in that business today, the problem is not that information is inaccessible or expensive, as it was in Warren's day. Rather, the problem is the opposite – it's ubiquitous and free. So the key is no longer delivering pithy information; it's sifting through all the chaff out there on the internet to find what's golden. It's a challenge that Warren Jones himself would have loved to tackle. -- Bill Fulton

Regional planning strategies are not necessarily compatible with local desires, especially when satisfying regional needs means putting a bunch more cars on already overburdened streets. This is a common story in California's urban regions, and it is playing out right now in San Pedro, where developer Bob Bisno has proposed a 1,950-unit housing development on 61.5 acres along South Western Avenue formerly owned by the Navy. A 13-member community advisory committee to Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn rejected the project primarily because of traffic impacts. "At this point, I am in agreement with my advisory committee," Hahn said. "Traffic is just too much of a problem on Western Avenue and the project built on this site should not be any denser than its current R-1 zoning." But keeping the residential single-family zoning, which would permit in the range of 525 to 725 houses, is unrealistic and a wasted opportunity, according to the developer. Plus, a traffic analysis says that a single-family development would put just as many cars on Western Avenue at peak hours as the proposed multi-family project, known as Ponte Vista, of which 44% would be restricted to senior citizens. "I don't think anyone seriously believes this should be developed with 5,000-square-foot, single-family lots. Nobody is developing that in the region," said Alan Abshez, Ponte Vista's land use attorney. The site is located about 2 1/2 miles north of downtown San Pedro, and less than two miles from the Port of Los Angeles. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes lies across Western Avenue. For nearly four decades, the site provided housing for Navy personnel stationed at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The shipyard and the housing closed in 1999 and, ultimately, the Navy auctioned the property. Bisno Development Co. acquired 42 acres for $88 million and later bought the remaining 19.5 acres from Volunteers of America, a homeless advocacy group, for $34 million. The property has been zoned for low-density residential development since the City of Los Angeles annexed it in 1980. Bisno originally proposed 2,300 townhouses and condominiums in four- to six-story buildings, with one-quarter of the units located in a gated community for senior citizens. Also proposed were about 10,000 square feet of retail uses, a community clubhouse and 11 acres of parks. "The concept is to provide a resort-like community in which people of different income levels can enjoy the amenities," Abshez explained. "We wanted to have a project that would service several market segments — seniors, entry-level buyers, move-up buyers." "It's an incredible infill opportunity site in every sense of the term," Abshez continued. "It's located next to the region's largest employment source — the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach." No one disputes that the demand is enormous because housing development has not kept pace with the explosion in employment in and around the country's busiest port complex. "Virtually no new housing has been built in that area of the City of Los Angeles in the last 20 to 30 years," Abshez said. The response during nearly a year's worth of Hahn's community advisory council (CAC) meetings was mixed, but concerns about density and traffic were too hard to ignore. In June, Bisno downsized the project to 1,950 units in buildings of no more than four stories. There would be 850 senior condos in a gated community, 1,000 townhouse-style condos and 100 upper-end, attached, three-story townhouses. The developer also agreed provide 20% of the units (370 units) at or below the "workforce" pricing level, which Abshez estimated at about $460,000. The developer would pay extensive fees to improve traffic on Western Avenue, with the bulk of the money going for expansion of and improvements to a signal automation system that adjusts based on traffic conditions. But the CAC questioned the traffic figures from the city and Bisno's consultant, as well as the practicality of a signal automation project that requires better coordination among Los Angeles, Rancho Palos Verdes and Caltrans simply to meet current demands. The CAC expressed extreme frustration with the city, which members said failed to provide needed information "and left the CAC rudderless in a process that very much needed good direction." By a vote of 10-1, the CAC rejected the revised project, and by a vote of 8-4, the committee recommended keeping existing single-family zoning. Committee members said they appreciated the need for new housing and supported infill policies, but insisted that multi-family projects such as Ponte Vista belong near public transit centers, not along a gridlocked arterial that has only routine bus service. They cited recently adopted city Planning Department guidelines that urge "additional density at train and rapid bus stops, and discourage new density where we anticipate no mass transit relief." However, a five-member CAC minority urged Bisno, Hahn and city planners to negotiate on a new mixed-use, multi-family project. "In short, by failing to suggest a reasonable compromise, we are missing an opportunity to improve traffic on Western Avenue and to provide needed housing for people to come to or remain in San Pedro," the minority group wrote. "Opportunities such as this are unlikely to present themselves again." Indeed, 61.5-acre infill sites that have virtually no environmental hazards are extremely rare in metropolitan Los Angeles, which explains why a developer was willing to pay nearly $1.5 million an acre for unentitled dirt. The San Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce is among the organizations that has endorsed the project because of its positive impact on local goods and services providers, and because of its mix of housing types. And the project won an endorsement from the Southern California Association of Governments, whose regional planning urges infill. Hahn, however, appears ready to accept the CAC's recommendations. "There is no doubt that Los Angeles is facing a housing shortage, which is why I have been so supportive of new housing in downtown San Pedro, where we have the public transportation and roads to support it. But increased density at the Ponte Vista site is clearly just the wrong fit for San Pedro," she said. Public hearings on Bisno's request for a general plan amendment, zoning change, specific plan, development agreement and tract map are scheduled to begin about the first of the year. One complicating factor is the Los Angeles Unified School District's proposal, still under consideration, to take about eight acres of the site for a small high school. Contacts: Alan Abshez, Ponte Vista, (310) 203-7573. Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn, (213) 473-7015. Ponte Vista website: www.pontevista.com Citizens Advisory Council report: www.nwsanpedro.org/pdfs/pontevistaCACreport%20final.pdf