Among the many counterintuitive theories that Jane Jacobs dispensed was that of the evils of parks: if designed and situated poorly, they could turn into vast dead spaces where unsavory characters could congregate and mischief could ensure. She preferred, instead, smaller, more intimate spaces with close connections to their communities.  If Jacobs loved Washington Square Park, then she most likely would have swooned over "parklets."  Arguably the most adorable urban space to come along in a long time, parklets are to Golden Gate and Griffith parks what amoebas are to elephants. They are multiplying, not by mitosis but by entrepreneurship, all over San Francisco--with Oakland, Long Beach, and other cities in California and elsewhere showing interest in the notion that parking spaces aren't just for cars anymore. The typical parklet consists of a platform that occupies between two or three curbside parking spaces. Typically made of wood and stylistically reminiscent of Scandinavian saunas, platforms sit flush with the sidewalk and usually includes seating and sometimes greenery.  Parklets thus serve as outdoor rooms where passers-by can linger without contending with vehicles or pedestrian through-traffic. Parklets can also serve as outdoor dining areas for cafes and even landscaping features to introduce greenery into a streetscape.  "Along any commercial corridor in San Francisco--probably in most places--people like to be outside, and they like to people-watch," said Andres Power, the director of the Pavement to Parks program at the San Francisco Planning Department. "It's part of what makes us humans, so sort of a no-brainer." Enthusiasm for parklets arguably has grown out of National Park(ing) Day, an annual event in which artists and urbanists take over parking spaces temporarily and replace them with art projects and other public amenities. Sponsored by the San Francisco design collective Rebar, National Park(ing) Day has grown to include thousands of sites in dozens of cities across the country.  Parklets, however, are intended to be permanent fixtures in the urban landscape. As a relatively novel typology, parklets have prompted the San Francisco Planning Department to come up with regulations and procedures for issuing permits in relatively short order.  The promotion of parklets is, according to some, a way for cities to atone for past offenses against the public realm.  "We take out seating, we take out benches, we take out any amenity that would give people a reason to be there," said Blaine Merker, principal at Rebar. "That's sort of a bigger issue that Americans need to figure out and you see it in microcosm in parklets."  "They've sparked people's imagination about--how they can be a part of shaping the public realm," said Ethan Kent, vice president at the New York-based advocacy group Project for Public Spaces. Under Power's direction, San Francisco's parklets program began with a pilot project established in front of the Mojo Bicycle Cafe on Divisidero Street in 2009. Since then, at least six more trial projects have been built. Power said he received 25 applications for his first round of parklet permitting and nearly 50 applications for the permitting round that closed June 16.  So far in San Francisco, supporters of this sort of urban acupuncture have been plentiful and enthusiastic--to degrees nearly unheard-of in urban planning.  "Generally, the program has been as universally accepted as a program can be in San Francisco," said Power. "We had very strong support from the top, all the way up to the mayor.  The challenge was not 'should we do this' but, 'we are doing this; let's make it work as well as possible.'" Though the city has to issue permits for parklets, much as they would for other private uses of public space, such as sidewalk cafes or farmers markets, no public money goes into them in San Francisco. Parklets are constructed by "sponsors," which are usually individual businesses or collections of businesses that believe that they will enhance the public realm and even attract customers. For restaurants, a parklet can be a whole new dining room.  "I feel very strongly about providing residents of the city with more open spaces," said Hanna Suleiman, owner of North Beach's Caffe Greco and sponsor of an early parklet. "The parklet itself was greeted extremely warmly by almost every customer I have."  Access to parklets cannot, however, be limited to customers. The city and other supporters are adamant that any parklet--no matter how expensive and how closely connected to a business--must remain part of the public realm and open to all passers-by. Parklets in San Francisco are required to include signage to that effect. "It needs to be legible as a public space and inviting," said Hodge.  There are enough potential sponsors such as Suleiman that, supporters say, the City of San Francisco and its dozens of distinct retail neighborhoods can accommodate a nearly limitless number of parklets.  "The concept of a parklet is universal--it can work anywhere," said Power. "As long as you design for that constituency, the spaces are successful." In his effort to help parklets spread across the city, Power has coordinated a permitting process that, in San Francisco, as in many other cities, might fall through the bureaucratic cracks. Because they are located in the public right of way, parklets can fall under the jurisdiction of departments such as planning, public works, transportation and others and thus require strong political support to encourage departments to work together.  Power said that his main goal has been to establish a permitting process that is inexpensive and specific, so that applicants are well aware of their responsibilities as sponsors to ensure that parklets are well maintained and accessible. As well, in order to achieve an acceptable levels of aesthetics, Power said that applicants must also adhere to a fairly rigid set of design guidelines in part so that he and his staff do not have to spend time parsing sloppy applications. Sponsors are also required to hold a minimum of $1 million worth of liability insurance; however, Power said that parklets are covered by most restaurants' and merchants' existing policies.   Startup costs for a parklet include fees of nearly $1,000 to apply and have a site inspection, plus $650 for the removal of parking two meters and a $221 annual fee.  Kit Hodge, deputy director at the San Francisco Bike Coalition, said that the most successful parklets are those that gather strong neighborhood support even before a formal application is filed with the city. The Bike Coalition has been actively promoting parklets and, Hodge said, has been helping some sponsors with their outreach programs.  Sponsors are responsible for gathering public support and ensuring that a proposed parklet fits with neighborhood character. In fact, said Power, reaching out to neighbors is a non-negotiable requirement for city approval.  "It's important to create these things in ways that reflect the locals and helps preserve the identity of the neighborhood," said Kent.  Power said that sponsors must demonstrate neighborhood support before they for a permit. The city will hold public hearings if a proposal generates opposition, but Hodge said that very few have gone to a hearing.   Although parklets consume valuable urban parking spaces--often in neighborhoods where street parking is scarce, Power said that the whole point of parklets is to capitalize on existing patterns of pedestrian traffic and thus are considered unobtrusive.    "One of the saving graces of this program....it's the businesses that are clamoring for this most," said Power. "There's a nexus that helps us move beyond the concern over parking loss."  A basic parklet might simply be a wooden platform of 20 feet by 6 feet (the dimensions of two standard parking spaces), but so far architects and designers have found little end to the possibilities that they present. Designs include everything from bare platforms on which merchants have placed tables and benches to swooping topographical features and benches integrated into the structures themselves.   Other features include railings, planters, stand-up bistro tables, raised platforms, bike racks, and decorative bollards.  "They look relatively straightforward but a lot of thought has gone into how to use every inch of that space," said Blaine Merker, principal at the design and art collective Rebar, which has promoted and designed several parklets. "It's tight real estate."  While a parklet might cost less than, for instance, an addition to a cafe dining room, they do not necessarily come cheaply. Power estimates that the design, construction, and planning for a basic 120-square-foot parklet costs between $5,000 and $10,000, plus upkeep, per parking space. Merker said that cost compared favorably with the $2 million per block that a recent upgrade of Valencia Street cost.  "That was a lot investment for a 2-foot change in the curb line," aid Merker. "(Parklets are) an opportunity to test out in prototype new kinds of public spaces before we commit in bricks and mortar." Despite architects' and sponsors' enthusiasm for parklets, their economic impacts are as yet undetermined. Power's office conducted a small survey to study the impacts of the initial Divisadero Street parklet and found modest gains in pedestrian activity on the block around the Mojo Cafe and a stronger sense of "community character." The survey found, however, that local businesses did not necessarily attract more customers.  But warm feelings for parklets may transcend cost-benefit analyses.  "Am I making a lot more money with it?  I don't think I am," said Suleiman, of Caffe Greco. "But it creates ambiance and aesthetically improves the look of the neighborhood." Whether parklets stoke business or end up being expensive planters for the sponsoring businesses, the general public in San Francisco has, according to Power and others, embraced parklets wholeheartedly.  "Compared to a lot of other new infrastructure ideas, these have had very little public opposition," said Hodge, of the Bike Coalition. Power said that some neighbors have raised concerns over lost parking, and Hodge noted that many residents simply do not understand what parklets are. Power admitted that parklets could attract loitering and homeless. However, he said that parklets also provide exactly the sort of vibrancy and street life that tends to ward off unsavory activities.  "It has built-in eyes on the street," said Power. "Because the funding entity has invested some capital in building the project--there's a vested interest in ensuring that the space is used appropriately." The only problem, according to Merker, is that because of the need for private funding, certain places might get too much of a good thing.   "I worry about a two-tiered system of public space development where the nicest public spaces are out in front of the merchants who can afford to pay for them," said Merker. "I'd love to see a scholarship fund, for maybe a mom and pop who don't have money for improving the public realm." Many of those cities are now catching on to parklets as well. Merker and Power both said that they have received inquiries from cities across the country to inquire about setting up parklet programs. Whether parklets can survive outside their native San Francisco habitat, remains to be seen. In fact, options in other cities might be limited than they are in San Francisco's famously vibrant streets and distinctive neighborhoods.  "(Parklets) do happen to be in neighborhoods that have businesses and pedestrian traffic and retail that can benefit from it," said Kent.  The City of Oakland's planning department is working towards a formal pilot program that could launch this year. Oakland Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning Eric Angstadt said that planners in Oakland are enthusiastic about parklets but that, as elsewhere, the Planning Department alone cannot singlehandedly authorize their construction.  "It's one of those newer ideas that doesn't stick conveniently in any one department necessarily," said Angstadt. However, Angstadt noted that parklets naturally fall under the purview of planning because "they tend to grow out of more planning-focus things like streetscapes and transportation demand management programs, and alternative parking strategies." As well, the city's well known financial crisis has forced Angstadt's team to consider lost revenue at parking spaces that might be commandeered for parklets.  "With the city's budget the way it is, it has to be revenue-neutral," said Angstadt. He suggested that the issuance of permits for parklets could be contingent upon sponsors' identifying new spaces for paid parking to offset lost revenue.  David White, redevelopment project officer with the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, said that he would like to help bring parklets to Long Beach but that that he is concerned about identifying appropriate funding schemes.  White said that private funding "would be outstanding," especially given the precarious nature of redevelopment agencies in California, and suggested that business improvement districts, which pool funds from businesses, might be ideal sponsors for parklets.  For all the money and planning that can go into a parklet, even their supporters say that they will be truly successful only when they are torn down--in favor of something more lasting. For Power, parklets are one step towards encouraging public bureaucracies to invest in the pedestrian realm.  "Parklets really (make cities) think about things in a more pragmatic way to think about change on the street as being a good thing, to think about temporary uses as being a good thing," said Power. "That is not endemic to the bureaucracies of the typical American city." Merker said that cities' embrace of parklets should, ultimately, lead to investments that will make parklets obsolete.  "These are not a permanent solution," said Merker. "We still need to make really good permanent public spaces."  Contacts & Resources San Francisco Pavement to Parks Program  Eric Angstadt,Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning, Oakland Planning Department, 510.238.6190 Kit Hodge, Deputy Director, San Francisco Bike Coalition 415.431.BIKE  Ethan Kent, Vice President, Project for Public Spaces, 212.620.5660 Blaine Merker, Principal, Rebar holler@rebar.org  Andres Power, Project Manager, Pavement To Parks, S.F. Planning Department, 415.558.6378  David White, Redevelopment Project Officer, Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, 562.570.6615 Photos courtesy of Rebar and S.F. Bike Coalition, via Pavement to Parks.

For the most part, public transportation in American cities has all the sex appeal of a hearse.  Elsewhere, London's Tube has its emblems and quaint slogans. The old trolleys of Lisbon climb twisting hills on tiny wheels, like elephant ballerinas. Lord Foster's glass tubes lead to the metro in Bilbao. Prague, Riga, Amsterdam, and countless other cities have streetcars that wend slowly over cobblestones. Don't get me started on Hong Kong's double-deckers .  Paris' Art Nouveau signage allows you to dream that Toulouse-Lautrec might get on at the next stop and start sketching. Back in this century, Shanghai's maglev covers 18 miles in 7 minutes. On our side of the ocean, reluctant huddled masses do their best to keep their distance while diesels plow past strip malls and deposit their charges beneath freeway overpasses. Is this any way to live?  The Los Angeles Chapter of the American Institute of Architects seems to think not.  This Friday the chapter is sponsoring a design symposium, affiliated with Dwell on Design, called "The Architecture of Transportation," which intends to discuss the aesthetic opportunities behind all the busways, light rail lines, streetcars, and subways that California cities are intending to install. Bear in mind that with Senate Bill 375, peak oil, and glacial traffic, cities have little choice but to build mass transit. The architects' implicit question is not whether it will be fast enough (depends on the mode), or cost-effective enough (don't count on it), but, rather, whether it will be sexy enough.  That too is an important question.  The architects have offered a single image that conveys just about all you need to know about what public transit could be, if policy makers and transit planners were to let passions run wild. The conference's poster--notably arresting than that of the average land-use event--depicts a tantalizing scene: A briefcase-laden Don Draper-esque gentleman passes by a woman as they walk in opposite directions across a downtown street. She appears younger and is perhaps going to yoga. These two caricatures are frozen between two sets of train tracks, her lead foot stepping over the rail. Their eyes are obscured, but it's nice to think that they might trade glances. In the background, lit by an undefined, but blazing, source of mid-evening light, cyclists and other pedestrians make their way to bars, restaurants, trysts, and homes. The streetcar that dropped off all of them has headed up the hill out of sight, but another is on its way.  If Mr. Draper (or, better yet, someone like him -- but younger and unmarried) and that coed were to yield to their urgets and embrace mid-street, as if the war had just ended, they could do so. Why? Because no cars are coming to run them over.  It's a fanciful, but deliberate, suggestion that American cities are such passionless places because Americans' cars make it so (the image is by the photographer Mugley and comes from a Wired article ). There is no flirting between windshields. No accidental touches through driver-side windows. No taking refuge from the rain under awnings when drivers are already sealed up. Even for those who do take transit, there are too few makeout sessions as the El reaches the end of the line. The French aren't more romantic than Americans; they just have more opportunities.  Perhaps "sexiness" is a little too vague to form the basis of public policy (and, yes, there may be more pressing matters). I would certainly hate to try to quantify it or do a cost-benefit analysis. But "community," which features prominently in the symposium's panels, may be a reasonable approximation for sexiness. The point is that, as everyone from Jane Jacobs to Ed Glaeser to anyone else with common sense has told us, spontaneous, genuine interactions between people -- not cars -- can lead to both happiness and prosperity. We just need places where those interactions can take place and transportation to get us there in the first place.  So there's another reason for cities to get people out of their cars and instead seduce them on to the train, the bus, and the street. If not, cities themselves may end up in the morgue.

The budget negotiations in Sacramento took a dramatic turn last Friday when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the Democrat-led budget that had been sent to him less than 24 hours before. Though it sends the parties back to the drawing board, the veto did not directly affect the so-called "two-bill" strategy that threatens to do away with, or possibly impoverish, many of the state's redevelopment agencies. Two pairs of identical budget bills are under consideration in both houses of the Legislature. The first bill would eliminate redevelopment agencies while the second bill would spare them in exchange for voluntary payments to the state, totaling $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2011-12 and $400 million in 2012-13. The California Redevelopment Association analysis of AB1 27x, the Assembly version of the bill regarding voluntary payments, has estimated the burden on each of the state's nearly 400 redevelopment agencies.  Agencies that wish to stay alive will have to write some fairly large checks relative to their total tax increment revenues. Calculated by the research organization Time Structures, Inc., CRA's estimates are based on agencies' 2008-09 revenues. As described in AB1 27x, the estimated 2011-12 payments are based roughly on agencies' respective percentage shares of statewide gross tax increments, multiplied by $1.7 billion and $400 billion.  To cover the 2011-12 payment, the Los Angeles Community Redevlopment Agency--representing roughly 5% of statewide tax increment revenues--would have to pay over $97 million of its $265 million revenues in 2008-09. San Diego's redevelopemnt agencies would pay a total of $69 million. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency would pay roughly $47 million, while San Francisco would pay just under $25 million. For 2012-2013, those numbers drop by roughly a factor of four.  CRA has posted two spreadsheets calculating every agency's transfer payments for FY2011-12 <.xls> and FY2012-13 <.xls> . CRA notes that these figures are not official and are intended to be used only to guide agencies' planning processes.  CRA and other opponents contend that, despite its the voluntary nature, the two-bill strategy violates Proposition 22's prohibition against the transfer of local redevelopment funds to the state.

As one of the most prominent organizations lobbying on environmental and land use issues in Sacramento, the Planning and Conservation League has led campaigns on everything from global warming to public health to local dam removal. Its history includes the promotion of such landmark measures as the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Act, and Prop 12, the 2000 Parks Bond measure. Now in its 46th year, PCL is welcoming new leadership. Just this month, veteran attorney and environmental activist Bruce Reznik was installed as the new executive director for PCL and its sister organization, the PCL Foundation. Reznik arrives in Sacramento after serving for more than ten years as the executive director of Coastkeeper, a leading clean water advocacy group in the San Diego Region. Reznik spoke with CP&DR about his goals for PCL and his approach to the state's most pressing land use issues. What are your immediate and medium-term goals for PCL?  I'm getting to know the organization and the staff and undertaking a strategic planning process with the board.  At this point we're still trying to figure out exactly that question of where we want to get engaged. First and foremost, we've had a very accomplished water program, and that's something that's heavily in my background.  I expect that to continue to be a big part of our work plan.  That includes work that we're doing on the Delta and on statewide water policy relating to water transfers, dam removals, promotion water recycling, indirect potable re-use.  We were one of the first groups to propose smaller alternatives for the Delta – a tunnel rather that the canal – and that's been picked up at least as an option by the governor's office. I'd also like to broaden some of our focus on conservation and efficiency. I can imagine a a loading order where conservation and efficiency should be at the top and then harvesting and reclamation are down the line. Having spent a good amount of time in the environmental world, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that it's very hard to separate issues. But I recognize that, counter to that, it's very easy for organizations to take on too many things and be a mile wide and inch deep.  If you're working on water policy you have to understand the linkage between land use planning and how that affects water quality. So I'd like to get engaged in broader energy policy, but we have to figure out if we have the resources and staff to do that. we have to make sure we're not spreading ourselves too thin. A little bit thin, I think, is good; too thin is not so good. Would that depend on internal reorganization, or more of defining the goals really clearly?  It really is both. PCL hasn't, I don't think, had a great strategic plan for a while. It was undertaking a strategic planning process at the same time they were doing a search for a new executive director. What it means is that I'm coming in and we don't yet have those specific outcomes that we want to achieve.  Part of my priority is figuring out what we have the staffing for and how we can reorganize to be more efficient. PCL, like most groups, has seen its staff shrink and has taken the same hits that everyone else in the nonprofit world has taken. So I don't think it's as simple as a reorganization; we have to rebuild now that the economy is bouncing back a little bit.  We have to bring in some additional resources and expertise and lay out a plan.  Funders want to know what you want to get accomplished. How does PCL hope to capitalize on SB 375, and what challenges does SB 375 pose for the state as a whole?  I want to look at how SB 375 actually hits on the ground and how we do a better job of integrating our transportation and land use planning and even economic development and job creation. SB 375 was not without controversy. Within PCL and within the entire environmental community there are folks who wanted it stronger and people who think it went too far.  My personal take on 375, which is not necessarily the take of PCL, is that 375 was transformative in saying, "OK, we're going to start thinking about these things in a creative fashion." That seems very common sense, but frankly it was not often done in the past.  We have to credit SB 375 for forcing folks to look at things differently, to connect the dots, and realize that all these issues are connected. But, the devil is really in the details. There aren't real teeth in SB 375. You can tell agencies to do a better job coordinating, but they're separate agencies. SCS's don't force agencies to actually integrate the policy. Now that SB 375 is the law of the land, it's up to PCL and other groups to make sure that it is in fact the transformative law that we hope it will be. So far the only one I've reviewed in terms of SCS is the San Diego plan.  I don't think it hits the mark at all.  It's kind of funny because I know the San Diego plan is heralded as first out of the gate and a good model. (See lead story, Page 1.) Here's the difficulty with getting any new law off the ground: you've got this interesting balancing game.  Everyone wants 375 to succeed. (Sen. Darrel) Steinberg and the Legislature and the environmental groups want to see the momentum and see the first one be successful. The problem is you can't lower the bar so much that anything looks like success. Frankly, that's my take on the San Diego plan. It's a lot of paperwork, it looks glossy, it looks nice, but in the end there's nothing in that plan that shows to me that they get what SB 375 is trying to do: promoting job growth, linking communities, investing in the urban core, not promoting more sprawl. It is incumbent now that we have 375 not to pat ourselves on the back. In fact. I think our workload is even greater.  Now we have the opportunity to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm not trying to be critical. I think it's transformative, but only if we make it work. How do you build those coalitions and what role will PCL play?  Working with the local groups is one of my other areas of focus at PCL. I want to reintegrate the "L" part of PCL – the "league" part – which is working more closely and collaboratively with local groups on the ground.  I come from a locally based grassroots organization that is based on a lot of locals being connected. I think PCL has that opportunity to work with those groups to make sure that the promise of 375 is realized in the actual Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies. How hard will that be given that there are countless groups across the state, whereas SB 375 sees the state at a macro level?  Coalition-building and community empowerment are always very, very difficult.  It's a time-consuming, grueling slog through the mud.  But I also think it's crucial. One of my complaints about the environmental community is that we're often disconnected and at odds.  Many are really focused on the grassroots, community aspects. Then we have regional or national groups that work more within the power structure and halls of government and all those policy arenas. We're never going to be as strong as we can, and should, be until we're actually communicating, collaborating, connecting so that what's happening at the community level is also happening in the halls of power, like at the State Legislature and then at all these agencies like SANDAG and CARB and the Water Board. I have no illusions about how difficult that is; it's not like there aren't already groups working in this arena. But because of PCL's long history and its origins as a collaborative effort, I think we're well positioned to be a leader in trying to connect those different aspects of the environmental community.  Grassroots can only do so much of our laws are getting gutted in Sacramento and DC. Speaking of laws that some people would like to gut, how will you approach CEQA?  I'm a big CEQA fan. I'm not a strict constructionist in anything.  I certainly think laws should be evaluated to figure out what works well, what can be strengthened, and what are some of the unintended consequences and intended consequences.  I don't have a problem looking at CEQA and figuring out where we should be.  That being said, I certainly don't think we should be folding up the tent and looking at wholesale weakening of CEQA. We should get back to looking at the original goals of CEQA: informed decision-making and making sure the communities have a meaningful say in decisions that impact them. We should be looking at CEQA to see where those aims are being met and where they are not.  If we are going to reform CEQA, it should be to those goals. I know everybody talks about "CEQA is a job-killer."  I don't agree with that.  CEQA has played a critical role in the way we have developed the state.  Even with CEQA a lot of really dumb projects get built.  I think we should step back and think about what our vision for California is. I know everyone loves to talk about the "triple-bottom line": ecology, economy, equity, or whatever you want to call it. My issue with the triple-bottom line, even though I like those aims, when people often talk about it as tension between those three areas that need to be somehow addressed. I don't buy that.  I think that what's good for the economy 100% of the time is good for the environment and communities and vice-versa. For instance, in California we use 140 gallons of water per day; much of the world uses 40-50.  If we get really serious we're going to be putting people to work installing rainwater harvesting, installing greywater systems and smart meters, and changing landscapes and putting people back to work. And we're not going to be relying on one massive pipeline that sucks up 5% of the state's energy that's just going to be more and more expensive. Speaking more personally, a lot of folks say we can certainly look to reform CEQA in ways that will promote good projects. That sounds really good. Certainly, we all like solar, we all like rainwater harvesting—so we can waive CEQA, right? My problem with that is that you either believe in those goals of informed decision-making or you don't.  I think we set ourselves up if we are the police of all that is good, as if "we know that solar is good, so we can waive CEQA for solar." Are we that smart to know everything in advance?  Do we know if exempting industrial solar, or desalination, from CEQA review is the right way to go? Should we do whatever we can to promote distributed generation of energy and local sustainable water supply strategies? Absolutely.  I think we need to figure out how to do that without undermining those aims of CEQA. What's your take on the $40 billion question of high speed rail?  That is one of our bills—the Lowenthal bill--which is about reforming the HSR Authority. In general, because we haven't gone through a lot of our strategic planning, I'm sort of speaking for myself: I am a fan of high speed rail.  I think it is important for California. I think it can offer a tremendous amount of benefits for the state, environmentally and for job creation and all that. But the devil's in the details. So far we haven't seen the High Speed Rail Authority working all that effectively. Our bill is looking to reform the authority to get more expertise on and less political appointments. Other folks want to see it absorbed into Caltrans, and we're still figuring out those fixes. We have to figure out how the governance of that project is going to be more accountable.  Obviously the devil's in the details of how it goes and where it goes. We have to be above the fray and push for what's the best project for the environment.  Whatever you do, you're not going to make everyone happy. There's going to be impacts. I want to be the group basing our decisions on sound science and sound policy principles, pushing it where it should go best. The other thing is the balance of how high speed rail meshes with more localized transit, particularly in our urban cores. We still need to figure out how compatible those goals are.  Is high speed rail going to suck all the energy out of the room and suck energy away from more urban-core transit strategies? Or are there opportunities to leverage resources working on projects that could serve both needs. In previous years PCL has pushed a lot of bond measures. Do you want to pursue that strategy as well?  That's something we need to look at.  I think the bond measures were critically important for the time that they were passed.  Gerry Meral, who was leading PCL for most, if not all of the bond measures, deserves tremendous accolades for getting those pushed through for continuing to raise consciousness. I don't know that that's something that will be a major area of focus.  I have mixed feelings about the initiative system as a whole. I'm a little more representative democracy kind of guy. I'm a big believer of campaign finance reform and holding our elected officials accountable.  I think it makes it very challenging when you try to merge a representative democracy with a direct democracy. You elect folks, but often their hands get tied. I'd like to see us focusing more on accountability of elected officials. That being said, the reason that initiatives have been passed is we don't always get that accountability and we are left with the system we have.  Sometimes that's the only thing that's left to actually push the policy, like the Coastal Act and some of the parks and water bonds that PCL has been so involved in. I'd like to focus more on the legislature and push good legislation. This interview has been edited and condensed. Photo courtesy of  9mphoto.com .

Update: Late this morning, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the budget package that the Legislature sent him yesterday. Brown said that the budget was imbalanced and that the legislation "contains legally questionable maneuvers, costly borrowing and unrealistic savings." Brown reportedly wants to hold out and force a popular vote on tax extensions that he considers critical to overcoming the state's remaining multi-billion dollar deficit. He did not mention redevelopment in his veto statement.   As in a common mugging, the California Legislature has made the state's redevelopment agencies an offer: "your money or your life?"  The legislation that passed yesterday was not quite so pithy. But, according to critics of the proposal to help close the state's remaining $9.6 billion budget deficit, that is essentially the deal that lawmakers have struck in the six-month battle to do away with redevelopment agencies. Yesterday, the day of the state's budget deadline, the Assembly and Senate voted in favor of a so-called "two-bill strategy," which hinges on pairs of bills introduced in both houses.  The governor contends that the garnishing of tax increments is an unfortunate but necessary maneuver to ease the state's budget crisis.  SB 14x/AB 26x would eliminate redevelopment agencies outright, as Gov. Jerry Brown first proposed in January. Then AB 27x / SB 14x  would allow agencies to salvage themselves in exchange for voluntary transfers of tax increment funds to their local school districts, transit agencies, and fire protection districts. Those that do not "volunteer" would be shuttered and have their assets liquidated.   The bills call for the transfer of $1.7 billion in redevelopment funds this fiscal year and $400 million annually thereafter. Many agencies say that they simply cannot come up with that kind of cash. In fact, many analysts contend that the governor's hoped-for $1.7 billion windfall would turn out to be far less given the amount of redevelopment funds that are already obligated for projects and bond repayment.  The strategy arose only in the past week as negotiations over previous efforts to eliminate redevelopment had stalled several months ago.  Votes in both houses were largely along party lines, with Democrats in favor of the bills.  Members of the Assembly voted, 47-31, in favor of the scheme to shift funding and, 52-24, in favor of the elimination of redevelopment entirely. The Senate voted similarly on the respective bills, 21-15 and 21-16.  Supporters of redevelopment had been clamoring for the Legislature and governor to spare the state's agencies and instead adopt a slate of reform measures. The Legislature is considering AB 1250, which, supporters say, contains a major package of reforms.  Representatives of the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities have condemned the vote, saying that it undermines reform efforts and, in fact, is illegal. As with the governor's original proposal, they contend that even the "voluntary" payment scheme violates Proposition 22 and other constitutional provisions.  "While many legislators who voted in favor of this package spoke of protecting and reforming redevelopment, these bills do neither," said CRA Executive Director John Shirey, in a statement. Opponents have threatened to take legal action, claiming all along that any elimination of redevelopment or imposition of forced payments would be unconstitutional.  "If the governor signs these bills, we will be prepared to defend the constitution and the will of the voters in court very soon thereafter," said League Executive Director Chis Mckenize in a statement. "It is a very sad day for Californians when their State Legislature knowingly acts in such direct violation of our highest laws." Gov. Brown has 12 days to sign the bills, along with the rest of the budget that the Legislature passed yesterday.   --Josh Stephens

Last week the Nevada Legislature—usually not an entity with much to say on California land use—issued a decision that would make King Solomon blush.  After 31 years as a supposedly equal party in the Bi-State Compact governing the Lake Tahoe basin, Nevada has taken its first steps towards pulling out of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and thereby negating the agreement under which the two states have governed and managed Lake Tahoe and the surrounding basin.  The original version of Nevada's Senate Bill 271, sponsored by Sen. John Jay Lee of the Las Vegas area, called for Nevada to essentially abrogate the compact upon signing by Gov. Brian Sandoval. The version that passed at 1 a.m. on June 8, the state's legislative deadline, instead outlines Nevada's demands on TRPA – a change in the governing structure and passage of its long-overdue regional plan update. If those demands are not met, then the state could initiate withdrawal two legislative sessions from now, in 2015. (Lee did not respond to requests for comment.)  Many in the environmental community in both California and Nevada fear that the bill—which Sandoval is expected to sign—undermines environmental protections and will lead to development. Even the mellowed version that was passed, they say, essentially holds TRPA hostage to Nevada's interests while denying the unavoidable conflict that arises when two sovereigns share a single resource.  "What was recognized when the TRPA was created is that it's just not feasible to deal with each side of the lake," said Schladow. "What happens in California has an impact on Nevada and vice-versa." SB 271 makes two major demands to avert Nevada's secession from the compact. It first requires that TRPA pass a long-overdue update to its regional plan. It also would profoundly change the agency's governance by altering the voting structure among its 14 board members.        Currently, to adopt, amend, or repeal environmental threshold carrying capacities, the regional plan, or ordinances requires a supermajority of nine votes, with at least four yeas coming from the state in which a plan or project is located. SB 271 requires TRPA to abandon the latter provision if Nevada is to remain a party to the compact.    Even though SB 271 calls for the update of the regional plan, some predict that Nevada will try to exercise power by refusing to approve any plan that does not meet the state's stated needs. Therefore, TRPA will either have to adopt a plan favorable to Nevada or automatically face dissolution. Therefore, TRPA is between a lake and a hard place.        "That does not seem like a reasonable demand by Nevada," said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to save Lake Tahoe. "As a consequence, we're concerned that it will not be possible to salvage TRPA."   Though Nason said that TRPA is crucial for protecting the lake, opponents of SB 271 say that TRPA itself did not forcefully protest its own demise. TRPA Executive Director Joann Marchetta appeared at the initial Senate hearing, but agency staff did not take an official position on the bill. "The conservation groups had to defend the TRPA," said Ann Nichols, president of the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.  TRPA External Affairs Director Julie Regan said that staff were not free to take a position in the absence of direction from the board; Marchetta was not available for comment.  "Our board never took a position, and we have differing opinions on the board," said Regan. "It would not have been appropriate for us to take a position when the policy makers on the board did not take a position on the bill."  Instead, Regan said that the law presents a valuable opportunity.  "We are hopeful that this legislation will allow enhanced dialog between the states of California and Nevada," said Regan. "Sometimes there are just different ideas about the best path to get there and this bill is one example that those differences are coming to a head."  As well, some say that this reticence symbolizes the problems that plague TRPA, have held up the regional planning process, and thus made the agency a target for the Nevada Legislature.  "TRPA not being present for this discussion is like a miniature version of TRPA sitting on the regional plan for 5 years," said Nason. "In the absence of consensus on their board, they can't act. The whole purpose of a board—and a diverse board like this—is to build consensus but also to make decisions. The board never voted not to take a position, and it never voted to take a position."  Most notably, a regional plan update that was supposed to come out by 2007 remains unfinished. Without that update, uncertainty—and therefore stasis—has come to dominate land use in the basin, thus leading to SB 271. In addition, the California side of the basin must now mesh the regional plan with a sustainable communities strategy as required under SB 375. "We haven't had for quite a while. They're just amending the current on piecemeal, project-by-project," said Nichols.  Authorized by a unanimous board vote in January, TRPA staff have finally embarked on a new planning process for the regional plan update. Staff hopes to circulate a draft EIR by the end of 2011 with a possible vote in 2012. What, exactly, the Nevada delegation might demand of a new regional plan update remains undefined—but not without attracting speculation.  Though TRPA regulations cap development in the Tahoe Basin in the broad sense, Nichols said that plenty of developers and existing landowners would like to create new developments and expand existing ones, especially in casino-rich South Lake Tahoe. Opponents of SB 271 have pointed to projects such as the Boulder Bay hotel expansion in Crystal Bay, Nev., as examples of things to come under SB 271. They say that, by quadrupling its current size, the project violates the Bi-State Compact; it was approved by TRPA in April.  "It's obvious that this is being promoted by Nevada gaming interests on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe," said Nichols. "They don't want to be constrained by thresholds all that pesky stuff that the compact has them do. "Although they would say that they have to comply with all the existing environmental restrains, even if they separate, I think they will change those thresholds." SB 271 comes about now in part because Nevada's economy has suffered during the current recession and landowners see TRPA's regulatory structure as an impediment to efficient development. In particular, TRPA has been blamed even for holding up projects that were intended to reduce pollution and runoff into the lake.  Billy Vassiliadis, CEO of R&R Partners and creator of the famed "What happens in Vegas" marketing campaign, was one of the lead lobbyists in favor of SB 271. His clients included a collection of landowners around the lake, including prominent casino interests. Likewise, the Nevada Resort Association supported SB 271.  "The Nevada Resort Association supported the position of one of its largest members, Caesars, in seeking assurances regarding Lake Tahoe's future during one of the most challenging times that tourism market has ever experienced," said association President Virginia Valentine in a prepared statement. That argument draws little sympathy from Nichols. "We can't change the compact every time there's a recession," she said.  Environmentalists fear that a Caesars Palace, or even a poorly designed mountain chalet, could wreak havoc with the lake's fragile ecosystem, which of course does not heed the state border that runs through it. Regan said that urban runoff is one of the biggest threats to the lake's clarity. The lake is currently clear to 67 feet, whereas the goal of TRPA is 100 feet.  Vassiliadis insisted that Nevada maintains a paramount interest in supporting the health of the lake. He noted that SB 271 adopts the environmental language of the Tahoe Compact and thus obligates the state to uphold its goals.  "The impact is not to reduce or to lower any environmental standards, as has been alleged," said Vassiliadis.    But Nevada's definition of "obligation" may hew more towards voluntary compliance and away from regulations that some say are crucial to preventing the further muddying of the lake's waters.  "It's not that Nevadans don't love Lake Tahoe; it's that they think it can be saved through purely voluntary approaches," said Nason. "The League to Save Lake Tahoe and the rest of Tahoe's conservation community believes that strong regulation of matters like land coverage and traffic impacts needs to continue."   "Oftentimes Nevada has more of an independent streak, perhaps more of an interest in protecting private property rights," said Regan. Moreover, if Nevada is not constrained by California's interests, then its Legislature can amend SB 271 at will, thus obviating the protections that the current version contains.  Conversely, despite the stigma that accompanies the notion of development in such a sensitive area, some suggest that more development could actually help the lake. In particular, if an updated regional plan could promote the replacement of aging, substandard buildings with new, environmentally sensitive construction.  "We have marvelous new technology to conserve and be green," said Vassiliadis.  "So it's more of a matter of not allowing a group to just say no to any permits or any process." Geoffrey Schladow, director of the Tahoe Environmental Research Center at UC-Davis, said that advances in understanding the threats to the lake and in mitigation techniques may warrant new construction, some of which might have to be executed by the sort of deep-pocketed developers that concern environmentalists.  "If we want these developed areas to be re-engineered then some degree of redevelopment may be inevitable," said Schladow. "It's hard to believe that the existing small-scale mom and pop stores or motels would have the capital to do what's needed." Contacts Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe , 530.541.5388 Ann Nichols, President, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance , 775.831.0626 Julie Regan, External Affairs Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency , 775.589.5237 Geoffrey Schladow, Director, UC-Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center , 530.754.8372 Billy Vassiliadis, CEO and Principal, R&R Partners, 702.228.0222

With a surface level at 227 feet below sea level and shoreline temperatures often rising past 120 degrees, the Salton Sea could be mistaken for the headwaters of the River Styx. Sometimes, concentrations of salt in the brackish lake, formed by a not-quite-natural overflow of the nearby Colorado River a century ago, asphyxiate resident tilapia fish by the thousands. Currently California's largest lake--larger, even, than Tahoe--the Salton Sea itself may soon dry up, leaving a dust-filled crater. Remnants of Atomic Age vacation towns line the sea's shores, as if residents had evacuated and never returned. And yet, despite this challenging environment, a development team--backed, perhaps incongruously, by an insurance company from Minnesota--thinks the time has come to introduce some sustainability to this forlorn landscape.  A 'New City' Travertine Point would cover roughly 5,000 acres along the northwest corner of the Salton Sea, roughly 10 miles from Mecca and 35 miles from Palm Springs. It is designed as a self-contained city, with mixed uses, employment centers, and over 13,000 units of housing for over 35,000 residents. It would also have a marina and other shoreline amenities�assuming, of course, that the Salton Sea does not dry up before the project is completed.  "People are going to want to live around the sea," said Riverside County Supervisor and Salton Sea Authority Boardmember Marion Ashley, who expects the rapid growth of Riverside County�41 percent last decade�to continue. "This would be a very well planned, self-sustainable development that would be a well planned place to live."  Though its build-out will follow a nearly geological time scale, its environmental impact report was released in December . On June 15, it will receive its second hearing before the Riverside County Planning Commission. If the commission approves a version of the project, it could go before Riverside County supervisors by the end of the summer.  Developer Black Emerald, LLC, in partnership with the Torrez-Martinez Tribe and funded by Federated Insurance, is seeking approval based, in part, on their contention that the project will be a model sustainable community. Roughly 1,400 acres of the project would occupy land that is, currently, part of the Torrez-Martinez reservation.  Despite Travertine Point's remoteness, Black Emerald believes that the southern Coachella Valley and, in particular, the immediate Salton Sea area, is poised for an economic and demographic boom in the coming decades. The developers claim that 150,000 more residents will populate the valley, no matter what.  Therefore, living in a compact, self-contained city that ascribes to smart growth principles will be considerably more green than living in the traditional subdivisions that comprise communities such as Indio, Palm Desert, and the rest of the Coachella Valley.  Straddling Highway 86S, Travertine Point is planned to include a variety of uses, including a resort, a marina, and a variety of residential neighborhoods, with a complement of regional and local retail, schools, recreational and open space. A mixed use town center will sit roughly at the geographic center of the development. Situated next to a planned highway interchange, the town center will include local amenities, as well as, a business park and even light industrial activities, presumably related to renewable energy.  The plan calls for 13,000 residential units at a variety of densities.  Roughly 10,000 of those units will be planned at eight or fewer units to the acre, with some  as few as two units per acre. In the town center, 1,125 of "highest-density" units will occupy 45 acres. "Travertine Point enables the other lands in the eastern Coachella Valley to be able to continue on as agriculture, rather than just continue as subdivision on subdivision," said Paul Quill, a land development specialist with Innovative Land Concepts and spokesperson for the Travertine Point project. "Rather than allowing the ongoing encroachment of population, we're trying to do something in a big way that concentrates it into a community." SB 375 Poster Child? In fact, Quill said that Travertine Point is designed, explicitly, to conform with Senate Bill 375, the 2008law that promotes emissions reductions through compact development. Travertine Point's plan contends that if new, non-infill development is to occur, some models are better than others.   "I feel it not only conforms with SB 375, but I believe it should be fully embraced as the intent of SB 375," said Quill.  "To the extent that there will be development in raw land areas in Southern California, Travertine Point is the model for that."  Though the project covers three jurisdictions�Riverside County, the Torrez-Martinez reservation, and a small piece of Imperial County�Quill said that the planning and environmental documents are being drawn up holistically.  "To avoid the piecemealing argument, we have treated it as one project and mitigated our impacts as one project," said Quill.    So far, those efforts have impressed some officials in Riverside County, which will consider the project first.  "The backers of Travertine Point have really gone the extra mile to try and make it as environmentally sound and friendly as possible," said Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit, whose district would include Travertine Point. "I think they've gone that far and a little further." The project's sustainability plan contends that residents of Travertine Point, which would be built largely on fallowed agricultural land, would generate 38% less per-capita emissions than would residents in a business-as-usual scenario. This performance would be achieved through a combination of sustainable building techniques and compact development intended to reduce residents' vehicle miles travelled.  While most of the jobs in the area are currently low-paying agricultural jobs, developers say that Travertine Point is posed to capitalize on � and facilitate � a predicted explosion in green industries in the area. Though the desert is anything but lush, its relentless sunshine is poised to attract, by some estimates, up to $8 billion in solar energy projects in the coming decades.  Those projects, plus geothermal energy projects towards the southern end of the Salton Sea, are expected to bring construction and permanent jobs. Quill said that workers who live in Travertine Point will face far shorter commutes than they would if they lived in currently built-up parts of the valley.  "Everybody that works in the industry is driving an hour to get to it because they live in Palm Springs, La Quinta, and Indio," said Quill. "This project is located where the jobs will be."   Exorcising Ghosts of a Dead Sea Travertine Point's business model differs considerably from those of the developments that first arose around the Salton Sea. In the 1950s and '60s, vacation homes sprung up around the sea, which played host to all manner of water sports and recreation. Boosters promoted it as an oasis for water skiers and weekenders who populated homes in cities such as North Shore and Salton City. Those cities' mother lode ran out, however, as the sea's salinity spiked in the 1970s and the lake became inhospitable to recreation.  Today, ghostly traces of streets make Salton City perhaps the state's largest stillborn development. It, and similar developments, have made the sea a symbol of Southern California noir.  Black Emerald insists that Travertine Point faces a far different future.  "What happened then in the 1950s was strictly a water-vacation based development," said Quill.  "We're not that. We're trying to provide housing, industry, commercial�.that would be a sustainable new town. Salton City and North Shore were never designed to be sustainable." Environmentalists, however, would prefer that Travertine Point never even have the chance to become a ghost town�or anything else.  'Dumb Growth on a Massive Scale' They reject the developer's claims about greenhouse gas mitigation and contend that it lies too far from any established jobs or housing centers to be considered anything but leapfrog development. A May 24 letter from the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Defenders of Wildlife to the Riverside County Planning Commission urges the commission to deny the Travertine Point EIR on several grounds. In addition to claiming that the EIR includes improper deferral of analysis and mitigation efforts, the letter contends that "there is no way over 37,000 people can truly live in a sustainable fashion in a desert environment" and that it does not support SB 375.   "It's dumb growth on a massive scale," said Jonathan Evans, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been active in Riverside County habitat issues.  Evans also said that planning a development around a brand-new industry�and anticipating certain commuting patterns�does not amount to a recipe for sustainability.     "Who knows if they'll materialize," said Evans. "We're seeing a large rush of solar development in the desert in terms of permitting. Whether the financing and actual construction of that occurs is speculative at best." Moreover, they say that a development that massive is bound to take its toll on nearby ecological resources, including the sea and nearby Anza-Borrego State Park.  "I think that it's placing a disastrous project next to a water body that already is troubled," said Evans. "Certainly there won't be any benefits to the Salton Sea from the runoff or the pollution caused by this project." The biggest environmental disaster, however, may have nothing to do with development as such.  According to scientists and public officials alike, there is a very real possibility that the Salton Sea may dry up entirely within the next generation. The 2004 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), governing California's allocation of 4.4 million annual acre-feet of Colorado River water, calls for water to be diverted from Imperial Valley farms. The runoff from those farms feeds the Salton Sea.   Though the QSA is currently being litigated, if and when it goes into effect, the Salton Sea will lose the majority of its inflow.  "After 2017 the sea essential goes into a tailspin," said Michael Cohen, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute.  The evaporation of the sea and exposure of seabed is expected to result in dust storms that would give a Depression-era Okie pause.  "We're going to have a dust problem that's going to make the Owens Lake look like child's play," said Ashley, referring to the lake that dried up when its waters were diverted to the Los Angeles aqueduct. "Property values will plummet even further around the area.  It will be an economic and ecological disaster." Salton Sea 2.0 Averting this fate has been on the minds of policymakers and environmentalists since the 1950s. Currently, the Salton Sea Authority governs restoration projects around the sea and has been involved with the planning of restoration efforts, but neither it nor any other entity is currently pursuing a restoration plan.  Most recently, in 2004, the state legislature directed the California Natural Resources Agency to devise an ecosystem restoration plan. In 2008 the Legislative Analysts Office issued a report on a number of plan alternatives, recommending the adoption of a plan that would reduce the sea's surface area by 60 percent through a network of dams and dikes�at an estimated cost of $9 billion (see CP&DR Vol. 22, No. 9 Sept. 2007 ).  Since then, little action has been taken and no significant funding has been allocated to the project.  "If the Legislature felt like the state could financially support the preferred alternative and move forward with funding," said Kent Nelson, who covers the Salton Sea for the state Department of Water Resrouces. "In the absence of some kind of miraculous recovery, we're not sure where that money is going to come from." Quill insists that Travertine Point remains viable even if the sea does dry up. He said that Black Emerald is prepared to scrap the marina, which would sit on Torrez-Martinez land, and that the recreational component would be "a home run," according to Quill, for an otherwise viable development.  "We don't rely on Salton Sea restoration for the future success of the community," said Quill.  "We know that these renewable energy industries are coming. That growth is going to occur whether or not the sea is restored."  On the other hand, Black Emerald does not want the sea to die without a fight.  Local officials, who say that the sea simply isn't a priority for Sacramento lawmakers, are promoting a plan that, they say, would cost as little as $3 billion. That plan would include an initial phase of $500 million, spent largely on a dike across the northern portion of the sea. Those amounts could be modest enough to spur the establishment of an infrastructure financing district funded by a public-private partnership.  As such, despite environmentalists' criticisms of Travertine Point, it may, in fact, hold a key to the sea's future.  "Projects like Travertine Point and projects similar to it around the sea, as well as the renewable energy industries�.will be able to contribute significant funding to the infrastructure financing district," said Quill.   "Travertine Point could be a real meaningful component of saving the sea," said Ashley, the county supervisor. Longtime observers of the sea are not optimistic.  "Every year or two the Salton Sea Authority says we should have an infrastructure financing district," said Cohen.  "We say it definitely makes sense to have local financing contribute to a portion of this. And nothing ever happens." Contacts:  Travertine Point Project Site, Riverside County Planning Department Marion Ashley, Supervisor, Riverside County District 5, 951.955.1050 John Benoit, Supervisor, Riverside County 4th District, 760.863.8211 Michael Cohen, Senior Research Associate, Water Program, Pacific Institute, 720.564.0651  Jonathan Evans, Staff Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity, 415.436.9682 Kent Nelson, Department of Water Resources, 916.653.5791 Paul Quill, Land Development Specialist, Innovative Land Concepts, Inc., 760.771.8050

In the first quarter of 2011, 53% of buyers could afford the median-priced single-family in California, and 60% could afford the median-priced condo or townhouse, according to the California Association of Realtors. This is a remarkable turn from the years of the housing bubble, when CAR's affordability index dived to the low teens. Pegging a lower median price and making more generous lending assumptions, the National Association of Homebuilders now places California's housing affordability index at 64.6%. At the same time, about one-third of California homeowners are underwater, owing more on their mortgage than their real estate is worth, according to CoreLogic, Inc., a leading analyst. This is the way things are going to stay for a while, apparently. Real estate experts predict housing prices will either fall a touch more, or increase by a few percentage points during the next three or four years. And California housing construction remains in a slump, with the Construction Industry Research Board predicting in late May that builders would pull permits for 51,000 units this year. That total is an increase from 36,000 in 2009 and about 45,000 last year, but it's still remarkably few units for a state that continues to add about 500,000 residents a year . "California is in a situation which shouldn't be possible to be in," Jed Kolko, associate director and research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California told me. "That is a situation of falling prices, and a situation of high prices." Here's what he means: California's median home price has fallen by nearly half in five years to about $290,000, yet it is still roughly 75% greater than the national median. Moreover, prices remain the least affordable in the job-rich coastal urban areas such as San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Orange County, while housing has become extraordinarily inexpensive in job-poor inland areas such as the San Joaquin Valley and San Bernardino County – locations where the median price is less than the national average. "Just because prices have fallen a lot doesn't mean prices are low relative to incomes in California and relative to other states," Kolko said. Still, there's no denying that real estate prices have nose-dived. That's the primary reason that one-third of homeowners are underwater and that California continues to be among the foreclosure leaders. So California finds itself in the seemingly intractable position of needing to boost the supply of affordable housing while also bolstering real estate values. "It's very hard to make policy for two problems that call for almost two completely different solutions," Kolko observed. Making the problems even more difficult to tackle is the fact that California is composed of many different, yet overlapping, housing markets. In the Central Valley, including Sacramento itself, housing affordability is no longer much of an issue. But in much of the Bay Area, San Diego and Los Angeles, a shortage of affordable units remains a problem for households and for businesses. You would think this situation presages the resurgence of the monster commute from homes in Hesperia to jobs in Pasadena, or from Merced to Santa Clara. However, gasoline costs $4 a gallon now, and we are all aware that fuel prices could spike upward again with little warning. It's no surprise that the policy response at the state Capitol is confused. After years of being a high profile issue, affordable housing has faded into the background. The Brown administration proposes eliminating redevelopment (the state's largest ongoing source of funding for affordable housing development) and the Department of Housing and Community Development's housing element review and technical assistance functions. Bills in the Legislature are all over the map, but the only ones that appear to be moving forward are those that tinker at various fringes. The California Housing Law Project reported last week, "With an increasingly bold mod (moderate) caucus, the Senate appears hostile territory for legislation to address the housing needs of low-income families this year." On the issues of foreclosures and lending, the state has limited authority, as the federal government does most of the regulating. Plus, banks and other lenders continue to exert a great deal of influence over state lawmakers, as financial institutions can make much larger campaign donations than can homeowners who are drowning in debt. Again, most of the bills that have moved through the Legislature since the real estate market crashed have addressed minor matters. If you've read this far in hopes of finding light at the end of the tunnel, you're going to be disappointed by the pervasive darkness that I see. The overall market is weak and is going to remain so. Housing policy, not only at the state level but also at the federal level, is equally weak. In an era of black-and-white politics, our housing problems require answers in many shades of gray. Cities and counties that make real decisions about what housing gets built are mostly pawns in a game they don't control. Senate Bill 375 would have us making housing decisions based in large part on climate change considerations. It's a noble thought, perhaps even visionary, and it's driving conversations about urban development patterns that we probably should have had decades ago. But may I suggest that other climates need to change before California can start truly thinking on such a grand scale. – Paul Shigley

In order to avoid having your takings claim dismissed, your timing must be just right. Unfortunately for Colony Cove Properties, LLC, the timing was off, and its multifaceted takings claim was rejected by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for being both too late to challenge a rent control ordinance and too early to challenge how a city applied its ordinance.  The decision by the unanimous three-judge appeals court panel came in one of the many lawsuits filed by real estate investor James Goldstein against the City of Carson. Goldstein, who owns Colony Cove Mobile Estates and Carson Harbor Village mobile home parks, has sued the city at least eight times over mobile home rent control and the city's procedure for considering mobile home park conversions into residential subdivisions (see CP&DR Legal Digest,  September 15, 2010 , February 2004 ).  The City of Carson passed the Mobilehome Space Rent Control Ordinance in 1979. The ordinance established a Rental Review Board that makes determinations regarding rent increases. The city also adopted guidelines for implementing the ordinance. Although the ordinance has not been amended recently, the guidelines were amended as recently as 2006. Prior to the city amending the guidelines in 2006, Goldstein, acting as Colony Cove Properties, LLC, purchased the Colony Cove mobile home park. In 2007, Colony Cove filed an application for a 136-179% increase in rent. About a year later, the Rental Review Board granted an increase of only 8-10%. Colony Cove subsequently filed suit in U.S. District Court claiming a regulatory, physical and private taking as well as violations of substantive due process. The District Court dismissed Colony Cove's claims and Colony Cove appealed. The Ninth Circuit began by addressing the takings claims, which the court separated into two categories: facial challenges of the ordinance itself, and as-applied challenges, which concern how the city applied the ordinance to Colony Cove. Regarding the facial challenges, the court found that the statute of limitations had long since expired. Colony Cove argued that the statute of limitations started anew when the guidelines were amended in 2006, but the court disagreed. Unlike the ordinance, the guidelines do not have the force and effect of law, and therefore, the facial challenge to the ordinance was filed years too late, the Ninth Circuit ruled.  Addressing the as-applied challenge, the court found that Colony Cove's claim was untimely for the opposite reason – it was too early. Pursuant to federal takings law, a claimant must first attempt to obtain relief through state inverse condemnation proceedings, which Colony Cove did not do. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that the claim was not ready for federal court review. (Goldstein did sue the city in state court for $78 million in damages while his appeal was pending at the Ninth Circuit. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled against him in March.) Lastly, the Ninth Circuit evaluated whether the city's decision on the application for rent increase was "arbitrary, irrational, or lacking any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate government interest." Using this low threshold, the court found that the city acted reasonably in deciding to increase the rent by only 8-10%, instead of up 179%, and there was no violation of substantive due process. This case reminds plaintiffs that timing is crucial, especially with a takings claim. You must jump through all the hoops at the proper time in order to have a cognizable claim. The Case: Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, No. 09-57039, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6240, 2011 DJDAR 4487. Filed March 28, 2011. The Lawyers: For Colony Cove: Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny & Myers, (213) 430-6000. For the city: William Wynder, Aleshire & Wynder, (949) 223-1170.

Being governor of a state that includes Hollywood requires mastering the art of the cameo. Governor Brown demonstrated his skill at the craft when he arrived, unstaffed, at the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) meeting blocks away from his Capitol office, saying that he just stopped by to see what exactly the Council had in mind regarding strategic growth--and to get a handle on what, exactly, the SGC does.  The Council members were, at that moment, considering the Health in All Policies (HiAP) priority actions. HiAP includes supporting implementation of "complete streets" policies, using SB 375 to promote active transportation, and promoting sustainable development for smart housing siting. Council Chair and newly installed OPR Director Ken Alex--a longtime colleague of Brown's--brought the governor up to speed, describing that the goal was to consider how all state policies affect human health. The governor recast it tongue-in-cheek as one policy objective "colonizing" all the other policy areas. In the end, the governor expressed his general support for the the HiAP concept, but not before he warned of potential resistance from those who might find even more strings attached to California's growth policies--actually citing tea party opposition to overly intrusive government.   The take-away message (if there was one) for the SGC was a reminder that they have to balance the laudable policy objectives with political realities---and proceed accordingly.  Or maybe it's just that their boss may wander in on them from time to time.  Governor Brown quickly exited—as a good cameo requires--and the Council returned to approving the HiAP Priorities. The ensuing discussion highlighted some of the delicate balances that the Governor brought up.  Council members approved of the general voluntary nature of the HiaP Priorities, but also discussed how the Council can be a "bully pulpit" to promote HiAP-related policies.   The discussion then moved to SB 375 and the role that Council might play in its implementation.  For those who are thinking that SB 375 does not assign any role to the SGC, Ken Alex noted that they have an oversight responsibility related to granting MPOs' funding under the Sustainable Planning Grant Program (see CP&DR Jan. 2011 ). It was clear that the Council intends to scrutinize MPOs to learn how they are spending their grant money. Indeed, looking forward, it seems clear that the SGC wants to leverage the SB 375 process beyond its climate change goals.  There was a specific discussion about SANDAG's recently released draft Sustainable Communities Strategy (see CP&DR Vol. 26, No. 10 ), but there was no credit given for the fact that SANDAG is projected to exceed its 2020 target.  Rather, SANDAG's plan was characterized as a moderate reduction in VMT with a question of how can more reductions, and other benefits, can be gained from the process.  Ultimately, the conversation returned to the larger picture of the SGC's mission and strategic plan. Council members agreed with one statement that articulated three elements to the SGC work program:  first is providing resources (funding, data, etc) when available, the second is facilitating better coordination between agencies in policy implementation, and the third is policy advocacy. As the SGC continues its strategic process over the summer, it remains to be seen as how these roles will evolve under the new administration.  But stay tuned, you never know when the Governor may make another cameo. Link to SGC Agenda Materials: http://sgc.ca.gov/meetings/20110601/ --Bill Higgins Bill Higgins is the director of the California Association of Councils of Government .

Even if it takes a village to raise a child, apparently it does not take a planning department to raise a village. Or even a city of villages.  The City of San Diego's Planning Department won national acclaim for its 2008 "City of Villages" general plan update, which was guided by outgoing Planning Director Bill Anderson and his predecessor, Gail Goldberg. But budget constraints have compelled Mayor Jerry Sanders to order that the department be shut down and merged with the Development Services Department.  Sanders hopes that the newly merged departments will operate as an efficient unit for a projected savings of $1 million annually. The city is facing a $179 million budget deficit for 2011.   Sanders' structure mimics that of 1995-2000, when the two departments were combined, also for fiscal reasons. Planning regained its independence as it embarked on the process to update the city's general plan in the early 2000s.  The new merger has prompted the resignation of Anderson, who stepped down May 27. He will be taking a position in the private sector with planning giant AECOM. (Prior to becoming planning director, Anderson was a longtime principal at AECOM's predecessor firm, Economic Research Associates, and a San Diego city planning commissioner.) Anderson said that his personal focus is on long-range planning and economic development.  The new, combined department will be headed by Development Services Director Kelly Broughton.  Though much of the city's advance planning work has already been done, many community plans have yet to be completed. Some fear that by allowing planning to be subsumed by Development Services, which is focused on case processing rather than forward planning—and generates its own funding from developers' fees rather than from the city's general fund—these community plans and the overall vision for the city could suffer if planning becomes too businesslike.  "They look at applicants as their customers," said Leo Wilson, chair of the city's Community Planners Committee, which advises the Planning Department. "That's not a bad thing for the department to do that. But planning should be for the city. It's a more esoteric process." It's a process that could become even more esoteric if the city's budget crisis precludes the implementation of the community plans, especially with regards to public services, amenities, and infrastructure.  Anderson believes, however, that the new department will have no trouble picking up on the  Planning Department's ongoing work programs.  "We've kind of set the table already," said Anderson. "We're handing off about 10 community plans (in-progress), so there's enough to keep people busy for 2-3 years."  The city has 51 community planning areas in total.  For developers, the combined department may lead to a more streamlined development process and save money for everyone—not just for the city. Representatives of the San Diego County Building Industry Association have reportedly said that lack of coordination between Planning and Development Services has unnecessarily hampered development.  Broughton did not respond to an interview request.  The move also includes changes to the mission statement of the Development Services Department. The revised DSD mission statement does away with the Planning Department's goal "to envision, plan, implement and maintain a sustainable city," and instead pledges to provide "safe, effective, and quality development…through community planning." It does not elaborate on a vision for "community planning."   "The focus would be different," said Anderson. "We in our City Planning and Community Investment Department were very much a proactive planning department where we're trying to envision and then implement economic development and redevelopment."  Anderson said, however, that under his tenure the department has already changed the city's approach to planning and that most of the major work—especially as it relates to SB 375—is already enshrined in the 2008 general plan.  "We've had to the change a lot of the methodologies or approaches to community plans, because a lot of the policies that were in place were really geared towards and development as opposed to urban infill," said Anderson.  For the new department to continue in that vein, said Wilson, the planners doing the long-term planning must be functionally separated from those doing day-to-day development services. He said that there is a perception that some applicants wield influence in the department and that the city planning process must remain focused on the good of the city as a whole and not on the need of individual developers.  "I think it's more of an issue of separating the planning process from the development approvals process," said Wilson.  "They need to build up sort of an invisible firewall."

If, as the adage goes, it's impossible to tell the dancer from the dance, then it might be even harder to tell the SCS from the RTP.  With perhaps less grace than that of a ballerina, the much-anticipated Sustainable Communities Strategies mandated by Senate Bill 375 are set to become cornerstone of regional planning. And yet, amid Regional Transportation Plans � not to mention regional comprehensive plans, county general plans, transportation funding schemes, and, of course, cities' own general plans � it's hard to tell where a region's own initiative ends and SB 375's mandate begins. That is the impression given off by the combined draft RTP/SCS that the San Diego Association of Governments released April 22. In accordance with SB 375, the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations must devise an SCS to demonstrate how they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land use and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. SANDAG has been scheduled to release and complete its SCS first.  The release of SANDAG's draft RTP/SCS therefore marks a highly anticipated juncture in the long saga of reducing California's carbon footprint. The draft RTP/SCS is currently in its 45-day public comment period; a series of seven region-wide workshops is scheduled to begin June 7. SANDAG plans to release the draft environmental impact report for the RTP/SCS in June as well.  For all the debate surrounding the SCS and its emissions targets, the document that the public will consider during those workshops is relatively thin in light of its statewide significance. It occupies only a single, 77-page chapter in SANDAG's nine-chapter, 313-page draft RTP and summarizes the region's overall growth and transportation strategies.  Since the SCS is not a plan per se but rather a way of showing that a region can meet SB 375 targets, the SCS chapter deals largely in generalities and goals. It quotes mandates from SB 375 and then explains how the RTP and Regional Comprehensive Plan meet those goals. The remainder of the draft RTP, based partly on existing plans such as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and the cities' and county's general plans explain how the region's landscape is actually going to change.  While the notion of efficiently coordinating transportation, housing, and commercial development across thousands of square miles and millions of people sounds daunting, officials in the San Diego area say that drafting the SCS was not nearly as difficult as it may be for other regions.  "A lot of the stuff in our plan is not new to us," said SANDAG Executive Director Gary Gallegos. "It's not a huge game-changer because we were already doing a lot of these things because they were good for us."  The SCS relies on complex forecasts for regional growth--which is anticipated to include a growth in population from 3.2 million to 4.4 million and 400,000 more housing units by 2050--but much of the actual planning work that will contribute to the SCS has already been done.  Indeed, much of the region's growth is already prescribed and accounted for, some of it before SB 375 was even imagined.  "San Diego, in spite of the fact that SB 375 and AB 32 came along, was already doing a lot of what was required by those pieces of legislation we had incorporated into our planning," said County Supervisor Ron Roberts, who also is also an ARB board member. "We were already on a course to get to the transportation corridors and move the density from the furthest out areas."  The California Air Resources Board set per capita emissions reductions targets for the state's MPOs just last October. San Diego's targets are 7% by 2020 and 13% by 2035.  By now, the methods for reaching such targets have become well accepted throughout the state. Regions are encouraging compact development, beefing up public transit plans, and allocating new housing�according to Regional Housing Needs Assessments�in locations that enable residents to drive less, rather than by spreading housing evenly around a region. San Diego especially is investing in transportation demand management (TDM) strategies such as high-occupancy toll lanes on its freeways.  A combination of all of these tactics, officials say, will enable the region to meet, or even exceed, its SB 375 targets. Moreover, SANDAG is going beyond 2035 and actually is planning for growth through 2050.  While this might seem like a bold move, many are not convinced that 40-year projections are even realistic.  "I'm kind of cynical about how clear the crystal ball is when you get out 15 or 20 years," said Roberts.  Moreover, even after a lengthy debate at ARB over what would constitute "ambitious but achievable" targets, some say that San Diego's plan is nether ambitious nor achievable.  "I don't think it hits the mark at all," said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League and former executive director of San Diego's Coastkeeper. "It's kind of funny because I know the San Diego plan is heralded as first out of the gate and a good model."  Reznik said that SANDAG's SCS has fallen prey to what he described as low expectations fueled by enthusiasm for SB 375.  "Everyone wants to see 375 be successful," said Reznik. "You pass this law, and (Sen. Darrel) Steinberg and the Legislature and the environmental groups want to see the momentum and see the first one be successful. The problem is you can't lower the bar so much that anything looks like success." Reznik said that the bar has been lowered by virtue of the RTP's continued emphasis on automobiles in the region. While the plan envisions significant capital investments in infrastructure such as new light rail lines, critics note that the driving force behind the transportation plan still prioritizes roads.  That driving force is TransNet, a $40 billion sales tax measure passed in 1988 and renewed in 2004 to fund up to $17 billion worth of transportation projects in the region through 2050. Much of that funding is earmarked for road improvements, thus relegating the vast majority of transit projects to a distant, uncertain future. The estimated cost of all the measures envisioned by the SCS is considerably more, however.  "It's got some good transit measures but the reality is that they're looking to massively fund highway expansion before you ever seen real, meaningful transit adopted," said Reznik. "Yes, there's money for transit down the line, but it's totally speculative."  The RTP predicts, but does not guarantee, revenues of $196 billion projected out 50 years, with 60% from local sources, 22% from the state, and 18% from the federal government.  Moreover, sources of funding to operate many of these planned capital investments and service improvements remain discomfortingly unclear. Anderson admitted that the funding for transit operations that would support the SCS are far from secured.  "Transnet is focused on the capital side, but to get the headways that create a real effective transit system requires operating funds and an affordable price," said Bill Anderson, San Diego's outgoing planning director (see sidebar).  Fitts said that if San Diego and other cities increase their densities, as planned, then the southern part of the county will become a cauldron of gridlock if transit funding does not materialize.  "If you don't have robust transit infrastructure, it's going to look like west Los Angeles," said Michael Fitts, staff attorney at the Endangered Habitats League. "It's going to be a nightmare." Anderson suggested that a current proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown to allow local taxes to pass with a 55% -- instead of two-thirds -- vote could allow cities to create special funding districts to support transit. He also warned that the city should continue to assess impact fees on new development, even though officials might be tempted to lower those fees amid the recession.  Gallegos said, however, that the RTP does emphasize public transit and takes a new approach to highways by including elements like managed lanes and high-occupancy toll lanes. As well, he said that the inclusion of projected funding as opposed to specific funding sources is nothing unusual for a long-range plan.  "The plan itself does rely on future revenues, but that's the case in all plans that are put together throughout the state," said Gallegos. SB 375 was designed largely as a method of encouraging, but not mandating, development that would reduce per capita carbon emissions. Though SCSs are tied to RTPs, which are, in turn, tied to federal transportation funding, the implementation of an SCS ultimately depends on the voluntary participation of member cities�and, less directly, on the enthusiasm of developers to build higher-density projects. In a dramatic shift from past patterns, the SCS, in accord with SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, envisions that 87% of new housing will consist of multifamily housing.   Accepting the new affordable and market-rate housing envisioned by SANDAG's projections is crucial to the plan's success because new housing is expected to not only ease the jobs-housing imbalance within the county, but also between the county and neighboring counties. For instance, many commuters come into the jobs-rich county from housing-rich Riverside County, thus creating long-distance traffic and pollution on a daily basis.  "Right now San Diego is a jobs safety valve for the housing surplus in Riverside County," said Fitts.  While new transportation projects that are funded at the county level are likely to be embraced, housing and other improvements at the municipal level may complicate SANDAG's vision.  "As an MPO, they don't have any land use authority," said Barry Schultz, former chair of the San Diego (City) Planning Commission. "So we're dependent upon the local cities to actually implement the type of land use pattern that is the foundation of the whole SCS."  In the City of San Diego, the SCS is not expected to be a tough sell. The city encompasses roughly half the region's population and spans roughly as much built acreage as do the cities and unincorporated communities throughout the rest of the county. Therefore, some say, as goes San Diego's municipal general plan, so goes the region.  "The single most important land use decision had already been made, and that was the approval of an updated general plan for the City of San Diego," said Fitts.  The city completed an overhaul of its general plan in 2008 and subsequently won the American Planning Association's Burnham Award for excellence in a comprehensive plan. The plan is built around the concept of a "City of Villages" in which future development in the famously sprawling city is concentrated around commercial and mixed use nodes to create neighborhoods that are both pleasant and energy efficient.  SANDAG's SCS embraces this strategy wholeheartedly, say local officials.  "They're really well matched up," said Anderson. "Our plan, called City of Villages, was already predicated on steering future growth towards mixed use, transit-served, pedestrian-oriented areas near job centers. The SCS is just a natural extension of what we're already planning."  Likewise, the more dense, and poor, cities of the southwest county, including National City and Chula Vista, have indicated their embrace of density. Moreover, Schultz noted that the SCS and RTP could, if implemented properly, contribute to equity in the region by giving poorer residents ways to reach and live in more prosperous parts of the county. But, he said, it shows little promise of doing so.  "We really haven't done the type of analysis to identify where the gaps are in connecting low- and moderate-income communities to the job centers in the region," said Schultz.   As well, cities on the other end of the county may not be such eager participants in some elements of the plan.  "Some of (cities) seem to be adamant that there's no room, they've already done their share, they don't want more (housing) allocations," said Roberts. "In some of the northern beach communities there was a feeling that we're all built-out." Some of this attitude, critics say, stems from the relative affluence of some North County cities.  "Smaller cities that tend to be more affluent and want to limit growth so that they don't change the character of their community," said Stephen Haase, a senior vice president at developer Baldwin and Sons. "That to me is unfortunate because they're limiting themselves and the diversity that that community can embrace."   Carl Hilliard, deputy mayor of Del Mar, acknowledged that he is wary of the possibility that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, in conjunction with the SCS, could compel Del Mar to take on an amount of affordable housing that might be discomfiting. One scenario under the RHNA, he said, would call for the city, which has 4,500 residents and a median household income of $120,000, to take on 2,400 new affordable units.  "The affordable housing element is problematic because of the fact that we're so small," said Hilliard. "We're totally built-out.  And 22 percent of our land is fairgrounds and flood plain.  We're willing to do our share to the extent that it's possible to do it."   Contacts & Resources: SANDAG RTP/SCS Documents  Michael Fitts, Staff Attorney, Endangered Habitats League, 310.947.1908  Gary Gallegos, Executive Director, San Diego Association of Governments,  619.699.1900 Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Planning & Conservation League,  916.822.5631 Ron Roberts, Supervisor, County of San Diego,  619.531.5544 Barry Schultz, Special Counsel, Stutz, Artiano, Shinhof, & Holtz, 619.232.3122