Redevelopment may have been the biggest winner in the June primary election. Statewide, voters rejected Proposition 98, an initiative to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. In San Francisco, voters supported a huge redevelopment project. And in Napa County, voters rejected a slow-growth initiative that was aimed at halting redevelopment of a former industrial site just south of Napa. Proposition 98 Voters' rejection of Proposition 98 on the statewide ballot marked the second time that property rights advocates have failed to capitalize on backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision upholding the use of eminent domain for economic purposes. In November 2006, voters turned down Proposition 90, a far-reaching eminent domain and regulatory takings measure. This time around, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation wrote a what appeared to be a narrow initiative restricting use of eminent domain, but they included a controversial prohibition of rent control. While the 2006 vote on Proposition 90 was close, the voting on Proposition 98 was not, as the measure received only 38.4% support. Instead, a modest alternative backed by the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association — Proposition 99 — won with 62% of the vote. Proposition 99 bars the taking of owner-occupied homes for economic development projects. Jon Coupal, president of the Jarvis organization, blamed Proposition 98's loss on the "confusion" created by Proposition 99, and on "public agencies using taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes." Tom Adams, board president of the California League of Conservation Voters and a Proposition 99 co-author, viewed the results differently. "The voters saw that Proposition 98 was a deceptive initiative, in fact, the worst kind of ballot abuse where a populist issue is used to conceal an attack on renters, the environment, homeowners and our communities," Adams said. Hunter's Point In San Francisco, voters endorsed the concept of redeveloping about 720 acres at the closed Hunter's Point Shipyard and adjacent Candlestick Point. The plan still needs environmental review and approval by the Board of Supervisors, but the proposal is for 8,500 to 10,000 housing units (32% of which would be designated affordable), reconstruction of a public housing project, 2 million square feet of office space, retail space, a new football stadium and extensive parks. The city is negotiating with Lennar, which would receive the land for free in exchange for investing upwards of $1 billion in infrastructure. While the pro-redevelopment Proposition G received 62.5% of the vote, a counter-measure that would have required 50% of new housing in the project to be affordable received only 36.7% support. Lennar and Mayor Gavin Newsom argued Measure F would have made the redevelopment project economically infeasible. San Francisco voters also backed a measure that prohibits elected officials, candidates for office and their political committees from accepting donations from anyone with a permit or California Environmental Quality Act matter pending before the city until six months after the matter has concluded. Proposition H received 66.6% of the vote. Napa County Initiative In Napa County, voters narrowly rejected Measure N, an initiative that would have imposed a 1% annual growth cap on the unincorporated area. The chief target of the initiative was a proposal to redevelop a 152-acre former industrial site on the Napa River with about 3,000 housing units (see CP&DR , May 2008 ). The project remains in the planning stages, but it has become a lightening rod in what is typically a slow-growth county. Measure N, however, received only 47.6% of the vote. Less than two weeks after the election, county supervisors convened a "growth summit," at which the idea of pursuing state legislation that would relieve counties of the obligation to plan for housing growth was popular. Other balloting Development was also a winner in Ventura County. In the City of Santa Paula, 82.6% of voters backed a measure to extend the city's eastern boundary to permit development of 1,500 housing units on 500 acres of farmland. Although preservation of farmland is politically popular in Ventura County, there was no organized opposition to the proposal from landowner Limoneira — a well-known and well-respected local farming company. Limoneira plans a mix of housing units, as well as retail space and about 200 acres of open space, orchards and parks in its development. In nearby Thousand Oaks, 56.3% of voters rejected a measure that pitted the locally owned Do it Center against The Home Depot. Measure B would have required voters to decide almost any development project that would increase traffic beyond specified levels. Backed by the nine-store Do it Center, Measure B was aimed at a proposed Home Depot at the site of a former Kmart store. The two chains both spent several hundred thousand dollars on the campaign. In Riverside County, incorporation of the 60,000-population community of Menifee won approval with 62% of the vote. In addition, voters selected the name Menifee over Menifee Valley (52.9% to 47.1%) and decided to elect councilmembers by district rather than at-large (51.1% to 48.9%). In Orange County, voters in San Clemente supported a city ordinance that protects ocean views and imposes a 16-foot height restriction in part of town (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2008 ). Only 31.4% of voters chose to overturn the ordinance. In the City of Irvine, 80.9% of voters backed a measure that prohibits lobbying by any commissioners appointed by the mayor or City Council. In the San Diego County city of Chula Vista, voters narrowly rejected an initiative that would have reaffirmed the general plan's 84-foot height limit in most areas east of Interstate 5, and 45 feet on a stretch of Third Avenue downtown. Measure E received 48.6% of the vote. In San Mateo County, a one-eighth percent sales tax to fund park acquisition, development and improvements failed for the second time in less than two years to receive the required two-thirds report. Measure O received 60.5% support.

Some of California's best-known Gold Rush towns feel like museums that are operated for the benefit of tourists and transplanted retirees. Although the towns are genuinely historic, they may or may not be genuine places today. Yreka is different. The historic district in the county seat of Siskiyou County can match the historic qualities of just about any Gold Rush city in California. But it's no museum. Downtown Yreka is very much a functioning and evolving district. Gold was discovered in the area in 1851, and the City of Yreka (the name comes from a Shasta Indian term for northern mountain or Mt. Shasta) incorporated in 1857. Like many original mining towns, Yreka evolved over the decades into a logging town and regional trade center. These days, government agencies and the leisure/hospitality industry provide the vast majority of jobs. Yreka is surprisingly spread out for a city of only 7,300 people. It has the obligatory Wal-Mart and, because of the location on Interstate 5, more than its share of chain restaurants. But downtown appears to remain the center of the community. I wouldn't call downtown Yreka thriving. It has too many empty storefronts and second-hand stores. Yet on Monday, people were coming and going from professional offices and government buildings. People in business attire, blue-collar work clothes and vacation duds were on the sidewalk of Miner Street. The two-chair barbershop in the front of the 142-year-old Franco-American Hotel (now closed, but renovation is promised) was busy. At lunchtime, mom-and-pop restaurants and coffee houses were doing decent business. Plaques located all over Yreka's designated historic district commemorate events at certain buildings or on certain locations. It's great stuff for anyone interested in the Old West. These days, many old buildings serve new purposes — Mexican restaurant, law office, beauty salon, sporting equipment sales, bookstore. (The 132-year-old St. Joseph's Catholic Church pictured here is still a church, with weekday mass at 8:30 a.m.) The T-shirt shops, art galleries and overpriced antique stores that dominate some Gold Rush towns are noticeably absent. And I bet that is just fine with the locals, who still need and use a real downtown. - Paul Shigley

Rick Caruso, retail genius – ok. But Rick Caruso, mayor of Los Angeles? C'mon! It ain't gonna happen. The blogosphere has been burning up for a month with the idea that Caruso – developer of The Grove on the Westside and, more recently, The Americana on Brand in Glendale – will run against incumbent Antonio Villaraigosa next year. The L.A. Times finally gave the rumor credence last Friday – not in the news or politics columns, but oddly in Tina Daunt's entertainment column . Daunt's story was cast as an article about celebrity fundraising for the Villaraigosa campaign. Caruso is clearly flattered by the idea and isn't doing anything to discourage the rumors. And a Villaraigosa-Caruso race would be a haberdasher's dream. Along with the Obama candidacy, the mayoral race might bring back the well-fitting suit and crisply pressed suit from oblivion. But is Caruso really gonna run? Unlikely. In fact, it doesn't look like anybody is going to seriously challenge Antonio in his re-election run -- even with his highly publicized marital problems. Zev Yaroslavsky's been making high-profile anti-density noise aimed at Villaraigosa, but he hasn't made any obvious move toward actually running. It's always tempting to think that a sharp business executive with money can become an effective politician. And it's especially tempting when that sharp business executive is familiar with politics – as Caruso must be in order to get the entitlements and redevelopment subsidies he needs to thrive in his business. The closest analogy would be Richard Riordan, the downtown lawyer, redevelopment maven, and land speculator who was elected mayor of Los Angeles in 1993 and served for two pretty respectable terms. Riordan was theoretically vulnerable in political terms on his downtown land dealings, which weren't very pretty to look at. But he spent a lot of money. He was running for an open seat vacated by Tom Bradley, whom he loyally served. And he was lucky enough to draw a weak opponent in City Councilmember (and urban planner) Mike Woo. Caruso, on the other hand, would be running against the modern equivalent of Bradley. And he's probably too smart to do that. Surely he understands that challenging the high-profile and charismatic incumbent mayor of the largest and most powerful city in his market area is probably not a good way to keep that political support. Imagine if he lost! You'd never see another Caruso project in Los Angeles again – and Villaraigosa would use all his political leverage to make sure that suburban cities shut Caruso down too. Too bad in a way. After all, they both look great in a sharp suit. -- Bill Fulton

When Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network CEO Russell Hancock talks about transforming El Camino Real into the Northern California version of the Avenues des Champs Elysees, one begins to wonder what color the sky is in his world. For more than 40 miles between San Francisco and San Jose, El Camino is a traffic-choked arterial road lined with strip commercial centers, used car lots, fast-foot drive-throughs and suburban bric-a-brac that has grown up over decades. People come from all over the world to stroll, dine and shop on the famous Parisian boulevard. People who live in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties avoid El Camino whenever possible. Hancock, though, readily admits El Camino is "this hodge-podge that's just awful." What he really sees is potential — potential to create a corridor that brings together transit, housing, commerce and culture. There is no reason, he said, that El Camino couldn't become a boulevard of grand architecture, extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented destinations. "We can improve it in every dimension," Hancock said of El Camino. "More through-put, better retail, you can walk on the thing, housing, transit. Right now, El Camino is not an asset to the region. It doesn't reflect our dynamic nature." Hancock is co-chairman with Michael Scanlon, who heads the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), of the Grand Boulevard Task Force. The task force is a two-year-old, ad-hoc group that is intent on overhauling 43 miles of the El Camino corridor from Daly City into San Jose. The Grand Boulevard Initiative is likely the largest purely voluntary regional planning effort in the state. Both San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, all 19 cities along the corridor, Caltrans, local transit agencies, civic groups, business organizations and labor unions are participants on the 47-member task force. To date, 10 cities, SamTrans and the San Mateo City/County Governments Association (C/CAG) have adopted the Task Force's "guiding principles." "I think this is a model for California," said Corrine Goodrich, special projects manager for SamTrans and a lead staff member for the initiative. "At some level, it's a way for entities to share a vision and move forward collaboratively." Few roads in California have more history than El Camino Real, a name that translates to "The King's Road." It originated during the mid-18th Century as a 500-mile path linking missions, pueblos and military posts from San Diego to Sonoma. But none of that rich history is evident today on El Camino, which is known as known as Mission Street in Daly City, The Alameda in San Jose, and El Camino Real in between. The entire stretch is also Highway 82 and, thus, heavily controlled by Caltrans. Beginning in 2002, several planning efforts focused on El Camino. The Project for Public Spaces helped prepare a "Peninsula Corridor Plan" emphasizing improved transportation as a means to better living conditions. That plan resulted in five cities preparing conceptual plans for improvements around existing transit stations. During a 2004 symposium, local, state and federal officials agreed the corridor fell short of its potential as a place to live, work and shop. That same year, Joint Venture began work on a "Silicon Valley Main Street" project that identified numerous ways to improve the corridor in both counties. What people found while studying the situation was that nobody was satisfied with El Camino. They also found that a number of cities of their own accord had already adopted or were preparing plans to redevelop land along their individual sections of El Camino. "People don't like it, and they use it constantly," said Grand Boulevard Initiative consultant Michael Garvey, recognizing the dichotomy. "Psychologically, it's a barrier running through our communities." The barrier is also physical. For most of the San Mateo County stretch, the Caltrain railroad tracks run adjacent to El Camino, and in the northern end a relatively new BART line is nearby. The El Camino right-of-way is as wide as 139 feet in Millbrae, noted Goodrich. Long stretches El Camino are wide enough for six lanes of traffic, curb parking and an island in the middle. Portions of El Camino in Santa Clara County seem wider than the Bayshore Freeway, and nearly as high speed — not surprising considering that Caltrans for decades managed El Camino simply to move cars efficiently. Although Highway 82 does handle a lot of automobile traffic, the corridor underperforms in every other way. Transit is a good example. Ten Caltrain stations are located within one-quarter mile of El Camino, and five more are within a half-mile. El Camino is a backbone of SamTrans and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus service. "However," Goodrich wrote in an overview, "the use of commute alternatives to the car (17%) is only slightly higher by residents living within one-quarter mile of the corridor than for the counties as a whole (15%), reflecting the low density and lack of mixed-use development and pedestrian accessibility." Essentially, past land planning and public improvement decisions are prohibiting the more recent investment in transit from paying off. In its two years, the Grand Boulevard Task Force has launched a website, released an existing conditions report, adopted a vision statement and guiding principles, started an awards program for local projects, and received a Caltrans planning grant. Next up is a detailed study of economic development and housing opportunities along the corridor, Goodrich said. In the meantime, Grand Boulevard Initiative participants are making incremental progress. For example: • SamTrans has passed along $2.3 million in federal funds to help with $6 million worth of pedestrian, transit-access and aesthetic improvement projects in San Carlos, San Mateo, Millbrae, San Bruno and Daly City. • VTA has awarded $1.2 million to Palo Alto, which has plans for extensive improvements to the massive intersection of El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue. • A mixed-use project with 360 apartments and retail space (including a Trader Joe's) opened between El Camino Real and a BART station in South San Francisco last year. • Millbrae has added more than 300 housing units and new retail space and has upgraded streetscapes in its downtown area, which is located along El Camino and within walking distance of BART. • Several other transit-oriented development projects are in the planning stages, including re-use of the Bay Meadows horse track in San Mateo, and a 280-unit, mixed-use project at a multi-modal transit station on SamTrans property in San Carlos. • VTA has started bus rapid transit service, which has proven quite popular. • Both Redwood City and Sunnyvale have adopted precise plans that encourage mixed-use development and much greater density in certain areas along El Camino. San Bruno is one of 10 cities to adopt the Grand Boulevard Initiative's guiding principles. San Bruno has incorporated the principles into a nearly complete general plan update and intends to use them while preparing a detailed transit corridor plan, said Mark Sullivan, the city's housing and redevelopment manager. "Right now, El Camino in the city is all zoned commercial. The current land use designation doesn't allow residential," explained Sullivan, who said the new general plan will change things. "We've created a transit-oriented development land use designation which permits commercial below, with residential above." San Carlos has not yet adopted the guiding principles because it wants to let a general plan update complete its course, said Deborah Nelson, the city's planning manager. But there appears to be no conflict between the two, as the general plan committee is considering changing the emphasis on El Camino Real from highway-oriented commercial to mixed-use, she said. Nelson is interested in using public projects such as sidewalks, bike paths, landscaping and street furniture to ensure the SamTrans mixed-use project incorporates into the surrounding community, which includes downtown to the west, and significant industrial uses to the east. The actions of the cities are what matter most, said Daniel Cruery, president and CEO of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association, one of the initiative's primary backers. "Business organizations and the public agencies — VTA and SamTrans — are not the decision-makers along the corridor," he said. "The individual cities are." The role of the task force is to keep the cities, which have many priorities, focused on the corridor, Cruery said. "We hear from people that there's not as much going on as they would like to see. But it's a process," Cruery said. "It takes time. It takes education." Joint Venture's Hancock agrees. "The biggest challenge is getting the results — getting good stuff on the ground," he said. "All we can do is persuade. We can't tell cities what to do." Contacts: Russell Hancock, Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, (408) 271-7213. Daniel Cruery, San Mateo County Economic Development Association, (650) 413-5600. Corrine Goodrich, San Mateo County Transit District, (650) 508-6200. Deborah Nelson, City of San Carlos, (650) 802-4263. Mark Sullivan, City of San Bruno, (650) 616-7074. Grand Boulevard Initiative website: http://grandboulevard.net 'Grand Boulevard' Guiding Principals The Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force has adopted these 10 "guiding principles." The task force is urging member entities to adopt the principles as well. 1. Target housing and job growth in strategic areas along the corridor. 2. Encourage compact mixed-use development and high-quality urban design and construction. 3. Create a pedestrian-oriented environment and improve streetscapes, ensuring full access to and between public areas and private developments. 4. Develop a balanced multi-modal corridor to maintain and improve mobility of people and vehicles along the corridor. 5. Manage parking assets. 6. Provide vibrant public spaces and gathering places. 7. Preserve and accentuate unique and desirable community character and the existing quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods. 8. Improve safety and public health. 9. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections with the corridor. 10. Pursue environmentally sustainable and economically viable development patterns.

Just looking at the proposed football stadium on the eastern edge of Los Angeles County is enough to give me indigestion. This six-dollar hamburger is just too big to eat. Even by the high standards for excess in Southern California, the numbers for this project seem overly rich. The 562-acre complex will contain (take a deep breath) a 75,000-seat stadium, expandable to 80,000 seats in the event of a Super Bowl. That stadium will be big-and-bad enough to satisfy the National Football League, which demands a Brobdignagian sports facility as the price of doing business in pro football. Add 833,000 square feet of retail space, or twice the size of two smallish regional malls, and another 162,000 square feet of restaurants to serve up enough chicken tenders, Philly cheese steaks and spaghetti marinara to satisfy the hunger of the football faithful. Add to this development goulash a 5,000-seat theater, plus 1,200 cinema seats, plus 1.5 million square feet of office space in an industrial area with little or no demand for such space. All this for a mere $800 million. If you like the tenant mix, you'll the love the urbanism: The developer, Ed Roski Jr., has sited his dream child in the City of Industry, a city made up almost entirely of warehouses and loading docks, the majority of which have been built by Roski himself. In other words, this NFL project – let us call it Roski Island – is to be an isolated megastructure amid a tangled skein of freeways and windowless industrial boxes. The project website describes Roski Island as one of a variety of regional attractions, such as Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm, that will entice tourists. Believe me, 833,000 square feet of retail wrapped around a football stadium is the first thing I want to see when I get off the plane after a long week in Kuala Lumpur. In fairness, Roski and his development partners, including sports and entertainment magnate Philip Anschutz, have already tried and failed to sell the City of Los Angeles on the notion of a football stadium in or near downtown Los Angeles, either at the antiquated Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or on a separate site near the Los Angeles Convention Center that was quickly hooted down. One can hardly blame Roski for turning back to Industry, the town where he made his fortune, as the next logical venue for an NFL ball field. Site assembly, an enormous issue for a football stadium in downtown L.A., is not a concern in Industry, where Roski's Majestic Reality has a 65-year lease on the project site. Pulling a building permit would probably not be a problem for Industry's favorite son, either, even for a project big enough for Pecos Bill to lose Babe the Blue Ox in. Ribbing aside, Roski and his team actually have at least one interesting idea, which is to excavate deeply into the site, and make the football stadium essentially a crater-like opening in the ground. This stratagem would save money on steel. The bermed stadium would also save millions of dollars in heating and cooling costs, because the temperature of the soil almost anywhere in the temperate zone is 55 degrees Fahrenheit. A partially under-grounded stadium is a notion worth exploring. But the questionable urbanism of the scheme is its undoing, in my opinion. Sports and entertainment complexes need thousands of pairs of feet to succeed. Foot traffic is why stadiums thrive in many downtown areas; Baltimore, Denver, and San Diego are among the most frequently cited. Industry, however, is a gigantic business park that has no previous history of being a shopping or sports destination. It is difficult to imagine Southern California residents piling in the car on a regular basis to go shopping in the heat sink and smoggy air of Industry, no matter how cool the crater. The second and third problems are economic and geographic, and they are intertwined. The absurd economics of pro sports has skewed the pricing of such events sharply toward the upper middle class. While the location in east L.A. County offers excellent access to some folks in neighboring Orange and Riverside counties — 12 million people within a 25-mile radius, according to the project website — it's questionable whether that location serves the affluent folks in West Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills who are mostly likely to drop a few grand for season tickets to watch the Los Angeles Captains of Industry toss the pigskin around. When the project website talks about Roski Island being a regional attraction on the scale of Disneyland and Universal Studios, we realize that the developers are stuck in the 1960s, when it was still possible to hop into a Corvette and race across town. Those days are over. Driving in Southern California is misery, and entertainment is increasingly localized. Yes, football may induce people to drive long distances, but the other 350 days each year of concert-going and shopping look very dicey to me — particularly when venues offering the same fare already exist in Hollywood, Universal City, downtown L.A. and perhaps a dozen other places in the region. Roski and Anschutz state that Los Angeles is hungry for pro football after 14 years of living without. They may be right, although L.A., despite its wealth and history of winning teams, tends to be a dispassionate sports market, perhaps because nobody in Los Angeles really wants to admit that they actually live here. And that indifference suggests that driving out of town for a nominally L.A. team may or may not work. Those kinds of questions are for wiser heads to answer. For the time being, I would simply advise Roski and his friends to keep the berms but look closer to the Westside. There's an empty basketball stadium in Inglewood, where the Lakers used to play before they moved downtown into an arena that Roski and Anschutz built. That might be a good place to start. And, if my favorite billionaires wouldn't mind some further advice, I recommend going easy on the food-and-retail bit. In this town, football itself is hard enough to swallow.

If you've ever shopped around for securities or mutual funds, you've heard the caveat that past results are no guarantee of future performance. The same warning apparently applies to California's water system. A report released by the White House this week makes clear that climate change is very likely to alter precipitation patterns. Essentially, the mountains will get more rain and less snow, and arid areas will experience longer droughts. Much of California's water system — the federal Central Valley Project, the State Water Project and the Colorado River system — is predicated on capturing and redirecting snowmelt during the dry months of late spring, summer and early fall. We need to rethink this system, according to "The Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States." "Although U.S. water management practices are generally quite advanced, particularly in the West, the reliance on past conditions as the foundation for current and future planning and practices will no longer be tenable as climate change and variability increasingly create conditions that are well outside of historical parameters, eroding predictability," the report states. The report continues: "Across North America, vulnerability to extended drought is increasing as population growth and economic development create more demands from agricultural, municipal and industrial uses, resulting in frequent over-allocation of water resources. Examples of vulnerable U.S. regions include: the heavily used water systems of the West that rely on capturing snowmelt runoff, such as the Colombia and Colorado River systems; portions of California …" The 271-page report — which the Bush Administration released only under court order — does not present new science. Rather, it is a comprehensive summary of federal and independent research concerning human-caused global climate change. Give credit to the California Department of Water Resources, which — as we reported in 2003 — has been grappling with the implications of climate change for years. A climate change technical advisory committee is assisting with an ongoing update of the California Water Plan . The White House report says that predicting climate change's impact on particular cities or regions is difficult because of climate variability. Still, the report is packed with findings of particular relevance to California. Among those findings are these: • Sea level is expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the this century — and could rise even more depending on ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica. This higher sea level combined with expected larger storm surges will increase coastal erosion and cause damage farther inland. • During the last three decades, fire season in the West has lengthened, and burn duration has increased, partly because of climate change-caused insect outbreaks and tree mortality. "These trends are very likely to continue." • "Many plants and animals in arid ecosystems are near their physiological limits for tolerating temperature and water stress, and even slight changes in stress will have significant consequences." Riparian ecosystems in arid areas are particularly vulnerable, as are "iconic megaflora, such as saguaro cacti and Joshua trees" that are not adapted to cycles of fire. This finding makes one wonder about the long-range habitat conservation plans prepared for San Diego County, western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley and the Mojave Desert. • Coldwater fisheries will suffer in the southern portions of ranges, a finding that raises questions about the survival of salmon and steelhead in California.   • Water quality will diminish because of higher surface water temperatures, intrusion of saltwater into groundwater aquifers, and the introduction of more sediment, nutrients, pathogens and toxics caused by increased intense rainstorms. "These water quality changes could impose enormous costs on water treatment infrastructure." • Population growth is shifting toward coastal regions most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Hello L.A. and San Diego. • Flooding and landslides are "very likely" to interrupt road, rail and sea transportation systems. "The crucial connectivity of the transportation system means that the services of the network can be threatened even if small segments are wiped out." The good news? Agricultural growing seasons should continue to lengthen, demand for wintertime heating will decrease, and wintertime road maintenance should be less of a concern. But those limited advantages or overwhelmed by the negatives. - Paul Shigley

Westwood Village sits in the middle of a rare constellation of commercial districts. To the east lie Prada, Spago and the extravagance of Beverly Hills. To the south, Century City offers a resplendent new multiplex and every imaginable upscale chain store. To the west, Santa Monica's Promenade ranks as the paragon of L.A. urbanism. Further afield, the ersatz streets of The Grove and CityWalk attract "destination" shoppers from all over the region. By the unusual standards of West Los Angeles, Westwood Village could be cited for blight. Yet even as other pockets of the Westside become ever more upscale, the city's new focus on "elegant density" and strategic infill might leave Westwood behind. Westwood Village � an extraordinary jumble of short streets, odd angles, mixed use, and Spanish revival architecture next to UCLA � has for the past 20 years wheezed between two lives, neither Berkeley nor Beverly Hills. Today, a genteel tug-of-war continues between density and seclusion, youth and wealth, complacency and vibrancy. "The demographics of Westwood Village are outstanding," said Laura Lake, co-president of Save Westwood Village. "It's strange that it's become the Bermuda Triangle of retail. But the potential is tremendous." The latest and biggest attempt to realize Westwood's potential opened last month in the form of the Palazzo, a neo-Tuscan complex of 350 apartments, 1,200 parking spaces, and several storefronts. Its original design, critics say, tried to shoehorn nearly all of Florence into a city block. Countless meetings, revisions, and reinterpretations of zoning laws later, the Palazzo is now welcoming residents who, it is hoped, will stimulate the businesses outside their front doors. "It is overly dense but may bring more life to the Village by having a residential population," said Lake. "The use was never the issue, but rather, the scale." Rounding out what passes for a building boom in an area unaccustomed to new construction, a smaller mixed-use project, Plaza Lorena, is under The Palazzo is the largest new project in Westwood Village in many years. way just south of the Palazzo. Both developments hearken to a vision of smart growth and density that L.A. public officials, most notably Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, have been promoting. City Councilmember Jack Weiss, who represents Westwood, said he welcomes "green, sustainable projects that encourage pedestrians and support transit." City Hall has not, however, put forward a cohesive strategy for the Village to promote growth � smart or otherwise � despite the Village's ready-made streetscape. The city, in fact, still relies on a prescriptive, 19-year-old specific plan for Westwood that encourages cars and discourages restaurants and bars. The Palazzo's more discerning neighbors may yet decide whether a trend is afoot. "I don't think there is such thing as �elegant density,'" said Sandy Brown, president of the Westwood-Holmby Homeowners Association. "The infrastructure in Westwood Village will not accommodate that kind of excessive development." But the Palazzo is not merely big. Billed as a "catalyst for the Village," it combats blight with bling. With two-bedrooms starting at $3,700 and amenities that include concierge service and Pilates, few Palazzo residents are likely to be students. The high-end housing continues a trend, as UCLA Student Body President Gabe Rose said that condominium conversions have been eating up cheaper apartments and pushing the Village away from its buoyant past. "I have this feeling that Westwood is becoming less of a college town," said Rose. Old urbanism Conceived during the 1920s as a commercial center for the university, the Village occupies a trapezoidal plot between Wilshire Boulevard and UCLA. Movie palaces and some of the city's best shopping attracted such large pedestrian throngs that by the 1960s cars were often banned. "The bones are great," said UCLA Planning Professor Don Shoup. "A lot of what the new urbanists are recommending is what Westwood Village had from the beginning: a variety of densities, a village at the center, an interesting street layout." "It's not new urbanism�it's old urbanism," said architect Stefanos Polyzoides, who co-founded the Congress for New Urbanism and designed Plaza Lorena. But with history comes baggage. By the mid-1980s the Village's weekend crowds had grown increasingly large, diverse, and unruly. Bloods and Crips shared uneasy streets with Bruins until an undiscerning bullet struck 27-year-old graphic artist Karen Toshima on a January evening in 1988. Almost overnight, crowds receded and Westwood became a forlorn enclave serving a local clientele. "We hit rock-bottom," said Lake. "The merchants got hurt badly." Toshima's story is cited so often it is easy to imagine that her ghost has been stifling Westwood. Lake said that to this day "residents don't want it so vibrant that gangs come in and problems happen." But, beyond the shock, more prosaic forces may have been undermining Westwood Village. "I don't think that any of the problems that occurred in the past are what's keeping it from being successful today," said Paul Geigner, president of Topa Management, which manages 200,000 square feet of retail in the Village. "Those were anomalies." Though its streetscape may be the stuff of Jane Jacobs's dreams, other aspects of the Village belong to planners' nightmares: chaotic parking, geographic constraints, the Westside's infamous traffic, and many stakeholders unconcerned about economic development. With Bel Air to the north and corporate offices to the south, there are few places in the world where the interests of freshman and tycoon are so entangled. "One of Westwood Village's great strengths is the diversity of individuals, homeowners, students, merchants, and property owners," said Weiss. "This strength also presents challenges because each group � has a different vision." The closest thing the Village has to a consensus is embodied in the Village specific plan, which represents the hopes, fears, and planning strategies of a bygone era. Adopted, in a gruesome concurrence, on the one-year anniversary of Toshima's murder, the plan's stated goals include historic preservation, a "balanced mix" of businesses, and mitigation of impacts on local residential areas. Amended once, in 1991, the plan imagines a contrived reality in which particular stores serve just the right patrons. In particular, the plan promotes retail at the expense of eateries. It allows no more than one fast food restaurant per 400 feet of street front, and conventional restaurants are limited to one per 200 feet � notwithstanding the fact that Westwood's appetite rivals those of many cities' downtowns. The plan also forbids stand-alone bars, and it puts upscale fast food in the same category as McDonald's. The plan does nothing to ease the Village's chaotic parking scheme, which requires redevelopment to provide a net gain of parking spaces amid a patchwork of private lots and 50-cents-per-hour street parking. Though Lake called it "a visionary plan, particularly because of its incentives for historic preservation," it has presided over a commercial district that "has been kind of standing still while everything around us has been upgraded and improved," according to Geigner. "This is not a clear-minded, simple plan," said Polyzoides. "It's about EIRs, obstructions, and nonsense." "The absence of a great planning document bespeaks the fact that there isn't a discussion going on," said Polyzoides, who added that "second-rate towns" are adopting the sort of plans that Westwood needs. (Despite repeated solicitation, representatives of the L.A. Planning Department were not available for comment.) Isn't there a college around here? At the same time, attempts to unite the Village under a marketing plan and leasing strategy have met with disaster. Several years ago, an attempted business improvement district "was badly managed," according to UCLA's Shoup, and became "one of the few BIDs in the country that's ever been disbanded." And despite its heft, UCLA traditionally stays out of land-use issues beyond its campus. "I think it takes a concerted effort with the city, the local resident population, and the commercial property owners," said Gienger. "It's been very hard to get everyone on the same page." A purposeful discussion may not arrive until 2012, when the specific plan is scheduled to be updated. In the meantime, the Village continues to surrender to nondescript eateries, beauty supply stores, and undistinguished chains. There is little discussion about the potential economic gain of student traffic. The Village has two student-oriented bars for the 36,000 undergrads and graduate students who study within walking distance. Homeowner Brown said, "The bars certainly are in excess." Yet among many students, the Village's quietude is a running joke. "Westwood's offerings are sub-par, to put it extremely diplomatically," said Sierus Erdelyi, president of the UCLA Law Student Association. "This does not make economic sense for what could be a bustling college town." Other districts, such as downtown L.A. and Hollywood, are welcoming bars and clubs with bright new plans and outspoken boosters. In the Village, however, bars must primarily serve food and are therefore subject not only to liquor laws but also to the specific plan's limits on restaurant density. Nightspots cannot allow dancing, and the community often objects to such amusements as billiards and happy hours. But in the effort to interpret the specific plan's elusive "balanced mix," Rose, the student body president, admitted that "apathy usually reigns off campus" and that students rarely assert their concerns in public processes. This isn't to say that, there aren't bright spots in the Village for residents and students alike. Ralph's established a welcomed grocery store in the shell of a former department store, and Whole Foods followed soon thereafter. The Gap has left, but Urban Outfitters persists, and Trader Joe's is moving into the ground floor of the Palazzo. Hollywood premiers take place at the Village Theater, and hookah bars have thrived absent competition from alcohol. And yet, just as the Palazzo's floors were being polished, the National Theater, a remarkable brown single-screen blob from the 1970s, met with a wrecking crew. A single story of retail, crowned by rooftop parking, will replace it. Contacts & Resources: Los Angeles Councilmember Jack Weiss, (213) 473-7005 Stefanos Polyzoides, Moule & Polyzoides, (626) 844-2400 Paul Geigner, Topa Management, (310) 203-9199 Westwood Village specific plan: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/sparea/wwdvillagepage.htm Palazzo website: www.palazzowestwood.com/home.htm

The Inland Empire needs a better-educated workforce, more jobs and greater political participation by Latinos and Asians, according to a recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California. The PPIC researchers estimated that the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area's population will increase by 1 million from 2005 to 2015, to 4.9 million people. They also found that about 30% of workers commute to jobs in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. The majority of Inland Empire residents will be Latino by 2015, yet if current voting patterns persist, whites "will make up the majority of voters even though they will constitute little more than one-third of the adult population," according to the PPIC. The PPIC estimated the pace of job growth in the Inland Empire would exceed population growth, but warned about low educational attainment. The report found that of 51 metro areas in the country with more than 500,000 jobs, the Inland Empire ranked second to last in annual average wage at $36,924 — about $6,000 less than the next lowest California metro area, Sacramento. Shortly before the PPIC report was issued, Forbes magazine listed the City of Riverside as one of the top 10 cities for jobs because of its 4.3% annual increase in jobs and 4.9% increase per year in income over five years. Riverside was the only California city on the list, which was topped by Cape Coral, Florida. The PPIC report, "The Inland Empire in 2015," is available at www.ppic.org . Incorporation of a new city is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review, a Monterey County Superior Court judge has ruled. Judge Lydia Villarreal determined that potential environmental impacts of creating the Town of Carmel Valley were either too speculative to study or not directly tied to incorporation. "There is no substantial evidence in the whole record of any potential effect on the physical environment," Judge Villarreal wrote in a decision issued in May. She determined that incorporation of Carmel Valley is not a "project" for purposes of CEQA. The Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission and incorporation proponents have battled over whether an environmental impact report is required. Proponents say such a document is unnecessary and they now hope to get incorporation of the community southeast of Carmel on the ballot in the near future. The incorporation ruling was not the only news from Carmel Valley in May. A different Superior Court judge rejected the water analysis in the EIR for the long-planned and controversial September Ranch subdivision. In 2001, an appellate court rejected the water analysis for what was then a 109-unit project ( Save Our Peninsula Com. v. County of Monterey , 87 Cal.App.4th 99; see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2001 ). In late 2006, the county approved a revised, 95-unit subdivision, but opponents returned to court. Judge Susan Dauphine ruled that the revised EIR's analysis of cumulative water demand was faulty. Bond measures to fund seismic safety projects for two public hospitals have failed. Voters in the Sonoma Valley Healthcare District provided 61.8% support for a $45 million bond that would have cost property owners $9.23 per $100,000 in assessed value. Meanwhile, 65.3% of voters in Stanislaus County's Oak Valley Hospital District backed a $27 million bond, which would have provided partial funding for a $110 million hospital replacement project. However, neither measure received the required two-thirds approval. The Sonoma Valley district may return to ballot with a new bond measure as soon as November.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has dismissed as moot an animal rights group's challenge of the environmental review documents for a program in which the National Park Service eradicated feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island. A group called In Defense of Animals (IDA) argued that the co-owners of the island, the park service and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act in a variety of ways. The group conceded the introduced pigs were a hazard to historical and natural resources on the island, which is part of Channel Islands National Park. But the group argued for a non-lethal method of eradicating the pigs. The park service and TNC adopted a restoration plan in 2003 that called for shooting the pigs. Two years later, IDA sued, but a district court judge ruled for the park service and TNC. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit said the case was moot because all of the pigs already had been killed. "Because we cannot resurrect the pigs, nor retroactively remedy any pain that they might have felt from being shot, or take any other action to prevent or undo the eradication at issue here, we lack the power to grant any effective relief," the court ruled. The case is Feldman v. Bomar , No. 06-55675, 2008 DJDAR 389. It was filed January 10, 2008 and modified March 3, 2008 at 2008 DJDAR 3092.

A Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruling striking down San Diego County's ordinance regulating cell phone antenna location and appearance has been set aside, and the case will be reconsidered by the court. In March 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled the county's ordinance violated the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the ordinance's discretionary review provisions could prohibit wireless communications services. However, the court did little to explain how exactly how the ordinance ran afoul of the federal statute (see CP&DR Legal Digest, May 2007 ). San Diego County and local government organizations including the National League of Cities contended that the Telecommunications Act actually preserves the local zoning authority the county was exercising. They sought an en banc hearing in which a much larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges would decide the case. Fourteen months after the original decision came down, the majority of Ninth Circuit judges voted for an en banc hearing. The larger panel may still rule for the cell phone company and could even keep the original ruling. But at this point, the three-judge panel's decision may not be cited as precedent. Interestingly, the state Supreme Court earlier this year dropped its review of a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision upholding the San Diego County ordinance (see CP&DR Legal Digest, August 2006 ). The state Supreme Court said the state court case was moot because of the Ninth Circuit ruling striking down the ordinance — a ruling that is now in jeopardy. The federal court case is Sprint Telephony PCS v. County of San Diego , No. 05-56076.

The owner of an affordable apartment complex in Sacramento may pursue a breach of contract lawsuit against the state Department of Housing and Community Development over a rent increase that the state rejected, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel overruled a Sacramento County Superior Court judge, who had tossed out the lawsuit because of technical uncertainties in the suit. The for-profit developer 300 DeHaro Street Investors acquired the 67-unit Castle Garden Apartments in the unincorporated Arden-Arcade area in 1989. The following year, the developer received a $1.9 million, low-interest loan from Housing and Community Development (HCD) to fund apartment rehabilitation. The loan agreement requires DeHaro Street to provide 54 units to low-income households, and permits HCD to set rents for those units based on a formula. In 2002, the property owner sued HCD, arguing that HCD had breached the contract by not approving a requested rent increase. The sides went back and forth over technical aspects of the suit before Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster finally dismissed the suit. McMaster's decision was based on Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, which concerns challenges of administrative orders and decisions. The state agency contended that statute applied to this case because HCD denied the proposed rent increase after conducting a "paper hearing." However, the Third District determined that § 1094.5 did not apply here. " ven assuming the department's review of plaintiff's request could be characterized as a hearing, it does not trigger § 1094.5 review unless the hearing was required by law, which was not the case here," Justice Richard Sims wrote. Instead, the court ruled that 300 DeHaro Street may press forward with its breach of contract claim because the property owner "does not challenge a mere administrative decision, but an administrative decision concerning a provision of a contract," Sims wrote. "That the contract incorporated statutes and regulations does not strip it of its contractual nature, because all contracts necessarily and implicitly incorporate all applicable laws in existence when the contract is entered." The Case: 300 DeHaro Street Investors v. Department of Housing and Community Development , No. C053033, 08 C.D.O.S. 4233. Filed April 10, 2008 The Lawyers: For 300 DeHaro Street: Jay-Allen Eisen, (916) 444-6171. For HCD: Teri Ashby, attorney general's office, (916) 445-9555.

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