Will transportation and land-use planning get its share of dough from federal climate change programs? Not if the coal industry has its way. That was the message from a Capitol Hill staffer at a plenary session of the American Public Transit Association's annual legislative conference in Washington, D.C., on Monday. To combat the coal industry, smart growth and public transit lobbyists will have to prove they have an important national asset that can help meet the climate change challenge. Along with other panelists, Beth Osborne, an aide to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., agreed that "smart growth" planning principles can help cut the growth in vehicle miles traveled and make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But she warned that transportation and land use are unlikely to get much federal money for climate change because the electric utilities and coal companies are doing a better job of lobbying Congress. The money will likely come from the provisions of the so-called Leiberman-Warner bill now pending in the Senate, which would generate funds by capping carbon emissions and auctioning off a portion of the "right to pollute". "We are talking about as much as $4.5 trillion over 50 years, "Osborne said. "Right now the overwhelming majority is going to stationary sources, with about 1% going to transit." She added: "Impacted industries such as utilities, coal, and manufacturing have been extremely aggressive about making their case to us about the help they need to meet these standards.We've provided funding support to meet those standards. Noticeably absent from the debate is driving and transit alternatives – transportation interests have not been engaged in this climate change bill." She predicted that planning and transportation interests could get more money if they link their lobbying on the federal transportation reauthorization next year to lobbying on the climate change bill – which she said would not pass this year anyway. Steve Winkleman, a smart growth/climate change policy wonk with the Center for Clean Air Policy, said lobbyists in the transportation business are gradually coming around, but the public transit business has not been aggressive enough. He said, for example, that the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has recommended an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction target associated with public transit – but the transit lobbyists have not been at the table. Winkleman – a co-author of "Growing Cooler," published by the Urban Land Institute – said that if market demand for smart growth were satisfied, the effect would be the same as a 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard. – Bill Fulton

Just about everyone has assumed that a "cap and trade" mechanism would be part of the implementation of California's AB 32, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law. But cap and trade may not come about without a big, and potentially very political, fight from environmental justice advocates. Under a cap and trade system, the state would establish a maximum combined emission level of a greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide. Polluters that come in under their allowance would then sell their credits to an entity that produces more than permitted. There's also the possibility that greenhouse gas emitters could buy offsets. Over time, the cap would get lower and lower. The concept is similar to the federal cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide, which affects more than 100 electricity generating plants around the country. Recently, a group of 18 environmental justice organizations calling themselves the California Environmental Justice Movement announced that it was firmly opposed to cap and trade. Their concern is that heavy polluters in urban areas would simply buy their way out of new emissions restrictions. The issue isn't so much the greenhouse gases that, say, a refinery generates. Gases such as carbon dioxide are a global problem, not local. The EJ group's biggest concern is the "co-pollutants," such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, that nearly always accompany the carbon dioxide emissions. These co-pollutants contaminate the air in the neighborhood. In other words, planting a forest in Canada or shutting down a factory in Idaho might offset the carbon dioxide produced by a refinery in Los Angeles. But those measures don't do anything about the soot, NOX, SOX (sulfur oxides) and other pollutants that residents of Wilmington have to inhale. The EJ organization argues that cap and trade turns the air everyone breathes into a commodity that wealthy corporations then pay to pollute, at the expense of poor people. The group calls the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme a failure, arguing that it is establishing "carbon dumps" in poor and developing nations so that powerful companies and rich nations can continue polluting. Instead of mimicking the EU's venture, the EJ proponents argue, the state should tax greenhouse gas emissions. Under AB 32, the Air Resources Board is required to consider "market mechanisms" for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and Gov. Schwarzenegger is an outspoken proponent of cap and trade. In a report to the Air Resources Board last year, the board's Market Advisory Committee endorsed the concept of cap and trade, but only if "localized effects or disproportionate impacts on low-income communities or communities already adversely affected by air pollution." A number of mainstream environmental groups, including the National Resources Defense Council, have endorsed at least the concept of cap and trade. For many businesses and political conservatives, market-based systems are the only acceptable way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's a lot of momentum for cap and trade. But the EJ groups have friends in high places. Two of the group's leaders, Jane Williams of California Communities Against Toxics and the California Environmental Rights Alliance's Angela Johnson Meszaros, are on the Air Resources Board's Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. That committee's recommendations will not be easy for the board or the governor to ignore. More important is new leadership in the state Legislature. With a history of social justice activism, Assembly Speaker-to-be Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) will be the first African-American woman to serve as speaker. Senate President Pro-Tem-to-be Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has cultivated an anti-business reputation as a defender of the working class. (He was a labor lawyer before becoming a state lawmaker.) Although they have not endorsed the California Environmental Justice Movement's cap and trade position, Bass and Steinberg are natural allies of the EJ group. Thus, the road to a greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade system in California will not be smooth. It might even be a dead end. - Paul Shigley

This is going to sound like sour grapes, I know. But it's not. Honest. It's a real policy beef – and one that I've had for a long time. I own a Prius. But I don't own an access sticker that gets me into the carpool lanes. That's because I bought my Prius in December of 2006 – the exact time when the State of California doled out the last of 85,000 "Clean Air Vehicle Stickers." Under AB 2628, the 2004 bill sponsored by then-Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), the stickers allow owners of high-mileage vehicles – mostly hybrids – to drive in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Even before I found myself crawling along in the regular lanes in my unstickered Prius, I thought this was a pretty dumb idea. Over time, it's proven dumber and dumber. Now, unfortunately, it's turned into a congestion pricing system, except the resulting revenue flows not to new transportation investments that benefit all of us, but to Prius owners clever enough to buy their cars before I did. The goal, apparently, was to encourage more people to buy hybrids, which use less gas and therefore emit fewer greenhouse gases. That's a worthy goal, but it's not the reason HOV lanes exist. The reason we have HOV lanes is to increase transportation capacity – and maybe reduce congestion and air pollution – by encouraging people to carpool or take buses instead of driving alone. Every time two or three people drive in a car instead of one, you've increased the capacity of the transportation system at no cost. Allowing single-occupancy hybrids into the carpool lane undermines this whole policy goal. Presumably there's a modest improvement in overall energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions – if the 85,000 drivers wouldn't have bought hybrids otherwise, which I doubt. But I can't figure out what other benefit there might be. Drive-alones add cars to the carpool lane no matter what kind of car they drive; but, unlike carpoolers, they don't add capacity to the system. (Something like 40% of the state's carpool lanes are already at capacity.) And the Internet is flooded with stories about how the granny-like habits of Prius drivers in search of high gas mileage slow down the carpool lane even more and therefore reduce everybody else's motivation to carpool. But here's the most perverse part: We've inadvertently created congestion pricing with this policy – and we're not getting any transportation investment out of it. Congestion pricing is a policy idea that's been kicking around for a while now . The idea is that people will pay money to drive faster on the freeway during periods of congestion. And the money they pay can be used to build more lanes or otherwise enhance transportation capacity. It's an idea worth thinking about, but except for the toll lanes on the 91 Freeway and the high-occupancy toll lanes on I-15 in San Diego County, it's not a policy that anybody in California has actually adopted. The "Clean Air Sticker" policy has proven that a congestion pricing policy would work. Why? Because a used hybrid with the stickers is worth $4,000 more than a used hybrid without one . In other words, the State of California gave away to owners of 85,000 hybrid cars a carpool access sticker worth $4,000. That value – somewhere around $300 million – is now in the hands of hybrid car owners. It is not in the hands of state and regional transportation agencies that could use it for other transportation improvements. With gas at close to $4 a gallon, I don't think anybody needs a $2,000 to $4,000 incentive to by a hybrid. In fact, I think the success of the Prius – a very sensible car in spite of its cache – suggests that Californians never needed such an incentive. When our state or our regional transportation agencies build an HOV lane, they are creating valuable real estate in the transportation system. The wisest use of this investment is to use it to increase our overall transportation capacity. We should do that either (1) by giving space in the carpool lane away for free to carpoolers who increase transportation capacity at no cost to the public, or else (2) by selling that space to drive-alones willing to pay the price, and using that money for other transportation investments. The one thing we should not be doing is giving it away for free to drive-alones based on the kind of car they drive. Sometimes we need to use our heads, not our hearts, in crafting environmental policy. – Bill Fulton

State lawmakers introduced hundreds of bills just before the February 22 deadline, and many of them concern land use. At the time of the Legislature's deadline, we were putting together our big overview of land use legislation , so we were not able to look at every last bill. The late introductions don't change the fact that SB 375 (Steinberg) is the most important piece of land use legislation currently circulating. But we want to make sure you know about all the important and just plain weird land use bills. Here are the late entries: Housing • AB 2069 (Jones). Prohibits commercial development on sites designated for residential development in a housing element unless new sites for housing are created. Similar to last year's AB 414, which the governor vetoed. • AB 2280 (Saldaña). Eliminates density bonus eligibility for projects that already receive a bonus for including affordable units. This is an important bill for cities, which complain that developers are doubling up on various density bonuses. Having strengthened the state density bonus law during recent years, housing advocates have already said they will fight the rollback. • AB 2322 (Portantino). Allows cities and counties to count foster youth placements for purposes of meeting fair-share affordable housing requirements. • AB 2331 (DeSaulnier). For projects funded by the California Housing Finance Agency (Cal HFA), boosts the definition of "moderate income" from 120% of median to 150% of median. • SB 1433 (Wyland). Prohibits a city or county from including rent-controlled mobile home parks in its affordable housing inventory for regional housing needs assessment purposes, unless the park owner and the local government have an agreement. Local and regional planning • AB 2367 (Fuentes). Extends to five years (from the current two years) the prohibition on cities changing the zoning designation on annexed land, unless the city makes certain findings. • AB 2447 (Jones). Prohibits a local government from approving a parcel map or subdivision in high fire danger areas unless the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection approves the project. • AB 2520 (Walters). One of several bills extending the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by two years. • AB 2585 (Jeffries). Increases from four to six the number of times per year a city or county may amend its general plan. • AB 2870 (DeSaulnier). Creates the Blueprint Implementation Commission to facilitate implementation of regional growth plans. Fees and revenues • AB 2173 (Caballero). Makes it easier for school districts to levy higher impact fees on new development. • AB 2256 (Duvall). Increases the homeowners' property tax exemption from $7,000 to $75,000. • AB 2604 (Torrico). Prohibits a local agency that imposes a fee on residential development for construction of public facilities from collecting that fee until a certificate of occupancy is issued or escrow has closed. While this measure could help with development financing, local governments may oppose it because they lose leverage for collecting fees once a certificate of occupancy has been issued. • AB 2705 (Jones). Adds public transit services to the list of items that may be financed by a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. • SB 1473 (Calderon). Requires cities and counties to levy a building permit fee of $4 per $100,000 in valuation  to fund creation of green building standards.  Infrastructure • AB 2600 (Niello). A "spot bill" authorizing state and local governments to enter into "performance-based infrastructure partnerships for eligible facilities." • AB 2674 (Emmerson). Authorizes a private water company to enter into a joint powers agreement with a public agency. • AB 3021 (Nava). Creates the Transportation Financing Authority to finance highways and toll roads. Redevelopment • AB 2594 (Mullin). Permits redevelopment agencies to use non-housing funds to help homeowners in mortgage distress. • SB 1689 (Lowenthal). Creates procedures by which the Department of Housing and Community Development and the attorney general's office may pursue in court major redevelopment agency audit violations. Group Homes • AB 2903 (Huffman). Prohibits "by right" operation of group homes of 6 people or fewer if the homes are part of a larger facility in one location.    - Paul Shigley

Bill Fulton and a panel of economic and development experts to be featured at Tucson Growth; Decision at the Crossroads – An open community forum for Southern Arizonans; Friday, March 14, 2008 – University of Arizona

If you live in the Bay Area, where everybody thinks they are the coolest people on earth, or in Los Angeles, the world's biggest experiment in infill development, it's hard to swallow the idea that Sacramento may be ahead of us on planning. But it's true. Unlikely as it may the seem, Sacramento Area Council of Governments – the six-county regional planning agency commonly known as SACOG – has actually made the idea of higher-density projects conforming to the regional plan seem cool, even to suburban politicians. SACOG approved the "Sacramento Region Blueprint" a little more than three years ago. Like a lot of other "regional visions" in the last few years – most notably Envision Utah the Blueprint lays out a more compact version of the region's future growth than would otherwise be the case. Such regional visions aren't hard to create, but they're almost impossible to implement. That's because the local elected officials have to go back home and actually make decisions to increase densities and move development around in a way that the locals – constituents and developers – might not like. Under the leadership of Executive Director Mike McKeever, a veteran of the growth wars in Portland, SACOG has managed to maintain the pressure. One trick has been to get local electeds excited about the cachet of a "Blueprint project" that earns SACOG's seal of approval. But another trick – maybe the most powerful one – is simply to be realistic. McKeever has been smart enough to recognize – and repeatedly articulate – that you can't accommodate all future growth with mid-rise mixed-use buildings in Midtown Sacramento. Sometimes to the consternation of local environmentalists, McKeever has strongly supported certain greenfield developments – especially those in what McKeever calls "infill greenfield" locations. Exhibit A here is the Placer Vineyards project near Roseville. Environmentalists don't like the idea of more greenfield projects chewing up raw land in Placer County, north of Sacramento. In fact, it's the subject of a lot of lawsuits . But in McKeever's view – and according to the Blueprint – good development there is far preferable to lower-density development both there and farther out in Sutter, Yuba, and northern Placer counties. Placer Vineyards may or may not turn out to be a good project. There are two possibilities floating around, one more smart growth than the other, and it's not clear which one will be passed. If the lousy one passes in the end, it's pretty much just more of Roseville. But I guess it's better to have more of Roseville in Roseville, than in Wheatland or Nicolaus. A good regional plan, good public relations – and a little bit of realism. Maybe that's how land use patterns in California get changed for the better. - Bill Fulton

Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" would really be a bridge to sprawl - and that's why it'll be a crucial issue in the upcoming Senate re-election campaign of 84-year-old Ted Stevens. Last week, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich , a 45-year-old Democrat, created an exploratory committee to run against the powerful six-term incumbent. Stevens is damaged by a passel of ethics problems , but he's also dogged by the fact that his "earmark" for the Knik Arm Bridge in Anchorage has become the poster child for Republican pork. But there's more to the "bridge to nowhere" than pork. Whether or not the bridge is built is likely to fundamentally shape future growth patterns in Anchorage - as Begich well knows. Anchorage is located on a peninsula in the midst a dramatically beautiful natural setting not unlike San Francisco or Seattle. Downtown Anchorage has skyscrapers from the '70s oil boom, as well as a connection to the Alaska Railroad often used by tourists. The rest of the city isn't much to look at. It's landlocked by a military installation and a national forest, and the city is running out of land. (Many residents commute an hour across the national forest from low-density suburbs that are technically still part of the combined city-county government.) The Anchorage 2020 Plan , championed by Begich, says all the right things about smart growth. The Knik Arm Bridge would stretch from downtown Anchorage across the "Knik Arm" - a body of water that's part of the Cook Inlet - to the undeveloped Matanuska/Susitna Valley. Almost four years ago, I sat in Begich's office high above downtown Anchorage and listened to him explain why the Knik Arm Bridge wasn't necessary. I was there as part of a visiting team of experts sent by the Smart Growth Leadership Institute , under a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, providing advice to the city about how to implement Anchorage 2020. The city needed to turn its lack of land into an advantage, Begich said. He wanted to build housing on top of city-owned parking garages downtown. He was proud of the fact that Artspace was building artists' housing overlooking the water. He wanted to strengthen the Alaska Railroad connection between downtown and airport. Begich, the first mayor of Anchorage born in the city, clearly understood what the bridge would do. If it was built, Anchorage would only become more suburban. If it wasn't built, Anchorage might become a mini-Seattle. Given the fact that Anchorage's Municipal Assembly was mostly Republican and much more conservative than Begich, I wasn't about to suggest in our report that the bridge not be built. So instead, what we said was that Anchorage 2020 needed to be implemented no matter what. Even if Stevens came through with the pork, the bridge wouldn't be built until 2015, maybe even 2020. The next year, the pork patrol came after Stevens and the Democrats regained control of the Senate. It'll be interesting to see what kind of hay Begich makes out of Stevens' pork - and whether Begich as a senator might nudge Anchorage even more quickly toward a smart growth future. - Bill Fulton

Although the state's mounting budget deficit is expected to predominate in Sacramento for many months, 2008 could be a blockbuster year for land use legislation. Scores of bills related to planning, the California Environmental Quality Act, redevelopment, housing, the Subdivision Map Act, and other land use matters have been introduced during the first two months of the year or remain leftover from 2007. All eyes are focused on SB 375, Sen. Darrell Steinberg's bill from last year that seeks to tie together regional planning, transportation funding, and greenhouse gas reduction. Negotiations over the bill have been ongoing for months, and the legislation remains at the top of the list for environmental groups and builders, but for very different reasons. Redevelopment has the potential to be the second most lively land use topic. The oldest redevelopment projects (those from 1969 and before) must halt redevelopment activities by the end of this year, unless agencies can make updated blight findings. However, there is a movement to eliminate the updated blight requirement, essentially giving another 10 years of life to all redevelopment project areas. On the CEQA front, lawmakers have introduced a few bills that seek to streamline the environmental review process, especially for infill projects. At the same time, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) is carrying a bill that would tighten some CEQA provisions. The housing market slowdown has halted construction everywhere. Thus, there are at least two bills that would extend the life of all tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. The automatic extensions are a major priority for builders. But SB 375 remains the hot bill. It's a complicated piece of legislation that would require each metropolitan planning organization to adopt a preferred growth scenario with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that infill, mixed-use and transit-oriented development would be favored over subdivisions on the metropolitan edge. Cities and counties that conform their land use decisions to the preferred growth scenario would be eligible for transportation funding and a modest amount of CEQA streamlining. Cities and counties that buck the preferred scenario would be on their own for transportation funding (see CP&DR Insight , September 2007 ). The bill is likely to evolve in coming months, but the basic emphasis on regional planning, infill development and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely to change. It is worth noting that Steinberg, a Democrat from Sacramento, has been chosen to succeed Sen. Don Perata (D-Oakland) as the Senate president pro-tem, a move that can only boost Steinberg's influence over legislation. "It's the big banana right now," Sande George, chief lobbyist for the California Chapter, American Planning Association, said of SB 375. "We've agreed to work with the authors and the sponsors on how this might work." In fact, the CCAPA is so focused on SB 375 that it is not sponsoring any legislation of its own during 2008, she said. George declined to detail the CCAPA's concerns with the bill because of ongoing negotiations, but local government organizations have not hesitated to complain about the legislation's potential to reduce local land use discretion in favor of a regional approach. Still, the discussion remains mostly cordial. In a late February legislative bulletin, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) said the concept of AB 375 is consistent with CSAC policy emphasizing regional approaches to climate change, blueprint planning and preservation of resource and agricultural lands. Still, the organization listed concerns, including the need to coordinate SB 375's preferred growth areas with regional fair-share housing mandates, the ability to use habitat conservation plans to meet SB 375's obligation for determining protected resource lands, and incentives for rural areas that provide resource and agricultural land. Richard Lyon, a lobbyist for the California Building Industry Association, said that builders could endorse Steinberg's linking of the regional transportation planning process with land use planning, and SB 375's attempt to put some teeth in regional blueprints that have become popular in recent years. However, Lyon said, the bill has a number of drawbacks. For one, the bill lays out a broad definition of protected resources lands without any deference to local decision-makers, Lyon complained, echoing one of CSAC's concerns. In addition, the bill calls for development to advance outward in concentric circles, which Lyon called "a recipe for litigation." In addition, SB 375 or other legislation needs to contain broader CEQA reform, he said. "That's the key," Lyon said of CEQA reform. "You can do these blueprints all you want, but if you can't build the projects, you don't get the carbon benefits." Tina Andolina, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League, conceded that SB 375 is a work in progress, but one that environmental groups strongly endorse. "It's a tough nut to crack — to reform land use planning to reduce the miles people drive their cars," she said. "This is a first good step." The Steinberg bill is not the only measure that seeks to use land use policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One other measure (AB 2093, Jones) would require that all mandatory elements of the general plan except the noise element contain policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The subject of redevelopment is a touchy one these days, in part because of two statewide initiatives on the ballot in June. One would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development, while the other would only prohibit government from taking owner-occupied houses for economic development purposes (see CP&DR In Brief , February 2008 ). Because of those campaigns, it is possible that redevelopment advocates may not make potentially controversial legislative moves until after June 3. Still, several sources report there is interest in amending SB 211, a measure passed in 2001. That law permits redevelopment agencies to extend their life spans by 10 years, but only if an agency adopts updated blight findings, is in a city or county with a certified housing element, is up to date on its housing set-aside spending, and has had no major audit violations for three years. There is reportedly interest in eliminating at least some of SB 211's restrictions, chiefly the blight requirement. A number of redevelopment "spot bills" were introduced during late February, and any one of those bills could provide the amendment to existing law. The change is likely to draw stiff opposition from some counties and redevelopment opponents, as well as budget hawks who complain redevelopment costs the state money in the form of backfills to school districts that lose property tax revenue to redevelopment agencies. Also in spot bill form are several CEQA measures that are likely to attempt CEQA streamlining or otherwise diminish environmental review of certain types of projects. Such bills are introduced nearly every year but seldom gain much traction. This year could be different because of the desire to boost infill and transit-oriented development as a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Kuehl's bill (SB 1165) is headed the other direction. The bill would require that when a project relies on an EIR that is more than five years old, the EIR would have to be recirculated for comments, which could re-open the entire environmental review process. The bill also would ensure the public has as much access to an "administrative" or "preliminary" environmental impact report as a project proponent, and calls on superior courts with designated CEQA judges to ensure those judges actually get CEQA cases. The Planning and Conservation League is sponsoring the bill. Kuehl will be termed out of the Legislature this year and is expected to make a major push for this bill and several others. The CBIA is sponsoring SB 1185 (Lowenthal), which would extend the expiration date of subdivision maps by 24 months. Another bill, (AB 1777, Houston) proposes the same thing. The association contends that providing more time for builders to complete subdivisions will help the industry recover from the slowdown. Lawmakers approved a similar 24-month subdivision map extension during the housing slump of the early 1990s. Another CBIA bill (SB 303, Ducheny) that would require cities and counties to identify 10-year land supplies for housing and update each element of the general plan every 10 years remains alive. Planners, local governments and environmentalists are aligned against the bill, which struck a wall of Democratic opposition in the Assembly last year. Proposed Land Use Legislation For 2008 CEQA • AB 2230 (LaMalfa). Revises exemptions for the payment of CEQA filing fees to fund Department of Fish and Game reviews. • SB 1165 (Kuehl). Requires recirculation of any EIR that is more than five years old when a project relies on the EIR, and increases public access to preliminary draft EIRs. • SB 1210 (Dutton). Republican spot bill on infill exemptions from CEQA. Fees and revenues • AB 239 (DeSaulnier). Permits Contra Costa and San Mateo counties to increase real estate document recording fees to fund affordable housing development. • AB 938 (Calderon). Creates a stormwater management process whose programs could be funded by user fees. Builders support this approach to paying for stormwater management. • AB 1221 (Ma). Permits local officials to dedicate property tax increment to retire bonds for infrastructure within transit village development districts. • AB 1574 (Houston). Limits the imposition of real estate transfer fees. • AB 1836 (Feuer). Authorizes city councils and boards of supervisors to create infrastructure finance districts (IFD) that can issue bonds and divert tax increment to retire the debt. Currently, IFD creation requires voter approval. • AB 2218 (Gaines). Modifies procedures for Proposition 218 fee elections. • SCA 12 (Torlakson). Exempts stormwater and urban runoff management fees from Proposition 218 vote requirements. • SB 974 (Lowenthal). Imposes a fee on cargo containers going through ports in Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland to fund infrastructure and mitigate air pollution. Extremely controversial bill. Housing • AB 1129 (Arambula). Creates the San Joaquin Valley Regional Affordable Housing Trust. • AB 2000 (Mendoza). Allows a city or county that exceeds production of its fair-share housing allocation to count the excess against subsequent fair-share requirements. • AB 2069 (Jones). A spot bill that seeks to tighten existing restrictions on reducing permitted densities of residentially zoned land. • SB 668 (Torlakson). Exempts housing built on school property from seismic safety standards that apply to schools, and declares that the Department of General Services is not required to review the housing plans. • SB 900 (Corbett). Repeals a Subdivision Map Act provision exempting from local government approval the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership. • SB 1065 (Correa). Allows cities and counties to acquire loans for the purpose of refinancing mortgages on owner-occupied homes, and to acquire reverse mortgages made to seniors. • SB 1299 (Migden). Permits local governments to require that demolished rent-controlled units be replaced on the same parcel or elsewhere. Infrastructure • AB 842 (Jones). Awards Proposition 1C funds for transit-oriented development to entities with local or regional plans that reduce vehicle miles traveled by 10%. • AB 1756 (Caballero). Establishes the Office of Local Public-Private Partnerships within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. • AB 1815 (Feuer). Creates the temporary Transportation Infrastructure Funding Task Force to explore options for taxing road users other than the gasoline tax. • AB 1850 (Devore). Creates the Office of Public-Private Partnerships within the governor's office. • AB 1968 (Jeffries). Authorizes the governor to declare a transportation infrastructure emergency on certain highway segments for the purpose of letting Caltrans expedite construction of new highways and additional lanes. • AB 2005 (Jeffries). Authorizes the transfer of state parks to local government. • SB 61 (Runner). Expands authority for regional transportation agencies and Caltrans to build and operate high-occupancy toll lanes and tolls roads. Local and regional planning • AB 724 (Benoit). Increases local government's authority to regulate the siting and operation of "sober living homes." • AB 1777 (Houston) and SB 1185 (Lowenthal). Extend the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. • AB 2093 (Jones). Requires general plans to contain policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • AB 2182 (Caballero). Establishes a sustainability communities program within the Office of Planning and Research for the purpose of allocating $90 million in planning grants and incentives contained in Proposition 84. • AB 2219 (Parra). Modifies the proof of water requirement for large subdivisions by permitting a city or county to count water demand management measures against a subdivision's water need. • SB 303 (Ducheny). Requires cities and counties to designate land for 10 years worth of housing development, and to update every general plan element at least once every 10 years. • SB 375 (Steinberg). Regional planning and greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill. • SB 732 (Steinberg). Creates the Sustainable Communities Council consisting of three cabinet members and two public appointees, and allocates $90 million from Proposition 84 for general plans that encourage water conservation, discourage automobile use, promote infill, protect natural resources and farmland, and are compatible with regional growth blueprints. • SB 821 (Kuehl). Requires the California Research Bureau to report on implementation of a 2001 law that requires cities and counties to condition approval of subdivisions of more than 500 lots on water availability. Redevelopment • AB 1088 (Carter). Ensures that an exemption from statutory timelines remains in place for redevelopment projects at the former Norton and George Air Force bases in San Bernardino County. • AB 1941 (Carter). Authorizes a city, county, housing authority or redevelopment agency to convey surplus land to a developer for any use consistent with a redevelopment plan and a general plan. Currently, surplus land conveyances may be made only for affordable housing projects. • AB 2097 (Coto). Allows use of housing set-aside funds for homeless shelters and supportive housing. • AB 2509 (Galgiani). Establishes a $50 million homeownership preservation mortgage guarantee fund in the state treasury, and authorizes redevelopment agencies to guarantee home loans. • SB 1103 (Cedillo). Requires a city, county or redevelopment agency to disclose specific information before approving an economic development incentive, and to report on the incentives at certain intervals.

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has recommended that state lawmakers take charge of Salton Sea restoration efforts. Last year, the Resources Agency released a restoration plan that called for shrinking the 376-square-mile lake into a narrow, U-shaped lake separated from two brine sinks, extensive saline habitat areas and exposed lake bed (see CP&DR Environment Watch , September 2007 ). The plan was the latest of several that address the problems caused by reduced freshwater flows into the increasingly saline lake. The LAO did not pass judgment on the Resource Agency's 75-year, $8.9 billion plan. Instead, the LAO urged the Legislature to "set explicit policy priorities in statute for addressing environmental problems at the sea." The analyst said protection of air quality and preservation of wildlife habitat should be top priorities. The LAO further recommended that lawmakers adopt a comprehensive restoration plan and designate the Department of Water Resources as the primary implementing agency. Because implementation of any plan is years away, the Legislature should consider interim funding for air quality and habitat issues, according to the analyst. The LAO report is available at www.lao.ca.gov/2008/rsrc/salton_sea/salton_sea_01-24-08.aspx . Stockton update. Since CP&DR detailed the extensive land use issues and litigation in the City of Stockton in the February Local Watch , there are have been two important developments in court. First, the state Supreme Court accepted for review a Third District Court of Appeal decision that the statute of limitations for Wal-Mart opponents to challenge the lack of environmental review for a Supercenter had not expired because the city's approval of the project was not valid. The state high court voted 6-0, with Chief Justice Ron George recusing himself, to consider whether or not the statute of limitations ever started running. The case is Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton , No. S159690. Second, the Third District in an unpublished decision rejected a downtown Stockton property owner's claim that the city's demolition of her condemned building amounted to inverse condemnation and violated her civil rights. The three-story structure was one of several the city has torn down during recent years as part of a code enforcement and urban revitalization effort. The court ruled that Dominga Flores had her day in court when she sought an injunction to halt the city's abatement proceeding, and she could not re-litigate based on essentially the same facts. The case is Flores v. City of Stockton , No. C053479 and was filed on February 15, 2008. The Coastal Commission surely set records at a meeting in February when the panel voted 8-2 to reject the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies' plan to build a toll road through San Onofre State Beach. An estimated 3,500 people attended the hearing in Wyland Hall at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, and 2,500 signed up to testify. The Commission cut off testimony after 12 hours and voted 14 hours after taking up the item. Although the Commission's decision pleased the majority at the meeting, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) has vowed to press forward with the project. Its first step was filing an appeal with the federal secretary of commerce. "We are not going to ignore our responsibilities and allow South County to be choked with traffic," Jerry Amante, a TCA board member and Tustin councilman, told the Los Angeles Times. The Commission found the project in violation of the Coastal Act because of the toll road's potential impact on coastal resources and sensitive habitat. The Commission's 246-page staff report (which includes links to numerous related documents) is available at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2008/2/W8b-2-2008.pdf . Santa Monica Place has closed while owner Macerich overhauls the 550,000-square-foot, Frank Gehry-designed shopping mall into an open-air complex. Macerich had sought to develop high-rise condominiums, shops and offices on the site of the 28-year-old Santa Monica Place (see CP&DR Places , February 2005 ; Letters to the Editor , April 2005 ). That project eventually died and the property owner instead decided to convert the mall into an open-air facility with outdoor dining and ocean views from the third floor. The project is scheduled to be completed in fall 2009.

A key document in the evolving methodology for evaluating development's impact on climate change has been released by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Called "CEQA & Climate Change – Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act," the white paper is lengthy (more than 140 pages), detailed and highly technical. It is also both potentially frustrating to planners and technicians who were hoping for strict guidance, and a relief to the development community, which is very wary of definitive numbers. "There is kind of a void out there right now," explained Mel Zeldin, executive director of the association, known as CAPCOA. The white paper "is designed as a resource document. … It's not a guidance document. We're not in a position where we felt comfortable telling local officials what they should do." Instead, the white paper lays out three basic options for agencies conducting environmental reviews: • CEQA review with no thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. "As with other project types, the lead agency could conduct a project specific analysis to determine whether an environmental impact report is needed and to determine the level of mitigation that is appropriate," the white paper says. "Over time, the agency could amass information and experience with specific project categories that would support establishing explicit thresholds." • Setting a GHG threshold of significance of zero, meaning that essentially every discretionary project would be subject to environmental review and mitigation requirements. • Establishing GHG thresholds of significance at levels other than zero. These "non-zero" thresholds could be based on state or local air district thresholds for GHG if they exist, or could be established based on the type of emission and what activity is generating the emissions. "By itself, establishment of a GHG threshold will not insulate individual CEQA analyses from challenge," the white paper warns. "Defensibility depends upon the adequacy of the analysis prepared by the lead agency and the process followed." The paper also contains a chapter on potential mitigation measures that lead agencies could apply to projects. "The recurring theme that echoes throughout a majority of these measures is the shift toward new urbanism," the white paper states. " esearch has consistently shown that implementation of neotraditional development techniques reduces VMT and associated emissions." In other words, urban design that encourages walking, bicycling and use of transit, and which discourages driving and convenient parking, may be considered mitigation. The CAPCOA white paper arrives at a time when people involved in almost any aspect of land use are desperate for information on how to apply CEQA to the issue of global climate change. For a period, there was a question about whether a project's potential to contribute to climate change was even an issue for CEQA. State Attorney General Jerry Brown answered the question affirmatively, and the Legislature confirmed Brown's position last year when it passed SB 97 (Dutton) (see CP&DR Environment Watch , October 2007 ). Among other things, that law directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare CEQA "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions" by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency is supposed to adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. In the meantime, practitioners are feeling their way around. In June 2007, the Association of Environmental Professionals produced what at the time was the most detailed "white paper" for dealing with GHG in a CEQA context (see CP&DR , July 2007 ). The AEP offered up eight potential methodologies. The CAPCOA white paper narrows the alternatives and focuses on quantifying emissions, said Michael Hendrix, of Chambers Group in Redlands and a co-author of the AEP document. "It's probably not good news for the developers, because they'll have to identify their emissions and mitigate them," Hendrix said of the CAPCOA advisory. Al Herson, environmental practice leader for SWCA Environmental Consultants in Sacramento, said it is important to remember that applying CEQA to climate change is a practice that is only about 18 months old. Because there is little practical experience and no case law, everyone needs to have patience, he said. "There is a period of turmoil right now," he said. The CAPCOA paper, "does advance us in terms of how we do these analyses," Herson said. "For folks who are steeped in preparing climate change sections of EIRs, there is some useful information at a high technical level." The paper might have been more useful, Herson added, if it contained recommendations for thresholds. A "net zero" threshold is not practical and may go beyond CEQA because it would require mitigation for any project that does not actually reduce current greenhouse gas emissions,. Herson noted. Dave Vintze, air quality planning manager for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and a principal co-author of the CAPCOA paper, said the organization could not make recommendations on thresholds of significance because the members do not agree. "All we could do with the white paper is identify different strategies that air districts and lead agencies could choose to use," Vintze said. To date, no government agency in California has set a GHG threshold of significance, although some air districts, including Vintze's, are headed in that direction. During its preparation of the white paper, Vintze said, CAPCOA members found that the few EIRs that have addressed climate change did so only at a cursory level, and no EIR attempted to quantify GHG emissions from a development project or long-range plan. The environmental studies have either said it's all too speculative and therefore no additional discussion or mitigation is required, or the EIRs said any emission of GHG is significant and therefore requires mitigation, Vintze explained. The CAPCOA paper should help agencies prepare more detailed, quantitative reviews, he said. Hendrix said the analysts are starting to do project-by-project reviews based on concepts contained AB 32 (the greenhouse gas emissions reductions law) and incorporating emissions reduction strategies endorsed by the state. "Everybody now is holding their breath hoping OPR will save them," Hendrix added. "But OPR gives wide deference to lead agencies — the law itself gives them this authority." Contacts: Mel Zeldin, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, (916) 449-9603. Dave Vintze, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, (415) 749-5000. Michael Hendrix, Chambers Group, (909) 335-7068. Al Herson, SWCA Environmental Consultants, (916) 565-0356. CAPCOA website: http://www.capcoa.org/

The city of Dublin in Alameda County bears little resemblance to the English countryside of the late 1800s. The scene is not sylvan, to put it mildly. Instead of a landscape of mills, farms and contented cows, we see one of the Bay Area's fastest growing cities, proliferating with enormous apartment blocks and office buildings. Although there are easily accessible, undeveloped hills rising just beyond the west and east sides of Dublin, it's doubtable that Constable, the painter of lowing herds and hayricks, would have memorialized the town on canvas. What Dublin and the English countryside of 100 years ago have in common, however, are carefully planned villages that attempt to combine city living, including factory work and shopping, with the healthfulness of open space and farms. In England, the most famous examples are Letchworth Garden City (built in 1903) and Welwyn Garden City (1920), both developed by the social reformer Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928). Surprisingly, the present-day planned-unit development known as Fallon Village in Dublin has much in common with Howard's idealistic settlements. The differences between them are equally interesting. It's not hard to see the appeal of compact development in a city that has more in common, at least superficially, with the suburban sprawl of Southern California than the Bay Area. One of Howard's concerns was to prevent people from abandoning the countryside, in search of jobs, for slum housing in the cities. Present-day Dublin officials may or may not share Howard's idealism, but they seem to retain his belief in the goodness of the countryside and perhaps his desire for both order and human scale, as well. Approved by the Dublin City Council last November, the 1,134-acre Fallon Village is an assemblage of 13 different land holdings on the east side of the city, at the border of unincorporated Alameda County. Braddock & Logan, a Bay Area homebuilder, has received approval from the city to fill 488 acres of the village with 3,100 single-family houses. The remaining portions of the site are set aside for small farms or "rural residential" estates, apartment complexes, office buildings and retail in the foreseeable future. In this way, Fallon Village is almost a self-contained city, like the Garden Cities before it — even if no community in the Bay Area, especially one located along both BART and the 580 Freeway, can realistically expect to be self-contained. Although the gerrymandered shapes on the land-use plan of Fallon Village are a little hard to comprehend at first glance, a certain logic lies behind its informality: A habitat trail, moving diagonally from north to south, literally splits the plan in half. Fallon's master planners have wisely taken advantage of this dividing line to "break down" the scale of the site. On either side of the habitat trail, the master planners have created three enclaves of single family homes, each with its own neighborhood park. This idea of housing bordered by farms is perhaps the strongest point of resemblance between Fallon Village and the early garden cities. Howard's own diagram for his cities, reproduced from his 1902 book, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, may be helpful here. The center of the city is open space, explicitly public. (Why are utopian cities so often conceived of as circles?) The first ring around the park consists of public uses, especially shopping and local government buildings. The layer after that is housing, interspersed with factories and work places. The outermost edge is farmland, which Howard believed had both physical and moral benefits for garden city dwellers. As in Letchworth and Welwyn, we can see the density growing thinner in Fallon Village as one moves from south to north. The most intense uses – multi-family housing, retail, office space – are concentrated at the bottom of the plan. The middle-range (the big yellow splotches) is single-family homes, while farms and rural estates are the low-density edge on the north. One of the most appealing details in the plan is the elementary school, bordered by a triangular park to the west and farmland to the east. Here, some of the most obvious differences between Howard's dream villages and Fallon Village become apparent. Fallon Village is a commuter subdivision for middle-class homeowners, not a model colony for working people. I see a tension between the ideals of communal life that are laid out with almost pedantic obviousness in Howard's plans, as opposed to the curving streets of present-day America, where privacy and living-unto-oneself are primary values. Still, the planners have not entirely neglected the public life: The land-use plan indicates space for an eight-acre "public plaza" at the center of the plan, hemmed in by commercial buildings on three sides; Leon Krier, the German city planner, would approve, even though eight acres seems way too large for anything except outdoor concerts and political rallies. For some reason, this generous plaza fails to suggest a social center to me, perhaps because the only other major public space that connects to it directly is a major corridor that runs east and west, rather than streets branching out of the public space, which would increase its accessibility and its visibility. Beyond ideology, then, what is the major difference between Fallon Village and Welwyn? The former lacks cogent urban form. Fallon Village, at least in the nascent form of the land-use plan, lacks the idea of public life as a unifying principle. In Howard's quaint old diagram, we see how clearly the street pattern directs everything toward the public uses — transit, shopping and housing — at its center. Fallon Village, in contrast, is in the end a conventional suburb, with some charming amenities. A century after they were built, Howard's towns remain popular places to live, even though they have been absorbed as suburbs into larger cities; good urban design tends to survive, because it is both workable and pleasant. I would like to see how much of Fallon Village survives in a century's time, after the population flood washes away the rural charm.

Although redevelopment often seems like a never-ending process, redevelopment of Old Town Monrovia is nearly complete. The city is now switching its focus to redevelopment of an 80-acre area about one mile south of Old Town and studying how to tie together the two areas. Located in the San Gabriel Valley about five miles east of Pasadena, Monrovia began redeveloping its historic core during the 1970s. After decades of planning and both public and private investment, Old Town Monrovia has become a successful area of interest to private developers. "It may not be the financial center of town, but it certainly is the emotional center of our town," Mayor Rob Hammond said of Old Town. Now the focus is shifting to the Station Square area — 80 acres adjacent to the 210 Freeway and straddling a planned extension of the Gold Line light rail system. The city's redevelopment agency is working with local developer Samuelson & Fetter on a transit-oriented development with between 1,400 and 3,000 housing units, 850,000 square feet of office space for high-tech and research-and-development companies, 140,000 square feet of retail space, and a hotel. The project would mark a major change from the hodgepodge of small industrial and service uses currently in the area. The redevelopment agency has acquired 20 acres for the project. Monrovia's redevelopment has not been without setbacks or discontent, but Monrovia's overall success stands in contrast to the experience in the neighboring cities of Sierra Madre and Arcadia, where redevelopment opponents have halted major projects in recent years (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , September 2007 ; Local Watch , May 2007 ). "Monrovia said 35 years ago this (redevelopment) is the thing that is going to be the difference in this town," said city spokesman Dick Singer. "It has driven economic development for a generation." "Our community," added Hammond, "has grown up with the concept that redevelopment is not the bogeyman, because we've had a very strong and a very ethical redevelopment agency." The agency has ensured that it treats property owners fairly, which everyone recognizes, he said. "It keeps people who are scared of government close to the path." Redevelopment in Monrovia generated $6.8 million in tax increment during the 2005-06 fiscal year, the last for which figures are available from the state controller's office. In 2002, the city added a new redevelopment project area south of the freeway, which includes the Station Square territory. Early morning at the south end of Old Town. Old Town is essentially a six-block stretch of Myrtle Avenue, about one mile north of the freeway. The area has been the center of town since the 19th century but has had its ups and downs. Today, the virtually spotless district contains a variety of shops and services — an appliance store, dry cleaners, numerous salons, coffee houses, bookstores, music stores, a few nightclubs. City hall is only one block off Myrtle, as are some classic century-old craftsman houses. Old Town turned a corner during 2000, when the redevelopment agency enticed Krikorian to open a 12-screen movie theatre on Myrtle Avenue. The cinema greatly increased the number of Old Town restaurants, which now number 24, according to Singer. Last year, the redevelopment agency completed a $3 million upgrade of Old Town sidewalks, landscaping and street furniture. Another turning point occurred in February, when developer Barker Pacific Group conducted the grand opening of models in Colorado Commons, the first residential units built in Old Town since the 1970s. The project contains 68 housing units ranging from simple 700-square-foot flats to luxury 2,100-square-foot townhouses, plus four retail spaces totaling about 4,000 square feet. Fourteen of the housing units are designated as "affordable," according to Singer. The agency began acquiring the property for Colorado Commons, a half-block west of Myrtle, during the early 1990s. The site contained a convenience store, an auto repair shop and some dilapidated housing, Singer said. The city demolished the structures and created surface parking. Eventually, the agency made a deal with Barker Pacific. The city provided the 2.1 acres in exchange for the developer building a public parking structure with about 200 spaces, according to Kevin O'Brien, the city's redevelopment division manager. "It was just a great location," said Barker Pacific Project Manager Reed Garwood, citing the proximity to restaurants, shops and the movie theater. The next residential project, scheduled to break ground this spring, is on the southern edge of Old Town. Urban Housing Group intends to reuse a three-acre former office industrial property for development of 163 apartments and about 4,000 square feet of office or retail space. The project, known as The Courtyards at Old Town, is purely market-driven and has no redevelopment agency involvement. But Don Deibel, vice president of development for Urban Housing Group, readily admits that the city's "ambitious redevelopment" attracted the company to the site, which it purchased from Barratt-American. "The overall sense of place they are creating is impressive," Deibel said. "They are very focused on improving downtown Monrovia." One of the final pieces of the Old Town puzzle also is not a redevelopment agency project, but it certainly involvements redevelopment. In January, the city tore down its library and began work on a replacement, 28,000-square-foot facility funded by a $16 million voter-approved bond. The construction has closed the square-block Library Park, which is Monrovia's primary community gathering place, until 2009. The Myrtle Avenue Corridor, just south of Old Town. Pink: Office/Commercial Violet: Residential Green: Mixed-Use Blue: Station Square, Phase 1 The Station Square project is not proceeding on such a tight timeline, partly because of the housing market downturn and partly because of uncertainty over the Gold Line extension. City officials feel like they have no control over either; nevertheless, they continue to plan and prepare for the huge redevelopment project with the longer term in mind. "The train is eventually going to get here. I hope it is within my lifetime," said the 47-year-old Hammond. "The City of Monrovia can't wait around for the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) to do something." For years, the MTA has planned to extend the Gold Line 24 miles beyond its current terminus in Pasadena to Montclair. Cities along the line, including Monrovia, Azusa, Glendora and Claremont, have planned and even approved transit-oriented development projects along the proposed light-rail alignment. Last year, however, the MTA shifted its attention to Lost Angeles's Westside and a potential "subway to the sea." In January, the MTA declined to keep the $1.4 billion Gold Line extension on an important funding list. Assuming the Station Square project goes forward at some point, an additional issue concerns linking the area with Old Town. The two areas are about 10 blocks apart along Myrtle Avenue. Several years ago, an Urban Land Institute (ULI) advisory group recommended the city transform Myrtle into a more pedestrian-friendly boulevard between the two districts. The concept excites city officials, who see such a project as an important transformation of the Myrtle Avenue corridor that could goose Old Town commerce and ensure that Station Square integrates into the rest of town. The Station Square project "must fit into our community without feeling like it is a whole new community," Hammond said. "We cannot create a whole brand new area and say, ‘OK, that's Monrovia, too.'" The details remain undecided and potentially tricky. Hammond would like to see a trolley run for about a 1 1/2 miles from Station Square to the top of Old Town. Singer advocates an old-fashioned streetcar zipping up and down Myrtle. The ULI envisioned something other than the current auto-dominated commercial and industrial atmosphere. However, the redevelopment agency controls little land along the corridor, and, at a glance, existing businesses appear healthy. The city has not wielded a heavy hand with redevelopment (it has employed eminent domain only about six times in 35 years, including some instances requested by the property owner for tax purposes) and has no plans to become aggressive now. Thus, the Myrtle Avenue evolution may be slow. The city has been willing to use redevelopment powers more aggressively to combat gang violence that has flared elsewhere in town. Four people were killed and five others were wounded by gunfire during a 10-week period starting last November. Some of the victims were mere bystanders caught in the crossfire. The redevelopment agency has been buying houses that serve as gang hangouts, funding code enforcement, fence replacement and graffiti removal, and even sponsoring block parties to re-establish neighborhood ties, Singer said. All efforts are aimed at maintaining decent working-class neighborhoods, he said. Contacts: Mayor Rob Hammond: (626) 932-5550. Dick Singer and Kevin O'Brien, Monrovia Redevelopment Agency, (626) 303-6604. Dan Deibel, Urban Housing Group, (650) 340-4320. Colorado Commons website: http://www.livecoloradocommons.com /