One of the least scenic ways to visit Napa Valley is to enter from the south, through the industrial zone between the cities of American Canyon and Napa. The congested traffic and office parks near Highway 221 are a long ways from the idyllic pastoral stretches to the north. But efforts to transform 152 acres of industrial land in the area into a mixed use development has stirred up opposition from Napa Valley residents who fear that its proposed 2,600 units and 6,000 residents � smaller than all but two of the county's cities � will bring sprawl and traffic out of scale with the region's character. The developer, however, claims that the project will actually ease congestion by providing a place for local workers to live, rather than commute from neighboring Solano County. On the former site of Napa Pipe Corp., a manufacturer of large oil and gas pipelines, the project is proposed near the intersection of Highways 221 and 29, in an area that already has many of the county's non-farm jobs, according to developer Keith Rogal. And, in a region famous for empty, vineyard-flanked country lanes, it also has some of the worst traffic in the county. Rogal's firm, Rogal+Walsh+Mol, specializes in converting already-developed properties near wetlands into new uses. A decade ago, the firm built the Carneros Inn resort on 27 acres of unincorporated county land that had been an RV park. The project, which includes cottages and homes set in a village setting with shops and restaurants, garnered national awards from the American Institute of Architects and the Congress of New Urbanism. But Rogal is the first to concede that the Napa Pipe is a different type of project. For starters, it is particularly dense for Napa County, with proposed apartments and townhomes rising to seven stories; it would also include retail, an office park, a small hotel and a continuing care complex for seniors. The property is next to the Napa River, and is envisioned as a walkable community. A marina, river trail and parklands are part of the project's mix. As proposed, Napa Pipe would be the largest project in county history. The Napa Pipe development would add approximately 6,000 new residents, on a site about two miles from the Napa Municipal Airport. Some opponents say the new project would be akin to plopping down a new town the size of St. Helena in the area. Quite unlike the baronial estates of wine country, Napa Pipe will have nearly 2,600 apartments and townhomes, with 20 percent set aside as affordable units. The project is expected to help Napa County meet state-mandated affordable housing goals. Critics of the project include the nearby cities of Napa, Yountville and American Canyon, along with agricultural and environmental groups, such as the Napa County Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club. Rogal also noted that some small local developers oppose the project. The project is adjacent to the city boundaries of Napa, and is located about three miles from Napa's downtown. In comments on a recent draft of the EIR for Napa Pipe, the City of Napa requested that EIR be substantially revised. The city has not been swayed the project's provision of affordable housing and said in a 47-page comment letter that it would prefer to build affordable housing that the project is supposed to provide within its own borders. But the county is moving ahead, said Hillary Gitelman, Napa County's conservation, development and planning director. "We're still evaluating all the comments," she said. "We haven't identified any fatal flaws that make us start all over again." A final EIR should be ready later in the year and come before the county's planning commission and board of supervisors for a vote soon thereafter. Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, whose district includes the city of Napa, said that with two supervisors up for re-election in November, a vote on the project could be delayed. Wagenknecht, who hasn't taken a position on the development, said two major concerns are traffic and water usage. The project is expected to bring 17,600 new trips a day, he said. "It will add to a situation for us that feels like it's already broken." The draft EIR identifies more than ten intersections in the area that are currently near capacity. Rogal's firm contends that Napa Pipe could minimize traffic impacts by becoming a transit-oriented development if train service could be introduced on tracks that run across the property. They are even proposing water taxi service to the City of Napa via the Napa River. The project also envisions highway improvements and an extension of a bike trail through the property in order to mitigate traffic concerns. Even if the project wins approval, it could be years before construction begins, Gitelman said, noting that the site has to be raised for flood protection, and remediation needs to be done on soil contaminated by the sites former industrial uses. In comments on the draft EIR, the Napa Valley Farm Bureau criticized the project. President Jim Lincoln noted that extensive mitigation is required, "most of which has questionable financing and little chance of being implemented in the short or intermediate term." Opponents of the project tried to derail it in June 2008, when they placed a ballot initiative to impose a 1 percent annual growth cap and height limits on unincorporated county land as Measure N (See CP&DR, May 2008 and June 2008 ). The measure lost, garnering 46 percent of the vote. But one leading opponents said another ballot measure could return if county approves the project. "One of our options would be to do a referendum if they approve it," said Mel Varrelman, a former county supervisor and opponent of Napa Pipe. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, residential units at Napa Pipe won't be constructed until 2013, Rogal said. Rogal said only 200 to 300 units will be built annually, and full build-out is a decade away. Napa Pipe will also provide its share of money for traffic improvements and for schools, he said. "The population and car trips will increase on a slow pace over a long period," he said. The Napa Pipe land sits on 3,000 acre feet of groundwater, Rogal said, more than enough for its needs. But Wagenknecht said that the county generally encourages groundwater to be used for agriculture. "There's a priority of groundwater being for agricultural use, but every hotel in the county pumps groundwater," Rogal said. Rogal said the developers have acquired additional water for the site, and will recycle water as well. More water would be used if the site stays in its current industrial designation, rather than with his project, he noted. Contacts: Hillary Gitelman, Napa County Conservation, Planning and Development Director (707) 253-4805 Brad Wagenknecht, Napa County Supervisor, (707) 253-4386 Mel Varrelman, former Napa County Supervisor (707) 963-1040 Keith Rogal, Rogal+Walsh+Mol (707) 251-0123 Napa County website, with draft EIR and comments, is at www.countyofnapa.org Nape Pipe project website is www.aHomeforNapans.com

In supporting the City of Stockton's refusal to accept a lawsuit filed by a citizens group against a proposed big-box store, the California Supreme Court has, for the second time in two months, made clear that if a public agency provides notice of a California Environmental Quality Act decision, legal challenges to that decision may be barred by the shortest statute of limitations, among several that the CEQA statute provides for, applies to legal challenges regardless of the context of the challenge. The April 1 ruling held that a 35-day statute of limitations barred a citizens' lawsuit challenging a proposed Wal-Mart project on the grounds that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court abided by the 35-day statute of limitations, articulated in Public Resources Code section 21167 subdivision (d), because the City of Stockton had filed a valid notice of exemption from CEQA and was therefore protected by the shorter statute of limitations rather than by a 180-day statute that the citizen's group believed ought to apply. The decision confirms the protections granted by CEQA to a public agency that adopts a notice of exemption (NOE) and to a project applicant that complies with the NOE's requirements. The ruling is in line with the court's February decision in Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in which the court ruled that environmentalists had only 30 days to sue over the county's decision to forego an updated EIR for a recreation trail (see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 15, 2010 ). The latest case, Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, involved a project by developer A.G. Spanos. The company had prepared a master development plan for Park West within the larger A.G. Spanos Park in Stockton. As a condition of the city's approval of lower density development elsewhere in A.G. Spanos Park, the city required a density transfer agreement obligating the construction of at least 935 multifamily residential units within Park West. In 2002, the City Council certified an EIR for Park West and approved the master development plan, replete with the separate density transfer agreement. Under the master development plan, the city's Design Review Board and community development director were required to approve proposed projects within the plan area as long as the board and director determined the projects were consistent with the plan's criteria, goals and purposes. Acting on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, land use consulting firm Doucet & Associates subsequently proposed a 207,000-square-foot retail store to be sited on land in Park West that had been designated for multifamily residential units. The director approved the project subject to five minor amendments in December 2003. The next day, Spanos informed the city it would not construct 627 of the 935 units required by the density transfer agreement. Instead, Spanos offered assurance that the company would build the additional units within 10 years at locations in the city. In February 2004, the city filed an NOE for the project, stating the project was a retail use to be constructed in a first phase of 138,722 square feet and a second phase of 68,888 square feet. The NOE did not name Wal-Mart or identify the project as a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The notice did say that the project was consistent with the master development plan, and that the ministerial determination of consistency was not subject to CEQA review. The 35-day period for challenging the NOE expired on March 23, 2004. Not until July 22, 2004 did the group Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning file suit, claiming that the project violated CEQA because the city had not prepared an EIR to assess the effects of the Wal-Mart store. They further claimed that that the project deviated substantially from the master development plan because the Wal-Mart would be developed on parcels planned for high-density residential housing. The city, Spanos, Doucet & Associates, and Wal-Mart demurred on the grounds that Stockton Citizens had not commenced the suit within 35 days of the filing of the NOE. The citizens' group argued that the community development director erred in approving the project and that the statute of limitations for a challenge to the NOE should therefore abide by the (Can a statute abide?)180-day period that applies when no NOE has been filed, and not the shorter 35-day period applicable when public notice has been provided by means of an NOE (Public Resources Code, � 21167, subdivision (d); CEQA Guidelines, � 15112, subdivision (d)(2)). Both the San Joaquin County Superior Court and the Third District Court of Appeal rejected the city's and developers' statutes of limitations defense and accepted Stockton Citizens' argument the city had processed and approved the project in error. The state Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions. It found that flaws in the decision-making process underlying a facially valid and properly filed notice of exemption do not prevent the NOE from triggering the 35-day period to file a lawsuit challenging the agency's approval of a CEQA-exempt project. "We harbor no doubt, on these facts, that the 35-day limitations period � had expired before plaintiffs filed their lawsuit," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the unanimous court. The court explained that when a properly filed NOE complies in form and content with CEQA requirements and declares the agency has taken an action that would constitute final approval of a project under a CEQA exemption, the 35-day period for challenging the validity the approval begins to run. The statute provides that an NOE must contain a brief description of the project and its location as well as a finding that the project is exempt from CEQA. This finding must contain a citation to the statute or CEQA Guideline on which the agency is relying, and a brief statement of reason to support the exemption (CEQA Guidelines, � 15062 subdivision (b)). The court found that Stockton's NOE was adequate because it stated the project was a retail use consistent with the master development plan, specified the exact location of the project and stated that the project was exempt under Public Resources Code � 21080 subdivision (b)(1) and Guidelines � 15369. According to the court, Public Resources Code � 21167 subdivision (d) requires that an action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has improperly determined that a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 21080 subdivision (b) shall be commenced within 35 days from the NOE filing date. The court ruled that a statute of limitations "operates conclusively across-the-board" and "does so with respect to all causes of action, both those that do not have merit and also those that do." This interpretation, Baxter wrote, aligns with CEQA's process of establishing and emphasizing public notification of an agency's action or decision as the event triggering the shortest applicable limitation periods for lawsuits alleging noncompliance with the statute. The Case: Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, No. SI59690, 2010 DJDAR S159690. Filed April 1, 2010. The Lawyers: For Stockton Citizens: William D. Kopper, (530) 758-0757. For Wal-Mart: Judy V. Davidoff, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, (415) 434-9100. For A.G. Spanos: John Briscoe, Briscoe, Ivester & Bazel, (415) 402-2700.

0-and-4. That's the Third District Court of Appeal's record in California Environmental Quality Act cases at the state Supreme Court since 2007. Earlier this month, in Stockton Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Stockton (see CP&DR Legal Digest,  March 15, 2010 ) , the state Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Third District ruling regarding the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit that challenges a city's notice of exemption from CEQA review. The state Supreme Court has issued eight CEQA rulings since mid-2006. Exactly half of the rulings have been reversals of Third District decisions. None of the other five appellate districts has been reversed more than once. A few months ago, when the state high court overturned a Third District decisions concerning a Sacramento County general aviation airport, I suggested the justices in the Sacramento-based appellate district might not understand CEQA . Upon reflection, I don't want to try to defend that notion. But if I were a lawyer with a CEQA case in the Third District, I would be hesitant. To figure out what's going on here, let's have quick look at the cases. In one case, the Third District rejected the programmatic EIR for the Cal-Fed Bay Delta project because the gigantic document lacked detail and did not consider a no-growth alternative for Southern California. In another case, the Third District said Sacramento County must analyze the impacts of not permitting continued operations at a general aviation airport that had skirted county codes for decades. Those two decisions struck me at the time as suspect, and the state Supreme Court later reversed both decisions. In a third case, Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova , (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, the Third District upheld as adequate the water analysis for a 20,000-unit community plan. Something else was in play here, though. The Third District was so strongly critical of the legal tactics employed by the Citizens' lawyer that the court mostly bypassed the merits. The State Supreme Court, however, had no trouble getting to the merits, and it rejected the water study. In the latest case, the Third District in a 2-1 ruling forgave Stockton Citizens from missing the 35-day statute of limitations because the city's approval process was, should we say, nonstandard. The planning director had approved development of a Wal-Mart Supercenter where multi-family housing was not only planned, but was required by the city as a condition of a approval for a master development plan. The planning director's ministerial decision to permit the Wal-Mart store was made without any public notice or environmental review. The city simply filed a notice of exemption (NOE) from CEQA two months later. Not surprisingly, the episode flew under the radar and the normal collection of Wal-Mart opponents and smart-growth advocates was late getting to the courthouse. Tough noogie, said the Cal Supremes. "Whatever the actual defects or flaws in its process of approving the Wal-Mart project under a CEQA exemption, city attempted, by filing an NOE for the project, to comply with CEQA," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote. Thus, there was no excuse for missing the 35-day deadline to sue. Essentially, the court said the law is the law. The justices declined to factor the city's, uh, nonstandard administrative process into their decision on the CEQA statute of limitations. The high court's approach hints at the common thread in the overturned Third District decisions: In each instance, the Third District went beyond a strict interpretation of CEQA. The law does not require consideration of patently absurd project alternatives (e.g. no growth in Southern California), nor does it require a study of the impacts of a private business closure, permit exceptions when a city does a favor for a well-connected developer, or allow judges to blow off an annoying lawyer. As of today, no CEQA decisions by the Third District or any other appellate district are on review at the state Supreme Court. Maybe this means that everybody now is clear on the rules. But I doubt it. – Paul Shigley

Say George Clooney went to Nobu last night and ran into Diddy in the valet line, where they discussed their mutual affinity for Kiton suiting. How do we know? Photographs, of course. Why do we care? Not sure, but USC Planning Professor Elizabeth Currid has taken a stab at it.  Three years ago Currid gratified the hipster set with The Warhol Economy (Princeton University Press), a glowing account of how creative industries -- broadly defined -- have elevated not just the culture but in fact the economy of New York City. Her analysis, which included both in-the-know accounts of things that cool people do as well as a rigorous economic analysis of creative industries, met with generally enthusiastic reviews (including one from me ) from both the trade and mainstream press, in part because her topic itself was inherently seductive. Currid is emerging as a cross between Andres Duany and Michael Musto. While Warhol barely mentioned any place other than New York, Currid's forthcoming book, Starstruck: The Business of Celebrity (Faber & Faber), promises to give a little more love, and hold a little more relevance, to her adopted West Coast. Starstruck does not come out until November, but I had the good fortune of hearing her speak on it yesterday in, of all places, Cambridge, Massachusetts (a place where both the celebrities and the planning go back a wee bit further than, say, Miley Cyrus). I went to find out if her work holds any clues for how California -- at least the famous, sparkly part of it -- can prosper from its association from fame and, more importantly, whether the built environment has anything to do with the fortunes of its stars. If New York has a monopoly on creativity, we know intuitively that California surely has few rivals in the area of celebrity. That is, in fact, the conclusion that Currid draws empirically: Los Angeles and New York are the mega-galaxies in the universe of stardom. London plays a supporting role, and, beyond that, a smattering of odd places – Park City, Cannes, Canada (broadly defined), and Las Vegas – play host to celebrity escapades, accomplishments, and media events. Currid's research employs a new methodology that seems incredibly fun and increasingly trendy. She gained access to Getty Images' database of celebrity-related photos and used Natural Language Processing to comb through over 600,000 photos of over 71,000 people in 200 locations. With some statistical wizardry, she used the photos to identify the hottest celebrities and the hottest places where they appear in public (or at semi-public events). This methodology is rife with biases, but it's a fascinating use of the vast natural database that emerges now that everything is available electronically. With more rigorous testing, it may inform planning for generations to come -- the realization of the potential of Web 3.0. As online databases grow, planners from almost anywhere can find photos of their cities and draw conclusions about how people use space within them. The Warhol Economy was mainly a descriptive piece, but it did conclude with some compelling recommendations that imaginative planners could consider in order that the built environment (and, in some cases, city economic development policy) be designed to promote creative economies. Her thesis is that creative industries thrive almost exclusively on personal contact and that personal contact relies on venues where it can take place. Control and production are one in the same and therefore happen in the same place, unlike, say, industrial production in which headquarters might be located in cities while factories have long fled overseas. Unfortunately for planners, Currid pans out rather than zooms in this time. In her talk she gave little heed to Los Angeles' built environment, noting only that a small handful of neighborhoods (Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood) host the vast majority of celebrity-related events. Otherwise, she takes her theoretical cues from Saskia Sassen to discuss the ways that celebrities create inter-regional linkages between cities that serve more as nodes than actual places. In some ways, this is only appropriate, if you think that celebrities are images and not real people, I suppose. Only in the question-and-answer period did Currid address the irony of celebrity and cities: the super-famous and super-wealthy live within camerashot of many of the least privileged people in the country, living and working in neighborhoods that are far from flashy. Great disparities in wealth and disproportionately large underclasses emerge in many major cities, but in Los Angeles the difference is so much more pronounced because the latter often appears literally in the background of the former. On that point, Currid said, and I quote loosely: I don't know what you do. This is where policy is very important. It policy for stars or for cultural industries. It's policy for equitable cities. Rent or social services that make people's lives all right as they get priced out. Those are real kinds of things we can do that are in many ways removed from the phenomenon I was talking about today. They are more about the global cities with the elite and poor service workers, and that latter group is disenfranchised. Currid seems to approve of stardom and the creative industries, at least to the extent that they create significant economic benefits for their host cities. She is careful to point out, though, that it's impossible to know whether the industries created the cities or vice-versa. As much as her current work is removed from the actual practice of planning, it presents planners -- at least those in Los Angeles -- with the challenge of not accepting this unclear correlation and in fact figuring out how the city can be designed both to keep the celebrities happy and to capture the economic spinoff effects of their wealth. Currid makes it clear that Hollywood (the industry) isn't leaving Hollywood (the place), and yet the industry's urban currency is quite different from that which takes place in New York. It also seems to address the rest of Los Angeles with indifference, if not contempt. Whether planners in Los Angeles and its neighboring cities can create more places not where awards galas can take place but rather where creative folks can get together and share ideas, and figure how to use the celebrity economy to the benefit of the entire place. The first step might be to encourage LA's public to spend less time reading Us Weekly and more time looking around their own city. --Josh Stephens

What appeared last fall to be a major win for property rights advocates may have been a fleeting victory. Earlier this month, an en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to rehear a rent control case from the City of Goleta, meaning the earlier ruling in favor of the property owner is wiped out. Last September, property rights advocates appeared to achieve a breakthrough in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta when a Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 ruling, determined that the city's mobile home rent control ordinance amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ruling was important for two reasons: First, the Ninth Circuit agreed to consider the mobile home park owners' claims, which normally would have been fully litigated in state court and would not have reached federal court. Second, the Ninth Circuit panel struck down the ordinance on its face. There was no instance in which the regulation could be constitutional, the court ruled. It was exactly the sort of ruling that mobile home park owners across the state and property rights advocates in general have sought for years. However, the majority ruling came with a dissent that suggested the ruling may not survive. In that dissent, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote that the property owners had suffered no compensable taking because they bought Ranch Mobile Estates long after rent control was already in place. The archives of the CP&DR Legal Digest are packed with mobile home rent control cases. Although the details vary from case to case, the gist of the mobile home park owners' argument is that mobile homes in rent-controlled parks sell for a premium because of the rent regulation. Thus, the park owners argue, the regulation is an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from the park owner to the mobile home owner. For years, park owners did not make much headway with this argument – until 2004, when a Ninth Circuit panel invalidated a City of Cotati mobile home ordinance . However, the precedent in the Cotati case did not last long, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year in Lingle that the basis for the Cotati ruling – that the rent control regulation did not "substantially advance" a legitimate government purpose – was not proper for a takings case. In the Goleta case, the property owners made the same transfer-of-wealth argument, but this time they passed the Penn Central test – which provides a higher bar than the now-vacated "substantially advances" test – to prove that a taking had occurred. The Penn Central test involves three main planks: 1) the regulation's economic impact on the property owner; 2)  the extent to which the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations; and 3) the character of the government action. In Guggenheim , the court determined that 1) the regulation was a "naked transfer" of wealth; 2) the property owners could argue the law interfered with their investment-backed expectations; and 3) it was improper for the city to single-out mobile home park owners. In his dissent, Judge Kleinfeld agreed the regulation did transfer wealth, but he said the property owners suffered no compensable loss because the basics of the regulation have been in place since 1979. Exactly why the Ninth Circuit agreed to reconsider the 2009 Guggenheim decision is unknown, but I suspect that the two-judge majority's rather expansive interpretation of Palazzolo may be a factor. The general rule is that regulations must be challenged shortly upon their enactment. But in the 2001 Palazzolo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted a landowner to contest a pre-existing wetlands regulation as a taking. However, it is important to remember that in Palazzolo , the same person (but a different legal entity), owned the property both before and after the regulation was established. In the Goleta case, the park owners bought the property 18 years after Santa Barbara County enacted rent control. It was no secret that the government held rents at Ranch Mobile Estates below market rates.  If the property owners can't get past a narrower interpretation of Palazzolo , they may find an opening in the City of Goleta's incorporation – and its perfunctory readoption of the entire county code – in 2002. Technically, a new regulation went into effect after the property owners bought the park. I shall make no prediction except for this one: If the 11-judge en banc panel ends up blessing the original Guggenheim decision, mobile home rent control in more than 100 California cities and counties will be in deep trouble. – Paul Shigley

The California Supreme Court has ruled that a project's air impacts are to be measured against existing ambient conditions, not against a permitted level of operations for the emitter. The unanimous ruling upholds an appellate court's decision that a proposed expansion of a ConocoPhillips oil refinery in Wilmington and Carson must be measured against on-the-ground conditions and, therefore, requires an environmental impact report (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2008). In 2003, ConocoPhillips proposed to modify and augment existing facilities in order to produce an ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. These changes would entail, among other modifications, a substantial increase in the operation of its cogeneration plant and boilers, which were subject to existing permits limiting their rate of heat production. ConocoPhillips applied to the South Coast Air Quality Management District for a permit to make the modifications. SCAQMD prepared an initial study and then a negative declaration, concluding the project would not have any adverse environmental impacts. However, during the environmental review process, the environmental justice group Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) submitted evidence that the project would increase nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by more than 600 pounds per day and that this amount could cause adverse health affects in surrounding neighborhoods. In response to this CBE's contentions, SCAQMD determined the increased steam generation from the cogeneration plant, in addition to other newly proposed activities, would create between 201 and 420 pounds per day of additional NOx emissions. Although the district had adopted a threshold of significance for NOx of 55 pounds per day, it determined that the revised increase was acceptable because the project would not have a significant environmental impact because the increased steam generation would not exceed the maximum rate of heat production allowed under the existing permits. CBE nevertheless filed suit against SCAQM, with ConocoPhilips as a real party in interest. The two mounted a joint defense. The Supreme Court analyzed two questions: First, whether the prior operating permits established a baseline for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of a "new project." Second, whether the record supported a fair argument that the project would have significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, require preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). On the first question, the district and ConocoPhillips argued that using the pre-project NOx emissions as a baseline for analyzing the project's effects would violate vested rights held by ConocoPhillips to operate its boilers at permitted levels. The court disagreed, citing � 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. " he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the court. SCAQMD and ConocoPhillips contended that using the existing conditions as the baseline for analysis would violate the statute of limitations, because CEQA analysis of the diesel fuel project should not constitute review of the district's previous approval of the boiler permits. Again, the court disagreed. It noted that CBE did not attempt to set aside the district's approval of the boiler permits � only approval of the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel project, which was timely challenged. Finally, SCAQMD and ConocoPhillips argued that numerous Court of Appeal decisions supported the use of maximum operational levels allowed under a permit as a CEQA baseline. This is known as the Fairview line of cases (see CP&DR Legal Digest, April 1999). The court rejected this argument and factually distinguished the ConocoPhillips project from the projects in the Court of Appeal cases. The latter had involved modification of a previously analyzed project or the continued operation of equipment without significant expansion of use, the court determined. "We conclude the district's use of the maximum capacity levels set in prior boiler permits, rather than the actually existing levels of emissions from the boilers, as a baseline to analyze NOx emissions from the diesel project was inconsistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines," Werdegar wrote. On the second issue � whether the record provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project would have significant adverse effects � the court held that the district's own negative declaration provided evidence the project would have substantial air impacts. Thus, an EIR should have been prepared. The court remanded the issue of how to calculate the true baseline to the district for analysis in the project EIR. The Case: Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, No. S161190, 2010 DJDAR 3872. Filed March 15, 2010. The Lawyers: For CBE: Adrienne Bloch, (510) 302-0430. For the South Coast Air Quality Management District: Bradley Hogin, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, (714) 558-7000. For ConocoPhillips: Jocelyn Thompson, Alston & Bird, (213) 576-1104. --Katherine J. Hart

This month more Census forms will arrive in California mailboxes than in those of any other state. And, while anxieties about response rates and undercounts persist nationwide, it is likely that California will fill out and submit more of them than will any other state. In its rawest state, the resulting data will give planners their most fundamental piece of data - the sheer number of people the state must accommodate. At the same time, this year's Census will lay some disputes to rest while, possibly, kicking up new ones that may persist for the next ten years. The most pressing issue, therefore, for California's demographers and planners to find out exactly how many people live in the state - a figure that is currently disputed to the tune of 1.5 million people. That's the difference between the 38.3 million residents that the California Department of Finance estimated as of January 1, 2009 and the 36.7 million that the Census Bureau estimated at the same time. Though both figures are based on the 33.8 million logged in the 2000 Census they have diverged over the past decade due to differing estimates of domestic in- and out-migration. That number is "unprecedented," said Hans Johnson, associate director at the California Public Policy Institute. "It's a phenomenal difference. There's no doubt that as a state our population growth has slowed compared to previous decades-the key question is how much." The desire to bridge this gap, and avoid the perennial threat of an undercount, has prompted cities across the state to embark on campaigns to encourage residents to respond quickly and accurately. April 1 is "Census Day," the official point of reference on which responses are to be based. "The Census Bureau has basically been saying that people have been leaving California in greater numbers than people have been coming to California," said Mary Heim, chief of the Demographic Research Unit at the California Department of Finance. "We don't think it is to the extent that the Census Bureau thinks people have been leaving the state." While Heim and others are curious to find out from the 2010 whether their numbers are correct, they of course carry more than trivial value. They will determine how many House seats the state will pick up - two if the state estimates are correct and none if the Census Bureau estimates are confirmed. The latter scenario would be the first time since 1920 that the state did not gain seats. The data will also serve as the baseline for all future demographic projections conducted by the Department of Finance. Most importantly for local and regional planners concrete, the Census will provide authoritative figures on which to base everything from transportation models to the Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) process, which attempts to prescribe the amount and location of housing that a given region needs to accommodate population growth. "That process looks at what kind of housing is there, what's the population, and that process depends on the Department of Finance's projections," said Gordon Garry, director of research and analysis at the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. "We're hoping that this Census bridges divide between the Department of Finance and Census. For our RHNA process that's one less data problem." Other problems, however, may arise at a finer level of detail. What the Census will not include is the long-form questions that have, since 1940, asked one-sixth of American households to reveal fine details about their lives. The long form was scrapped following the 2000 Census, so planners who are accustomed to relying on detailed, nuanced Census data to analyze and plan their communities may not get the detail that they expect. "It's going to be the thinnest Census ever conducted," said Dowell Myers, professor of Urban Planning and Demographics at USC. "The most important thing for planning is the homeownership data. Except, first they threw our air conditioning, then they threw out bathrooms, now they've thrown out the whole housing unit. The only question left is, are you an owner or a renter?" Instead, everyone will receive the standard Short Form, asking for age, sex, race, ethnicity, household size and homeownership. "That doesn't give planners a lot to work with," said Myers. From that data planners will be able to get occupied housing counts and derive average household size and vacancy rates, according to Heim. More detailed information will come from the American Communities Survey, a monthly survey of 250,000 households nationwide that was fully implemented by the Census Bureau in 2006. The Census Bureau will be compiling three- and five-year averages of survey data - with the Census as a baseline - in order to replace the long form. However, even though the ACS is ongoing and not decennial like the Census, its comparatively small sample size has made some researchers wary of its reliability. Because ACS takes only a sample of households, it will have a wider margin of error than will the Census, which is presumed to have a nearly perfect response rate. PPIC's Johnson noted that this sampling problem may affect small cities and counties more than it will large ones and put California at less of a disadvantage than it does more rural states. Even so, the absolute discrepancies and margins of error may be significant. "I have real reservations (about ACS)," said Heim. "I think we don't totally grasp how you use five-year averages, three-year averages, and annual data. It's like a whole new world out there." "That's a challenge for people who study things like poverty concentrations," said Johnson. "You cannot look at the Census to get that anymore." Additionally, the short form obscures some data that planners consider crucial to creating the next generation of transportation plans. SACOG's Garry said that fine details about household demographics can have big impacts on travel patterns, thus making the combined data from the Census and ACS crucial to regional planning. "(Regional planning agencies) are going to be caught holding the bag figuring this out," said Myers. "Our new travel models are much more travel-behavior based we've gone to another level of detail," said Garry. "It turns out that the kind of household makes a big difference in the travel demand and how respond to how far away things are and job locations and what kind of transportation choice will they make." Even with the "thin" short form and questions about how the ACS and Census will match up, demographers are hoping that the deluge of fresh data will answer lingering questions and confirm predictions about what has, by many estimates, been an usual decade for the state. The Census may offer a macro-level account of the recession and foreclosure crisis by allowing analysts to extrapolate the rate of vacancies that have been caused by foreclosures. "Are people doubling up?" said Heim. "Are multiple families in one housing unit?" On the other hand, the Census may reveal less housing density thanks not to economic conditions but rather to the aging of the population and the settling of the state's immigrant population, both of which have a tendencytend to reduce household sizes. The numbers may, therefore, indicate a trend that would give smart growth advocates pause. "One reason density has increased in the past wasn't that we were building more housing units but that we had more people living in housing units," said Johnson. "Over time as immigrants adapt to life in the United States they might start living in smaller households." Moreover, Heim noted that elderly residents are becoming a larger percentage of the state's population. They tend to live alone or in pairs and therefore have less per-unit density than would nuclear families. Eventually, however, those homes will turn over. Concerns therefore persist about the combination of demographic and economic trends and the ability of the next generation of would-be homeowners to fill the state's existing housing stock. "The projections are interesting but also threatening," said Myers. "Older baby boomers are going to be selling, progressively. Are there going to be enough younger homeowners to pay for that built-up equity over the past few decades?" Statewide, the Census will assign hard numbers to the trends that have defined the state's development over the past ten years. "Things that I'll be looking at include changes in inland vs. coastal areas, north vs. south and some of the regional patterns," said Johsnon. "And looking specifically at what were the big changes in terms of racial and ethnic mix? How much have cities been transformed?" From there, California's planners can begin to think about how the state will-and should-be transformed in the next ten years. Contacts: Gordon Garry, Director of Research and Analysis, SACOG (916) 340-6230 Mary Heim, Chief, California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit (916) 445-3878 Hans Johnson, Associate Director, Public Policy Institute of California (415) 291-4460 Prof. Dowell Myers , USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development (213) 740-7095

Regional planning has just won a round in its age-old battle against local prerogative. Earlier this month, an Alameda County Superior Court judge struck down voter-approved housing caps in the City of Pleasanton and ordered the city to zone more land to accommodate the city's fair share of housing. Judge Frank Roesch sided with affordable housing advocates, who have pressed Pleasanton for years over what they consider exclusionary housing policies. The ruling strikes me as very important -- but not quite as important as some people might think. It's not such a big deal because this was a Superior Court ruling that applies only to one city. Unless the case is appealed and a Court of Appeal publishes a similar decision, no legal precedent for any other city has been established. Still, the ruling is a big deal for two reasons: It emboldens affordable housing advocates, and it may portend future skirmishes as regional planning imperatives continue to take hold in California. First, a little background on Pleasanton, a city of nearly 70,000 people in Alameda County. In 1986, city voters approved a growth management ordinance and housing cap. In 1998, they modified the earlier restrictions by approving Measure GG, which limited annual housing permits to 750 units per year and – most importantly – established 29,000 units as the maximum number of units in town. In 2008, voters approved Measure PP, which reaffirmed Measure GG and tightened the definition of a housing unit. Over the years, the city has grown into a substantial job center thanks to development of business parks. By one estimate, at least 40,000 people commute to Pleasanton on a daily basis. Meanwhile, in 2001, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that Pleasanton's share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 1999-2006 period was 5,059 units, including 2,423 units for very low, low- or moderate-income households. As you might imagine, this was not a popular mandate in Pleasanton. Despite studies and promises, city officials never zoned adequate land to accommodate the RHNA housing numbers. The Department of Housing and Community Development refused to certify the city's 2003 housing element update. The San Francisco-based group Urban Habitat Program sued to enforce the housing element law in 2006. The group first had to win a procedural battle even to get its claims heard by a judge (see CP&R Legal Digest , September 2008 ). Judge Roesch's ruling on those claims is straightforward. "It is self-evident that the city cannot comply with the state statute requiring the city to accommodate its RHNA when the city is not permitted by its local law, Measure GG, to allow the number of housing units to be built that would satisfy the RHNA," he wrote. "The question of which law prevails is elementary. State law preempts whenever local laws contradict state law." Roesch ordered the city to strike Measures GG, PP and QQ (another 2008 initiative) from all planning documents and to zone land for housing pursuant to the 1999-2006 RHNA. He also ordered the city to halt issuing non-residential building permits until its general plan complies with state law. The ruling was a home run for the housing advocates. "This is the first time that a court has ordered a jurisdiction to rezone sites to meet the need identified in the previous RHNA," said Richard Marcantonio, attorney for Urban Habitat Program. Other cities also failed to zone adequate land during the last RHNA round, and even more cities in the ABAG region missed last year's deadline for updating housing elements. I can guarantee that Marcantonio knows which cities. I strongly suspect that many of the cities dodging the housing law are hoping Pleasanton does not appeal Roesch's decision because a similar ruling by an appellate court could establish a precedent that those cities don't want to see. At this point, Pleasanton has not announced a course of action. It's too early to appeal because Urban Habitat Program claims of housing discrimination are still pending. A City of Pleasanton spokeswoman said officials have no comment. However, former Pleasanton Mayor and Councilman Tom Pico, speaking on KQED radio's "Forum," defended the city's growth policies and called the RHNA process "seriously flawed" because it penalizes the city for having a BART station and employment centers. There's nothing wrong, he said, with putting the housing for Pleasanton's workers in the neighboring cities of Dublin and Livermore. He further contended the city is nearly at buildout. Pico was not speaking for the city, but it is exactly that sort of attitude that has gotten Pleasanton in its current pickle. In approving SB 375 , the Legislature made regional planning an even greater priority than it has been under the housing element law. The idea behind SB 375 is to force cities with transit and jobs – cities like Pleasanton – to accept lots of new housing as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars. In other words, the conflict that continues to play out in Pleasanton could become commonplace around California. – Paul Shigley

The hottest web meme of the past two days -- in urbanist circles at least (I shudder to think of what the hottest overall meme is) -- is the chart of the most photographed cities and landmarks in the world.  Last year a team of Cornell researchers assumed the guise of part Web trawlers and part econometricians and, with the help of photo-analysis software, identified every photo on the Flickr photo-sharing site that could recognizably be associated with a city.  It ranked the top twenty-five cities and then the top seven most commonly photographed subjects in each.  Not surprisingly, Europe wins the prize for the most photogenic landmarks worldwide.  The Eiffel Tower, Trafalgar Square, the Tate Modern, Big Ben, and Notre Dame cathedral round out the top five, although New York ranks first overall among cities.  But not far down the grid an astounding pattern emerges: three of the top 25 most photographed cities are in California: San Francisco (third), Los Angeles (seventh), and Lee Vining (13th).  Just kidding; 13th goes to San Diego.  This study does not suggest that these are the absolute most popular (or at least photogenic) places in the world, since anything that uses Flickr as a dataset is bound to be rife with bias.  Most notably, the data is biased towards those who have web access and, moreover, have the savvy or sense of exhibitionism to use Flickr.  The demographic traits of that population surely look nothing like that of the world as a whole, and they are in fact likely to be biased towards the very cities that make the top of the list.  Flickr itself is a subsidiary of Yahoo!, which is, naturally, based near San Francisco, so the study may say more about the respective cities' tech savvy than their aesthetic appeal.  Though the study seems to have more to do with the web than with cities per se, it has the unfortunate indirect effect of celebrating landmarks over streetscapes and, indeed, icons over places.  I like San Francisco's Union Square (SF #3) and adore the Santa Monica Pier (LA #5), but I don't even know what it would mean to "go" to the Hollywood Sign (LA #2) and I'm not quire sure what to do about "seals" in San Diego (#4).  Most disturbing to those who believe in California urbanism, some of the state's top scorers aren't so much places as they are artificial attractions: Disneyland (LA #1), Coit Tower (SF #1), and -- brace yourself -- Comicon (SD #7), which isn't even a place so much as a universe all its own.  California's notoriety is heartening, and the study suggests that if all else fails the state can still count on revenue from tourists (and comic book aficionados).  But the study ignores that which California so desperately needs: genuine, attractive, liveable places.  Tourists are not so likely to snap photos of Old Town Pasadena or of the dozens of main streets in the Central Valley, but those are the places that need the most attention and, ultimately, will generate the most economic activity as they enable Californians to mingle with each other.  The best places are, in short, those that don't stand out.  California needs ordinary places that evade the shutter not because they are unattractive but because they they are so intertwined in the fabric of residents' lives that they cease to seem special at all.  Indeed, urban planners should (and probably do) know better than anyone else in California that "special" is not the same thing as "spectacle."  We now have scientific proof that California has plenty of the latter; our challenge is to build more of the former. -- Josh Stephens PS.  Far more fascinating, and less predictable, than the ranking of discrete sights are the activity maps that the researchers extrapolated from the aggregate data:

Gov. Schwarzenegger is going around the state urging lawmakers to approve a measure that would provide $200 million in tax credits for homebuyers. The governor claims the measure will save or add thousands of construction jobs. His claim is hardly new. But is there any real basis for it? Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal 's Evan Newmark posted a blog with the headline, "Don't Be Brainwashed by the Housing Cult" in which he questioned the assumption that homebuilding is a pillar of the economy. If Newmark is right, it demands a reconsideration of how the government subsidizes home construction. Specifically, Newmark challenged the statement by Toll Brothers CEO Bob Toll that new home construction directly or indirectly provides one-fifth to one-quarter of all jobs in this country. It was the sort of boast that we hear frequently from the industry. Newmark, however, noted that homebuilding accounted for only 2.5% of GDP last year. Even in early 2006, when homebuilding was booming (and, as it turns out, we were overbuilding by a large amount) the industry amounted to 8% of GDP. Newmark doesn't think much of the homebuilding industry's ongoing demand that the federal government provide subsidies to new home buyers, or of the industry's pressure on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA to continue supplying taxpayer-guaranteed mortgages to new home buyers. He notes that 14.5% of housing units in the country are sitting vacant, and he concludes , "It seems that the only Americans who really need more new houses are the American home builders." I might expect this sort of commentary from an environmentalist or a greenie masquerading as an academic. But Newmark, although a contrarian and a shit-disturber, is no tree-hugger or slow-growther seeking additional government regulation. He's an unapologetic capitalist, and he has actual facts behind his argument here. We Californians like to think our state is different. After all, California reliably adds about 500,000 new residents every year. Even last year, when the California economy was in worse shape than at any time since the Depression, the state population grew by 367,000 people, according to Department of Finance . California, the argument goes, will always need additional housing units. I tend to accept that argument. But if Newmark's economic analysis is to be believed, the home construction imperative is social, not economic. We should build housing because people need shelter, not in order to employ people. One year ago, the California Building Industry Association convinced state lawmakers to provide a tax credit of up to $10,000 to buyers of new homes. About 10,000 buyers took advantage of the program, getting themselves an average credit of about $7,000. The CBIA, state lawmakers and Schwarzenegger touted the program as a job-booster. Heck, even I offered a qualified endorsement . Now the CBIA and Schwarzenegger are calling for $200 million of tax credits for the buyers of any home, new or not. --------Update-------- The governor signed AB 183, the $200 million tax credit, into law on March 25. ------------------------- However, all of the evidence says that last year's program did nothing more than permit homebuilders to unload inventory. According to the Economic Development Agency, construction jobs fell by 18% to 570,000 in 2009 . The CBIA itself bemoans that housing starts remained at the lowest level ever recorded in 2009. I'm going to suggest that if the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should fund the units Californians actually need – and not simply toss money untargeted into the market. And what we need are not the three- and four-bedroom single-family houses that are the specialty of the CBIA's members. The average household size has been decreasing for years, and the fastest-growing household segment is one- and two-person households: seniors (by 2030, 20% of Californians will be at least 65 years old), singles, childless couples and single people sharing quarters. What these smaller households want are – this is not a big surprise – smaller housing units in convenient locations. About 57% of California's housing units are detached single-family houses, according to the Department of Finance's 2008 California Statistical Abstract . It's safe to assume that most of these are suburban-style houses that were originally designed for mom, dad and their two or three kids. But this sort of nuclear family will account for only about 25% of California households by 2020. The one- and two-person household is replacing the Leave It To Beaver family. Give these small households 800 to 1,000 square feet of well-designed living space (or un-designed living space, as in a loft), preferably within walking distance of the grocery, a coffee house, the library, a cinema and a park, and these people are as happy as clams. If the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should aim squarely at the units that we truly need. And it should do so because people need decent shelter, not for any other reason. – Paul Shigley

Covered by chaparral and dry brush, the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties are at a perennial risk of wildfire. And when the seasonal Santa Ana winds sweep through, they bring Apocalyptic storms of fire and ash that rain down on, and sometimes consume, the communities that press up against these slopes. Into that path comes a proposal the G. Miller Development Company to build 110 luxury homes on 670 rugged acres just outside the Rancho Cucamonga city limits and bordering San Bernardino National Forest. It's a plan that many locals call a dangerous gamble, one that will place hundreds of new residents � and local emergency responders -- in heart of fire country. More than 30 residents spoke out against the project at an August 2009 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hearing. None spoke out in favor. And yet, the project remains under consideration as the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission awaits the release of a revised environmental impact report.  The proposal calls for Rancho Cucamonga to annex the land.   But it's not just the fire risk that has locals up in arms about the proposed development. What has them uneasy about the plan is the big name behind it: U.S. Congressman Gary Miller.  A Republican who has represented nearby communities of Brea, Diamond Bar and Yorba Linda since 1998, Miller is also the sole proprietor of the development company that bears his name. Though Miller's job gives him no direct jurisdiction over local land use, neighbors worry that his influence and reported close relationship with Rancho Cucamonga Mayor Donald Kurth are enabling the looming approval of a project that some consider a disaster waiting to happen. "We all know that there are fires, floods and earthquakes," said Danae Delaney, an opponent of the project who's part of the Rancho Cucamonga Conservancy. "That area is a high fire risk, a high flood risk, and in an earthquake zone with many faultlines running through."  Denaley said that the homes would themselves be a risk to their occupants, and if a blaze were to threaten the homes, "It's just putting our fire personnel and our emergency rescue personnel more at risk," said Delaney. In 2003, a fire known as the Grand Prix burned nearly 8,000 acres in and around Rancho Cucamonga, prompting the evacuation of nearly 2,000 homes, 13 of which were destroyed. City estimates put the damage from that fire at more than $7 million. The next year, a fire destroyed the Carrari Ranch Christmas Tree farm � which, before its crop went up in smoke, occupied the very site that Miller's company is now trying to develop. Since long before he was elected to Congress, Miller has been a prominent developer in the Inland Empire.  His company bought the Christmas tree farm from the Carrari family in 2004 after the fire wiped out their business. Miller has not publicly released details of the sale, but various reports put the final price tag at $2 million. Whether or not Miller ends up developing the site himself, opponents fear that, at the very least, he might flip the property upon receiving city approvals.  "He wants an approved tract map," said Frank Schiavone, a long-time resident who has been a vocal opponent of the project at Carrari Ranch since it was announced in 2005. "I don't think I'm coming from another planet when I say that a property with an approved tract map is going to be worth a heck of a lot more than just a plain old piece of property." Miller's office declined to comment for this article. Final approval of the project is still six to nine months away, according to Candyce Burnett, a senior planner at the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Burnett is currently working with Miller's company on a revised scope of work for the project, which released a draft environmental impact report in June 2009. The new scope of work includes additional studies that would demonstrate acceptable environmental impacts. "Additional studies are dealing with fire safety, as well as a downstream stability study," said Burnett. Though the last major fire was in 2003, she said the area is at regular risk of wildfire during the dry and windy season. "That's why we're looking at the additional fire studies to look at evacuation procedures and the potential for apparatus to fight fires in that area." The project scope would require annexation of the 670-acre site into the city of Rancho Cucamonga, adoption of the specific plan crafted for the 342-acre project site, an amendment to the city's general plan, and a development district agreement. The proposed residential lots range from 10,200 square feet to a little more than one acre each, and the entire project has an average density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. About 200 acres of open space will also be included. Another of the more contentious aspects of the project is the required inclusion of 41 acres of fuel modification in the hillsides around the development � a requirement that opponents view as proof of the site's inherent danger. "It's just dangerous," said Delaney. "I think it's irresponsible to build in an area where you know there's a greater risk of having a natural disaster." She and others in town are also upset about the aesthetic ramifications. The Carrari Ranch site is located on a hillside that is visible from almost every part of Rancho Cucamonga. And though there is a handful of homes sprinkled up in the foothills around the elevation of Miller's proposed project, some say the sight of a 110-home gated community would be hard to miss . "We can only go so far up into the foothills. There's a lot of scenic beauty looking up, and if it gets developed we're not going to have that," said Delaney. But getting those homes up into the hills won't be easy. Due to the parcel's rugged terrain, the development will require the movement of about 7 million cubic yards of dirt to fill in areas and create an area flat enough to build homes.  It would also alter a landscape that is currently wild.  "I'm looking at it from an environmentalist's point of view," said Schiavone. "There's a very rare habitat there. There's sensitive species there. And I'm sure nothing's going to be done to mitigate the environmental damage this project is going to cause." Despite the local concerns, the project seems to be moving forward. Burnett expects the additional studies will be complete in a few months, clearing the way for a revised environmental impact report. Work on the project could begin by year's end. The first residents could move in within five years. For the vocal opponents in Rancho Cucamonga, the project seems unstoppable. Schiavone said he feels there's little he and other community members can do to halt a project with so much power behind it. However, he concedes that he has seen no proof of abuse of power on the part of Miller -- but he still believes it. "The way Congressman Miller is going about this is what really bothers a lot of people," said Schiavone. "Obviously he's throwing his weight around." Contacts: Congressman Gary Miller (Washington, DC): 202-225-3201  Candyce Burnett, City of Rancho Cucamonga: 909-477-2750 Frank Schiavone: 909-987-6805 Danae Delaney: 909-758-0282 -- Nate Berg

The primary takeaways from last week's California Redevelopment Association conference was unambiguous: stakeholders and public officials alike must know the true impact of reduction of redevelopment funding in communities and statewide. Panels on the final day of the conference sent attendees home with some idea of the steps that both local agencies and the state association must take to achieve this goal and keep the state's redevelopment agenda on track. Representatives from law enforcement, labor, environmental, real estate development, and social service organizations emphasized the need for broad-based coalitions to work together to communicate this message. Chair of the California League of Conservation Voters Tom Adams noted that the "paradigm shift in the environmental community based on the passage of SB 375" has made "environmentalists recognize that redevelopment is an essential tool" to reduce the state's carbon footprint.  Leaders Christine Minnehan (Western Center on Law & Poverty) and Chief Susan Manheimer (California Association of Police Chiefs) confirmed the need for other groups to identify commonalities and represent the different perspectives of redevelopment, social services and law enforcement, respectively. On the policy side, the private sector, represented by Renata Simril, senior vice president at Forest City Enterprises, urged greater flexibility to address sustainability issues rather than "imposing artificial constraints – such as requiring LEED silver certification on any commercial building over 50,000 square feet in the City of Los Angeles." Former legislators Dede Alpert and Jim Brulte underscored the importance of working with groups outside of the redevelopment world and also of the need to educate legislators and staffers on the relevance of redevelopment. Brulte noted that "so many of the legislators don't really know what redevelopment does. Send in the interest groups whom legislators benefit from…to show them the impact of these cuts." Brulte contended that "every dollar taken from redevelopment affects public safety," or the irony of Republicans who might typically scoff at redevelopment spending who then hold fundraisers in venues that benefited by redevelopment funding. Good fodder for local agencies who will need all the help they can get in holding on to their funds from the state. Overall, the conference addressed both the basics and complexities of climate change, from baseline discussion of SB 375 and AB 32, identifying impacts of vehicle trip reduction, to financing programs for green development. Similar to the reaction of planners on climate change regulation ( CP&DR Insight, Vol. 23 No. 01 Jan 2008 ), those in the redevelopment field are incorporating more green and transit-friendly elements into their projects.  Finally, the national economic climate was felt as sessions on federal foreclosure assistance programs and financing projects through ARRA funds were well attended. CP&DR attended some of these sessions and for the first time attempted to relay key sessions via a live twitter feed. You can access the public twitter feed on the conference here: http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23calredev  without having to register for a twitter account. -- Allison Joe