In almost shockingly candid interview with the Los Angeles Times , Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger concedes that his earlier answers for solving the state's budget and governance problems were based on his poor understanding of the problems and the system. You might recall the 2003 recall campaign, when Schwarzenegger said he could solve the state's budget problems simply by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse." He now says these things are not a factor in the state's projected $14.5 billion budget deficit. The governor also has changed his mind on term limits. Here's what the former term limits supporter has to say now: "The special interests and lobbyists up there are so much more sophisticated and so much more advanced than the politicians are. ... So who is it really helping? I am seeing this firsthand. The people I finally got used to working with now will be kicked out." What is most remarkable to me is not Schwarzenegger's new positions, but his willingness to admit publicly that governing California is not the piece of cake that he said it would be. Long-time Sacramento insiders and observers might respond, "No kidding." You can read the full interview here . - Paul Shigley

The Humboldt County district attorney cannot sue Pacific Lumber Company for allegedly submitting false information during the state's processing of an environmental impact report and sustainable logging plan, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court ruled that the district attorney's lawsuit was blocked by a section of the state Civil Code and by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects lobbying and petitioning activities. The court did not rule on the legitimacy of Pacific Lumber's allegedly fraudulent statements. Pacific Lumber Company has been involved in an enormous amount of litigation since financier Charles Hurwitz acquired the logging company in 1986. (The company is currently in bankruptcy proceedings in Texas. See CP&DR Environment Watch , November 2007.) However, the suit filed by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos in early 2003 was different. Gallegos contended that Pacific Lumber submitted false information downplaying the potential for logging to cause landslides in the Bear Creek, Elk River and Jordan Creek watersheds. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) relied on this information to certify an EIR and approve a "sustained yield plan" that permitted logging, according to county prosecutors. They sought a civil penalty of $2,500 for every illegally harvested tree, or about $250 million all together. Even though Humboldt County has been the scene of logging protests and litigation for many years, the district attorney's suit appeared to take the controversy to a higher level. Pacific Lumber poured $300,000 into an effort to recall Gallegos, who was first elected in 2002, but 61% of voters backed the district attorney in a March 2004 recall election. While it lost in the political realm, Pacific Lumber had much better success in court. In May 2004, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wilson rejected the prosecutor's request to prohibit Pacific Lumber timber harvesting, but he allowed the district attorney to amend the lawsuit. Gallegos did so, but Superior Court Judge Richard Freeborn ruled in June 2005 that the company was immune from the lawsuit. The district attorney appealed, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District upheld the lower court. The trial court ruled that Civil Code § 47, subdivision (b) provides absolute immunity to communications made as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The idea is that citizens should be able to communicate with government agencies without fear of litigation over what they say. "Pacific Lumber's communications, whether fraudulent or not, fall squarely within the scope of the litigation privilege," wrote Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner, sitting by assignment to the First District. The district attorney argued that § 47(b) was inapplicable because his lawsuit was brought under the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. ). The Unfair Competition Law forbids "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." The district attorney contended that Pacific Lumber's actions were fraudulent because the company submitted false information after the close of the 90-day public review period, and then submitted a correction at the last minute to the wrong government office. The First District, however, found that the § 47(b) immunity does not "evaporate merely because the plaintiff discovers a conveniently different label for pleading what is in substance an identical grievance arising from identical conduct as that protected by § 47(b)." The federal Noerr-Pennington Doctrine provides similar immunity for any petitioning activities before the courts and government agencies. But there is a "sham exemption" to Noerr-Pennington. The district attorney argued that Pacific Lumber's activities fell into an area covered by the sham exemption. The First District disagreed. For the sham exemption to apply, Pacific Lumber had to believe that there was no way it could prevail in the government process, and that it was using the government process to interfere with a competitor. Neither was the case here, the court found. Not only did Pacific Lumber believe it could prevail, it in fact did, the court noted. " ven if we were to recognize an expansion of the sham exemption for fraudulent conduct in adjudicatory proceedings," Horner added, "we would nonetheless conclude that the fraudulent conduct alleged here is not actionable because the state has failed to adequately allege that it deprived the CEQA proceedings of legitimacy." Besides, the court noted, CDF adopted a restrictive logging plan as a result of the CEQA process. Only after intense lobbying by Pacific Lumber in early 1999 did CDF modify the plan to permit more logging — and that is the plan of which the district attorney complains. Pacific Lumber's lobbying is "a classic form of political expression" that is immune from liability under Noerr-Pennington, the court concluded. After the decision came down, District Attorney Gallegos said he disagreed with the ruling but probably would not seek state Supreme Court review. That does not mean, however, Pacific Lumber is in the clear. In 2007, former CDF Director Richard Wilson and former CDF forestry regulator Chris Maranto filed a whistle-blower lawsuit that alleged a computer model used to support Pacific Lumber's logging plan was intentionally flawed to exaggerate the rate of tree regeneration. In addition, the state Supreme Court currently is considering an environmental group's challenge of the sustained yield plan, the EIR and a habitat conservation plan. That case is Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , No. S140547 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , May 2006; Environment Watch , March 2006). That state Supreme Court case has been extensively briefed, but no date for oral argument has been set. The Case: People v. The Pacific Lumber Co. , No. A112028, 2008 DJDAR 361. Filed January 10, 2008. The Lawyers; For the People: Christa McKimmy, Humboldt County district attorney's office, (707) 445-7411. For Pacific Lumber: Edgar Washburn, Morrison & Foerster, (415) 268-7860.

Jerry Brown likes to do the unexpected. So it should not have been surprising that Brown turned up unannounced at the Planning and Conservation League's annual symposium on Saturday, January 12, in Sacramento and vowed to sue cities and counties that do not account for climate change in their next general plan. Brown insisted that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires local governments to consider how land-use plans and development projects could contribute to climate change. And he warned that attorneys in his office are reviewing and commenting on environmental impact reports for the plans and projects. "My office is looking, and we're going to send you a comment. And you should look at it or we're going to sue you," Brown said to any local government official who may have been in the audience of about 250 people. The former governor conceded that he could not litigate all of the 120 general plans that currently are in some stage of update or "they'll run me out of town." Rather, he said, "We're looking at people who are flagrant, egregious and vulnerable." Brown was not even listed on the symposium's program. Lunch was billed as a talk about water by PCL Executive Director Gary Patton. Instead, Brown walked into the room just as servers were distributing plates of vegetarian lasagna, and he proceeded to steal the show with his usual mix of bold statements, self-righteousness and self-depreciating humor. Brown made headlines last year when he sued San Bernardino County over that county's failure to adequately address climate change in a comprehensive general plan update. Brown settled the lawsuit months later when the county agreed to adopt a policy that outlines ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributable to discretionary land use decisions, and to prepare a greenhouse gas reduction plan with targets through 2020 and mitigation measures. On Saturday, Brown said his office also is focusing on regional growth blueprints adopted by councils of government. Brown said he has learned that global warming is not at the top of COGs' agendas, but said he believes it should be. These blueprints need to be far more aggressive, and then cities need to implement the plans, he said. The friendly crowd gave Brown a standing ovation for his blunt, rambling and often humorous lunchtime speech. "Every time you applaud, that's one more lawsuit I will file," Brown joked as he left the stage. Of course, there are alternative viewpoints. Unfortunately, not everyone who cheered Brown's speech heard attorney Stephen Kostka, co-author of Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Ac t, provide a counter-argument. During a breakout panel discussion after lunch, Kostka said people expect land use planning to provide more greenhouse gas emission reductions than is likely. For decades, planning and zoning emphasized exclusion, which caused the type of development that people now decry. "I'm not sure how far you can roll the film backwards," Kostka said. It is only an assumption that new development will increase greenhouse gas emissions, said Kostka, who frequently represents the building industry and developers. Most new buildings are far more energy-efficient than old ones, he noted. And, he asked, how do you prove that residents of a new development will drive more than they would have had the development not been built? Kostka conceded that planners must consider the consequences of plans, but he argued that CEQA is the wrong tool for addressing the issue. Land development does not cause greenhouse gas emissions; it's economic growth, population growth and human activity that cause the emissions, he contended. Kostka drew a rebuttal from fellow panel member Terry Roberts, who heads the CEQA clearinghouse in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. She said the greenhouse gas reduction law passed in 2006 (AB 32) and last year's AB 97 make clear that climate change is a CEQA issue, even if CEQA is not the ideal tool. What's most important is not who's right and who's wrong, but the speed at which climate change has taken over the agenda. Yes, the PCL event was packed with greenies. But not even many of them were talking about this stuff as recently as two or three years ago. Now, it's all that anyone talks about. Concern about climate change is the reason that green building is becoming commonplace. And it's one of the big reasons the post-war suburban growth model is falling out of favor . The conversation has changed. As Jerry Brown noted, Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it permissible even for Republicans to talk about climate change. Planners have a new issue , and this one appears to have all the political traction in the world. - Paul Shigley

In 1909 the City of Los Angeles annexed San Pedro and a narrow corridor connecting the port to downtown. Now the city wishes it had included the industrial land on both sides of the corridor too. Large developable industrial parcels are an endangered species in portions of the City of Los Angeles, and the fact that they are at the bottom of the real estate market food chain makes them a hot commodity for speculative developers in a slumping market. The City of Los Angeles has big plans for its industrial land — but no one can agree on what those plans are. Since Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa issued a directive in December 2005, the Department of Planning and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) have conducted a two-year Industrial Land Use Policy Project (ILUP) and recently released recommendations on what to do with the city's industrial land. Applications for conversions for the large, less-expensive manufacturing parcels through zone changes have inundated the planning department. The mayor and ILUP team are weary of parcel-by-parcel land use decisions that often result in parcels too small to permit companies to re-locate or expand and that create conflicting uses between residents and — oh, say — the cement factory next door. Live-work adaptive reuse conversions in the Toy District and the new Arts District (previously known as the Warehouse District) have spurred internal concern about the eroding industrial base and the permanent loss of jobs. The city needs more middle-class jobs and commercial tax increment and is hoping to attract high-tech and green-tech companies to these parcels in the future. It's a common issue throughout urban California . The ILUP report recommends affirming existing industrial preservation policies and explicitly calls to preserve 80% of industrial land as employment protection districts, while permitting an industrialized version of a mixed-use district on 9%, and transit focused development on another 8%. Many believe the ILUP team's 17% concession isn't enough and a parcel-by-parcel battle over the final categorical geographies could be brewing. If the mayor's team has it way, bygone will be the days of plan amendments and zone changes. The new vehicle of change shall be the community plan process as 12 community plans are being updated now to include the recommendations. The CRA and the Planning Department have devised new zones based on four industrial categories that correspond to a land use inventory and other criteria such as infrastructure and accessibility. The community plan program would implement these zone changes and other ILUP recommendations during the plan updates. The report and recommendations have raised a stir among the development community and some members of the City Council. Some, like the Central City Association, see this process as a crafty method to implement a policy without having to approve it. Not surprisingly, property rights advocates want to build residential and mixed-use on industrial parcels because that's what the market demands. However, very few vacant industrial parcels remain around downtown, in Hollywood and on the Westside; therefore, many companies choose to locate inland and northward up into the San Fernando Valley rather than purchase and recycle an already improved site. The problem with this, according to Steve Andrews, of the CRA, is the migration of centralized industries not only hurts jobs-housing distribution, but also increases distribution costs of some heavy, hard-to-ship manufactured goods such as granite countertops. But perhaps most problematic to the city's plans for industrial preservation is the by-right commercial development on these parcels. On the Westside big-box stores and mini storage companies comprise significant tracts in the "employment protection district." While these retail uses generate more general fund revenue for the city than residential uses, these businesses do not generate the middle class jobs an industrial base provides. Planning says it will make a list of uses not permitted in the new zones. But will the cash cows of big-boxes be blackballed? Only time will tell. The next three years of the community plan program and subsequent plan updates looks to be exciting and emotional, with showdowns between blue-collar companies and residents, between the CRA/Planning team and housing developers, and between the mayor and the council, all over the fate of some of LA's last large parcels. - Aaron Engstrom

Anybody interested in green development, the affect climate change is having on planning, and environmental advocacy should get their fill this Saturday, January 12. That's when the Planning & Conservation League will conduct its annual legislative symposium , an event that starts with breakfast and schmoozing at 8:30 a.m. and doesn't conclude until 12 hours later with dinner and awards. I haven't been to the PCL symposium since 2000, partly because the 40-year-old environmental organization seemed to run out of both energy and political currency. But, for those who haven't noticed, the PCL has roared back to life, maybe stronger than ever. Why? Gary Patton is in charge. A former Santa Cruz County supervisor, former PCL general counsel, and former state and Monterey County smart-growth activist , Patton is a firebrand who accepted the PCL executive director job in 2006. It would be polite to say that he is not universally loved. In fact, he is not loved at all in the development community and by some people in local government. But he's a smart guy with a ton of energy who likes to get in the game. He definitely has returned the PCL to prominence, as the organization is once again a legislative insider. Patton's energy and connections are reflected in the marathon-length symposium scheduled at the Sacramento Convention Center. Lt. Gov. John Garamendi opens the event, and state Sen. Darrell Steinberg provides the evening keynote. In between are panels on, among other things, how land use policies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions , CEQA litigation , and green building . Most panels appear heavily environmental and Democratic, but not all. The development and Republican side of things are represented. I'm not here to flog the PCL or its gathering. But, according to organizers, the event is going to fill to its capacity of 340 people. That kind of interest — on a Saturday, no less — is further evidence that the PCL matters again. - Paul Shigley

Along with the collapse of the housing market, here in California climate change was the biggest land use story of 2007 . But is there any doubt that the greening of the planning process will be the No. 1 story in 2008 – and maybe No. 2 and No. 3 as well? Environmental issues are never far from the forefront of concern in the land use arena, especially here, where the California Environmental Quality Act forces environmental review of everything from huge master-planned communities to tiny infill projects. But climate change is pushing the environment to the front burner in the planning world faster than the you can say Al Gore. Planners are talking a lot about global warming – and, frankly, they're not talking about much of anything else . Local governments with a strong environmental consciousness, like Marin County, are beginning to make environmental sustainability the cornerstone of their planning efforts . But that's just the tip of the quickly melting iceberg. 1. AB 32. land use, and SB 375 The big question in Sacramento this year is whether and how the state will apply AB 32 – the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law – to the land use arena. The Governor's Climate Action Team has said from the beginning that "smart growth" and related concepts will have to account for 10% to15% of required emissions reduction by 2020. As Joan Sollenberger, Caltrans's chief planner, told CP&DR recently , "You can't reduce VMT without addressing the land use question." At the core of the AB 32 land use debate during 2008 is the fate of one bill, SB 375, carried by Darrell Steinberg, a Democratic state senator from Sacramento. The bill came within a whisker of passing last year. At its core, Steinberg's bill uses transportation funding as a big carrot to get local governments to create more efficient land use patterns. Under the bill, regional planning agencies around the state would create "preferred growth scenarios" meeting AB 32 emissions reduction targets and then dole out transportation funds to local governments whose plans and projects conform to those scenarios. Endorsed by environmental lobbyists, SB 375 also contains a wide range of other growth management requirements, such as the identification of permanent open space areas. These heavy ornaments were one of the reasons why this particular Christmas tree didn't get passed during 2007. The legislative debate in 2008 is likely to revolve around SB 375's approach. Will AB 32 drive land use reform – or will it be an excuse to promote longstanding growth management ideas? 3. CEQA and climate change The big news during 2007 was that San Bernardino County reached a settlement with Attorney General Jerry Brown to incorporate climate change considerations into its general plan and future planning efforts. But the big news during 2008 will be how the state will institutionalize climate change as part of CEQA practice. Having just finished a relatively noncontroversial update to the CEQA guidelines, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research is now charged with a new update – one that takes climate change into account in CEQA analysis as required by AB 32. OPR has been mum on the approach so far. But CEQA practitioners face a fundamental challenge in approaching climate change. CEQA is generally designed to make sure the worst thing doesn't happen and by law it can force local governments only to adopt feasible mitigation measures. (This is what the AG's settlement with San Bernardino County calls for.) Yet the mandate of cutting emissions 20% in 12 years will clearly require some actions that would be considered infeasible under current conditions. Just last week, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) issued a lengthy white paper laying out possible methodological approaches to dealing with climate change in CEQA analysis. The core question in the CAPCOA paper is what the threshold for significant impacts should be – the trigger for an environmental impact report. Should it be zero? Should it be some other number? Should there be no threshold? When the goal is to cut emissions rather than limit their growth, what's significant and what isn't? 4. Green building Even while planners debate the land use implications of climate change, developers anad builders are moving much more quickly into the green world. Most local governments don't yet mandate green building practices – and many don't even allow green building as an option. But developers are way ahead on this , claiming that green building adds no more than 2% to the cost of construction and is likely to become standard practice over the next few years no matter what.  But the process for getting a building certified as green by the U.S. Green Building Council isn't easy – and represents of the one major costs of "green building." 5. Stormwater runoff rules There's one more looming giant out there in the world of environmental planning in California, and that's stormwater runoff regulations. Stormwater's a water quality problem, not an air quality problem, but it's also a huge issue that regulators are getting tougher on all the time. Especially in the coastal parts of the California, regional water quality control boards are in the process of implementing new rules that will cost millions – perhaps billions – of dollars to comply with. Local governments keep suing to block these rules, but without much success. Meanwhile, advocates are promoting green ideas like "stormwater gardens" as part of public works projects. It seems likely that, in the long run, local governments in California will find a way to embed "green infrastructure" ideas into both the development review and their capital construction practices. Green land use. Green building. Green infrastructure. Yup, 2008 is going to be the year of environmental issues in planning. What will planners do? As usual, they'll be in the trenches – the policy implementers and technicians trying to make these new directives work. -- Bill Fulton

UCLA Extension's annual Land Use Law & Planning Conference is a leading source of information for attorneys, planners, public officials, consultants, developers, real estate professionals, and others involved in planning and development issues in California. This year's conference presents an update of important new legislation, case law, policies, and trends in the fields of land use and environmental law and planning – presented by several speaker experts. Topics include updates on: planning, zoning and development law; food systems planning; the new storms water quality/MS permits; CEQA 2007; general plans; habitat conservation planning; U.S. and CA supreme courts decisions impacting land use; climate change and land use reform. For more information: Call: 310 825 7885 Online: www.uclaextension.edu/landuse Fees and Credits: Reg # T4721 $350 (if enrollment is received before January 11 2008, $375 thereafter) Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) 7 hours NEW: Certification Maintenance Credit for APA planners now available

In planning and development these days, everything's green. For years, the issue was housing — specifically prices and the lack of affordable places to live. No more. Now, global climate change is taking over every discussion of land-use planning in California. And climate change – along with a variety of related environmental issues – is likely to take over every issue of California Planning & Development Report from here on out. The current edition of California Planning & Development Report is devoted to all things green in the planning and development world. Turns out, though, that green means different things to different people. To some, it means environmentally conscious construction techniques, such as those embodied in the LEED program . To others, it means "sustainable" (another squishy word) development, and that usually means something other than suburbia . To some, it means additional government mandates and regulations. To others, it means an opportunity to improve how and where we build . All of this is indicative of the fact that we don't yet know how climate change will affect land-use policies and decisions in California. The regulatory framework is barely in its infancy , the case law has yet to be written, and planners admit that they are still casting about. The Schwarzenegger administration and state lawmakers show plenty of willingness to act, though. And did we mention that Attorney General and 2010 gubernatorial frontrunner Jerry Brown has strong opinions on the subject? Many planners appear to be comfortable with the climate change issue's sudden prominence, which is no surprise. Many planners have contended for years that we need to find "greener" methods of development. But, as Bill Fulton writes in our current edition , professional planners are more likely to do the dirty work in the trenches than to carry the climate change flag. 2008 already feels like the year of the never-ending political campaign. Governor Schwarzenegger has declared 2008 the year of education. The state's $14 billion-plus budget deficit suggests 2008 may be the year of budget cuts and tax increases. But 2008 might also be the year that we finally start to wrap our arms around the connections between land use and climate change, and how each affects the other. And that might be just fine. With the housing market in the tank and a general economic malaise slowly spreading, no one is building much of anything right now. It's as good a time as any to revisit our land-use policies and practices. - Paul Shigley

All too often, local politics in America is parochial, narrow-minded, and faction-ridden – if not crudely partisan. This is too bad, because the issues confronting local government in America are usually regional in scope and require far-reaching coalitions of unlikely allies. That's why John Parr was one of my heroes. Parr knew how to get parochial local politicians – and parochial neighborhood activists and profit-driven business leaders – focused on the big picture and working together for the regional good. And as Curtis Johnson, president of the Citistates Group, wrote the other day , "he knew how to do it without raising his voice." (John and I were both affiliated with the Citistates Group, a watering hole of regional thinkers founded by columnist Neal Peirce.) Tragically, just before Christmas Parr was killed – along with his wife, journalist Sandra Widener, and one of their two teenaged daughters – in an auto accident on an icy Wyoming freeway. He was only 59. It's telling that shortly after the accident an impromptu crowd of some 500 people held a vigil in a Denver park near their house. The accident occurred only two months after one of California's prominent regionalists, Nick Bollman, died a similarly untimely death in Florida. Most obituaries referred to Parr as a "Democratic political consultant". I guess this is true, in the same way that calling Yogi Berra a baseball player is true. Yogi was a baseball player, but describing him that way kinda misses the point. In the '70s Parr was among the young reformers who worked for Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm. Later he was a key policy advisor to Denver Mayors Federico Pena and John Hickenlooper . In between he ran the National Civic League and helped found the Alliance for Regional Stewardship . One was a venerable organization and the other was new; but both are dedicated to the idea that the government has to work together with business and nonprofit institutions in order to tackle big regional problems. Though he spent almost his whole career in Denver, while I've been a thousand miles away, I feel his influence every day in the regional civic organizations we have here in California – as well as the regional "blueprints" that are emerging from the regional planning agencies around the state. Nick Bollman, who worked at The Irvine Foundation and founded the California Center for Regional Leadership , was the midwife of all this stuff in California; he laid the foundation for these efforts and directly funded a lot of them. But the concept of creating a nonprofit entity devoted to the well-being of a region – like Joint Venture Silicon Valle y or the Great Valley Center -- was more or less a John Parr idea. That's why he took on the task of starting the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, an organization made up of these entities, so they could trade information and learn from each other. He wasn't afraid of NIMBYs, or developers, or greedy corporate types, or even provincial politicians. He was a big-tent guy, who believed that if you got them all in the same room and got them talking to each other – facilitated, perhaps, by somebody like himself, who could do it with a lot of grace and humor and no meanness at all – the regional good would emerge. The Parr legacy will stretch far and wide, but I like to think that the greatest accomplishments are just coming to fruition in Denver. That's largely because of Parr's old friend, brewpub owner John Hickenlooper, who was elected mayor of Denver in 2003 – not least because Parr leaned on him to run for the office. In Hickenlooper, Parr seemed to find an elected official who embodied what Parr believed: smile a lot, keep talking to everybody, find common ground, park your ego when necessary to get things done. Using these qualities, Hickenlooper – among many others, including Parr – helped pass a regional sales tax to fund a $5 billion transit system. When I saw Hickenlooper give a talk a few months ago, I wrote a blog saying that Denver's mayor was the master of "brewpub regionalism" – a style focused on personal interaction and helping others. As with regionalism in California and Nick Bollman, Hickenlooper was the midwife of brewpub regionalism – but John Parr was its godfather. So hoist one for John Parr the next time you're in Denver. -- Bill Fulton

If California is truly going to reduce — in a meaningful way — its emission of the gases that contribute to global climate change, the state must change how it uses land. That is the inescapable conclusion of virtually everyone who has analyzed the situation. But nearly every detail regarding how, when and who decides remains extremely uncertain at the start of 2008. That uncertainty could begin to change this year as experts learn more about the connection between development patterns and greenhouse gas emissions, and as state agencies start to roll out guidelines and targets. In fact, the planning and regulatory landscape is evolving with remarkable speed, to the point that nearly every discussion of land use policy now includes some consideration of climate change. "There are so many factors that come into play in land use," observed Pete Parkinson, vice president of policy and legislation for the California Chapter, American Planning Association (CCAPA). "If we were to have a conversation 12 or 18 months ago about what drives land use, we would have been talking about housing. That's not true today." Now, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are starting to drive the debate. Where the GHG issue will take the debate remains to be seen, but there is a feeling — perhaps even a consensus — that it will take planning and development further and further away from the post-war suburban model that has predominated in California for 60 years. Why? Low-density, segregated-use development in outlying areas forces people to rely on automobiles, and automobiles account for about 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions. "The traditional sprawl, greenfield development model is falling out of favor," said Parkinson, who is also director of the Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Department. "It's being replaced with infill, dense development. You're not going to implement that overnight in one RHNA or one regional transportation plan cycle. But there is a sea change that's happening, and we're right in the middle of the wave." At the heart of the discussion about more environmentally friendly development is AB 32, the 2006 law that requires the state to reduce its emission of GHG to 1990 levels by 2020. Global emissions at 1990 levels are commonly seen as the maximum permitted for climate stabilization. Although experts are still trying to decide precisely how to measure emissions in California from 1990, most people accept that AB 32 requires a 25% reduction from present day emission levels. The governor's Climate Action Team concluded that about 12% of the total reduction must come from changes in land-use patterns. A detailed report prepared for the California Energy Commission reached the same basic conclusion: "New land use/transportation policies, initiatives and actions at all levels of government in California could provide major energy and greenhouse gas emissions reductions." Similar discussions are ongoing around the country, especially in urbanized and fast-growing states. During a conference last fall in Boston on climate change and land use, Armando Carbonell, chair of the Lincoln Institute's Department of Planning and Urban Form, said, "It may be useful to think of cities as great carbon-reduction machines. We've got to fix the cars, but we've also got to address VMT growth, and that is done by providing environments where one can walk or take transit. Planners are on the supply side of the problem, providing places for people to live with lots of amenities and diversity in housing — and, by the way, such attributes are increasingly in demand anyway." The Urban Land Institute sounded the same theme when it published the book Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change last fall. The book's researchers found that, even after accounting for increased vehicle efficiency and more use of low-carbon fuels, motor vehicle tailpipe emissions would increase 41% from 2005 to 2030. "Curbing emissions from cars depends on a three-legged stool: Improved vehicle efficiency, cleaner fuels and a reduction in driving," said Reid Ewing, a professor at the University of Maryland's National Center for Smart Growth and the lead author of the ULI book. "The research shows that one of the best ways to reduce vehicle travel is to build places where people can accomplish more with less driving." Compact, mixed-use infill development and re-use projects can have climate change benefits besides reducing VMT. Such projects frequently contain smaller living spaces, so less energy is needed for heating and cooling. In addition, they do not chew up tracks of farmland and open space that would otherwise absorb carbon. It appears that climate change considerations will affect California planning and development in three ways: First, analyzing a plan or project's contribution to climate change — and climate change's impact on a plan or project — is going to become a routine part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Second, infrastructure dollars provided by the state are likely to be more and more closely tied to land uses that minimize emission of greenhouse gases. Third, and possibly most radically, there could be some diminution of local land use authority as regional and even state land-use plans and policies start to grow teeth. The CEQA Impact The CEQA portion of the equation is already making an impact. Under Jerry Brown, the state attorney general's office has made clear that environmental review documents must address climate change — and include "feasible mitigation measures." Not only has Brown's office sued (and since settled with) San Bernardino County over the county general plan's handling of climate change issues, but it has also become a routine commenter on regional transportation plans (RTPs). The thrust of those comments has generally been that the plans do not do enough, if anything, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because the plans are too accommodating of the single-occupant automobile. In addition, environmental organizations, including the ultra-aggressive Center for Biological Diversity, have started filing lawsuits over the climate change impacts of plans and projects. The CBD has already sued San Bernardino County and the cities of Banning and Perris. A law approved in 2007 (AB 97, Dutton) confirms that climate change is a subject for CEQA analysis, and charges the Resources Agency with adopting "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions" by January 1, 2010. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has begun work on those guidelines and is due to make recommendations to the Resources Agency in 2009 (see CP&DR Environment Watch , October 2007). A key part of the guidelines is likely to be some form of thresholds of significance, which the state's air pollution control officers and the Air Resources Board are working on. According to OPR, only about 5% of CEQA documents submitted to the State Clearinghouse from April through October of 2007 contained a discussion of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change. The way the documents address the topic is all over the map because there is no official guidance or standards of measurement. Some of the documents have included mitigation measures, ranging from the planting of riparian areas to offset carbon emissions, to requiring delivery truck drivers to turn off idling engines, to requiring preparation of a local climate change action plan. Other documents have concluded a project's potential impact on climate change is simply too speculative to try to mitigate. The flip side — climate change's impact on projects — is even less well documented and understood. The idea is that potential effects of climate change, such as rising sea level, greater flood flows because less precipitation will fall as snow, prolonged droughts, more intense wildfires and loss of habitat, should be considered in plan and project reviews. So far, virtually no agency is doing this. That's understandable, according to Gary Jakobs, a principal in the Sacramento office of consulting firm EDAW. "You're talking about blowing the doors off what we have done in the past," Jakobs said. "Do you want to strap a project with a mitigation measure that could be very expensive to implement when the effects could be 50 years off and are based on a model?" Carrots, Sticks and Mandates Environmentalists and proponents of "smart growth" have complained for years that the state funds infrastructure — especially roads and highways — in a way that promotes car-dominated sprawl. Those days may be winding down. Increasingly, regional transportation agencies are linking transportation plans and funding with land use, and Caltrans is headed in the same direction. The Climate Action Team urged Caltrans to implement a climate action program, along with the governor's strategic growth and infrastructure investment plan and regional growth blueprints. To move some of this forward, Caltrans has funded a "blueprint network" in which 16 of the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) have participated. The basic idea is to closely coordinate transportation and land-use planning because the state needs to reduce VMT. A second round of blueprint planning is coming, and some MPOs are already talking about how to account for GHG in the new blueprints. "You can't reduce VMT without addressing the land use question," said Joan Sollenberger, who is in charge of planning and modal programs for Caltrans. "It's recognized by everyone that we will never achieve the goals that have been set for greenhouse gas emission reductions unless we change how we grow, because of the carbon footprint involved." "We want to make sure our investments pay off in a way we need them to," said Sollenberger. Bob Leiter, land use and transporation planning director for the San Diego Association of Governments, added, "The whole idea of addressing regional climate change planning though the RTP makes sense." With the RTP, regional officials can figure out how better to move people and freight and, therefore, reduce emissions, he said. And in San Diego and other regions, the RTP is closely tied to the regional growth blueprint. Caltrans' climate action program calls for "transportation strategies, plans and projects as a whole contribute to the state's GHG emission reduction targets." Precisely what that means for funding decisions is unclear, although the California Transportation Commission, which makes most funding decisions, appears headed in the same direction with proposed land use criteria. The result is almost certainly going to mean more money to move people and freight in urban areas, and less money for additional freeway capacity on the suburban fringe. And this is where things get truly interesting. Last year, the Legislature came close to approving SB 375, which would have moved some of these concepts into law. The bill would have required every MPO to adopt a "preferred growth scenario" that would show how a region would hit emission reduction targets set by the Air Resources Board. Future transportation funding would then be tied to the preferred growth scenario. The bill's author, Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), argued that this was merely an extension of the regional blueprint planning that Caltrans has subsidized. All of these blueprints emphasize infill and minimizing outward urban expansion. Steinberg's idea was that if a city or county made land-use decisions in conflict with the preferred growth scenario, the city or county would not get transportation funding. Local government officials countered that Steinberg was trying to shift land-use authority away from cities and counties to regional agencies. Steinberg dismissed such arguments — yet many people concede that land use decisions need to be made in a regional context, something that almost never happens. Part of the problem, said the CCAPA's Parkinson, is that California does not have the governance model to carry out these notions. Regional agencies are not used to — and don't have the capacity to — do detailed land use planning. And local agencies are not about to let a regional agency make project-level decisions. Steinberg's bill will return in 2008, and it may not be the only bill on the subject. Other legislation may propose a "cap and trade" system in which cities or regions are given a GHG maximum, and if they do not use all of their GHG allotment, they could trade carbon credits to other jurisdictions. In its Integrated Energy Policy Report adopted in December, the California Energy Commission (CEC) went farther than Steinberg. Finding that "decisions affecting land use directly affect energy use and the consequent production of greenhouse gases," the CEC urged: • Adoption of "a unified statewide growth management plan, based on local and regional plans, aligning state planning, financing, infrastructure, and regulatory land-use policies and programs." • Requiring "regional transportation planning and air quality agencies to adopt 25-year and 50-year regional growth plans that provide housing, transportation, and community services for projected population increases while reducing greenhouse gas emissions to state-determined climate change targets." • Determining how state and local tax policies "encourage growth that is inconsistent with the state's growth management plan." • Ensuring future federal highway programs "include energy reduction and climate stabilization considerations." Ultimately, the Air Resources Board is responsible for most of AB 32's implementation. But the air board is not going to act in isolation, as is evidenced by the depth of policy analysis at the CEC, Caltrans and numerous other agencies. The Schwarzenegger administration wants it that way. Where next? Clearly, California's planners know the ground is shifting under their feet. At least some of them see this big shake up as an opportunity. "Those of us who are planners and environmental planners are finally seeing an opportunity for the things we have been talking about for so long to come into the marketplace," said Jeff Goldman, a planner for EDAW. His colleague Jakobs agreed, adding, "We've been using this term ‘smart growth' for a while. Now people are getting religion. … We're seeing it even in some of the more conservative cities, which is nice." The CCAPA recently issued a policy paper that, in a way, recasts the smart growth argument as a greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Among other things, the paper recommends local governments approve plans and codes that "encourage mixed land use, higher densities (especially around transit), affordable housing, compact form, non-motor vehicle circulation, water and energy conservation, microgeneration of electricity in a manner compatible with surrounding uses, and low-carbon resources for building materials." If the smart growth movement didn't make these things commonplace, maybe the concern over climate change will. "In my 20-plus years in the industry," said Sydney Coatsworth, who manages EDAW's Sacramento office, "I have never seen anything grab the profession with such gusto, and seen so many people thinking creatively." Contacts: Pete Parkinson, California Chapter, American Planning Association, (707) 565-1925. Sydney Coatsworth, Gary Jakobs and Jeff Goldman, EDAW, (916) 414-5800. Joan Sollenberger, Caltrans, (916) 653-1818. Bob Leiter, San Diego Association of Governments, (619) 699-6980. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA Guidelines and Greenhouse Gases: http://opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/index.html Caltrans Climate Action Program: http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/climateaction.htm Governor's Climate Action Team and Climate Action Initiative: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/index.html California Chapter, American Planning Association Climate Change Task Force: http://www.calapa.org/attachments/contentmanagers/711/ClimateChange.pdf

Has climate change lit a fire under California's professional planners? The answer, in a word, is yes. Not since the early days of new urbanism 15 years ago have we seen such passion from planners in California about something new. They're talking about it and thinking about it all the time. Reversing climate change is the latest in a long line of idealistic notions that planners have glommed on to, dating all the way back to garden cities more than a century ago. Since that time, we've seen the planning profession "go passionate" over all kinds of semi-faddish topics, ranging from Jane Jacobs' recipes for urban revitalization during the 1950s to social equity planning during the 1960s to Ian McHarg's "design with nature" philosophy during the 1970s. About once a decade a new idea or philosophy sweeps the profession. And this particular issue is one that's got huge traction. It's the most important environmental issue in the history of humanity – or, at the very least, most people believe it is the most important environmental issue in the history of humanity. Either way, you would think climate change is a great opportunity for planners to have an impact. But remember that planning is a profession made up of idealists who work, by and large, as technicians. So, as is often the case, California's planners are teetering on the brink of advocacy but, mostly, not jumping off the cliff. They are hoping that new laws get passed and new practices get put into place that will allow them to attack climate change; and the more aggressive planners are tackling the issue under existing procedures, especially within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). So how much impact, exactly, will California's professional planners have on the climate change debate? From the 30,000-foot policy level – which, frankly, is where I spend a lot of my time – the answer is probably not much. Planners may be passionate believers but often do not advocates even if their job gives them the leeway to do so. When it comes to lobbying, planners often step back and allow advocates who embody their beliefs, such as environmentalists and affordable housing proponents, to carry the ball. This is partly the nature of their job; and partly the nature of their soul. Indeed, one of the ironies of the current debate in California over implementing AB 32 – the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law – is this: Local government lobbyists are adamantly resisting strong mandates that will require them to alter their land use policies to comply. But a lot of planners – all the while grumbling publicly about having to take on climate change as an issue – are secretly hoping that their local government employers lose in the Legislature, so that planning departments will be given license to take on the challenge. That's because professional planners typically have the greatest impact not by advocating for policy change or shaping policy, but down in the trenches where they slog through the plans, the environmental analyses, and the development reviews day after day. Already, environmental impact reports and other CEQA documents are being supplemented with some kind of "global warming" or "climate change" section. Planners may soon be dragooned into greenhouse gas emissions reductions efforts in a more direct way, depending on what kind of implementing legislation is adopted for AB 32. For example, a bill such as SB 375 – which may yet pass this year – would basically require or induce local governments to engage in smart growth efforts to help meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. All these efforts to use land-use planning as a means of going after climate change come down to one target very familiar to planners: driving. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is emitted by motor vehicles when they are running. Although a lot of greenhouse gas emissions reduction will come from cleaner fuels and more energy-efficient vehicles, the general presumption is that California won't be able to hit the AB 32 target without more alternatives to driving, which means more investment in public transit and an aggressive approach to different land-use patterns. Does this mean that planners – given the chance – will use climate change as just another excuse to promote their ideas of "good planning," which often include less driving and more concentrated development in communities? Sure. Just as they have used lots of other trends and challenges over the last half-century to try to accomplish the same goals. Planners have attempted to leverage concerns about sprawl, vanishing farmland, traffic congestion, endangered species, a lack of water, even previous problems with air pollutants into changes in the pattern of urban growth, usually with middling success at best. But that doesn't mean the problems of urban development aren't real, and that the planners' preferred approaches aren't part of the solution. In the case of climate change, it's worth noting that a technological fix probably won't be enough. In California, a 40-year effort to reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide have been wildly successful in one sense because emissions from each tailpipe are a tiny fraction of what they were during the 1960s. Overall, however, the result has been a wash – more tailpipes and more driving have offset the decrease in emissions in each tailpipe. Clearly, something else has to give. The truth is that the solution to most major environmental problems involves less driving. Planners may or may not be able to use emissions reduction to drive land use change. But they're certainly going to be confronted with the consequences of global warming – and soon. Rising sea level and a dramatic decrease in the Sierra snow pack appear to be happening much faster than we anticipated only a couple years ago. The latest science says the Arctic could be ice-free within seven years. That means – especially in a coastal state like California – adapting to climate change will be an issue by the time the projects that are currently going through the entitlement process will be built. All of a sudden, this stuff is not abstract. Adaptation will inevitably involve large-scale engineering solutions – dikes and breakwaters in the ocean, more reservoirs inland, and so forth. But there will have to be land-use solutions too. Should more coastal development be permitted? How do you handle more growth if there are likely to be more droughts? These are questions that planners are well-equipped to deal with, especially California planners, with their CEQA-driven orientation toward impacts and mitigations. An old joke about planners is that if they believe passionately in something they're not likely to lie down in front of a bulldozer, but they are more than willing to spend all week figuring out whether you have complied with the code or your project may create a significant impact. This may make planners seem like little more than bureaucratic cogs — which is at least partly true — but is not the worst thing in the world. It is likely the way planners will embrace the issue of climate change, and it just might make a difference.

For decades, especially in the period following passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, school districts provided additional classroom space by slapping up portable buildings on parking lots and play fields. Some campuses evolved into mazes of nearly windowless, flat-roofed, "temporary" buildings that housed more students than the main building of the original school. Those days appear to be over. State bond money and local tax dollars are flowing into new school construction at record rates, and school officials are learning that a "green" campus is both better for students and teachers and is less expensive to operate. In the last few years, a collection of state agency officials, school district leaders, architects, contractors, product manufacturers, and utility representatives have put together the Collaborative of High Performance Schools (CHPS). The CHPS has established criteria similar to that of the United State Green Building Council's LEED program for commercial and residential construction (see Environment Watch, Page 3). Twenty-six school districts, including Los Angeles Unified and other large districts, have adopted CHPS standards. "I think it's going to be big," said David Thorman, who, as state architect, is responsible for overseeing all public school construction. "We're just starting. The CHPS program is all-encompassing." Indeed, CHPS covers indoor air quality, thermal, visual and acoustic comfort, energy and water efficiency, indoor fixtures and materials, site development and stormwater control, architecture and even the way the facilities integrate into a neighborhood. There are two primary reasons the program appeals to districts: Both students and teachers perform better in CHPS-certified schools, and plant operating costs are decreased. "They have found that when schools are built to CHPS standards, kids are better learners and are healthier," said Thorman, who believes that studies completed to date are credible. So does Guy Mehula, chief facilities executive for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). "The two biggest pieces that affect the production of the kids is daylighting in the classroom, and the acoustics in the classroom," Mehula said. "And the third piece, I would say, is the indoor air quality, especially here in Los Angeles." Ted Rozzi, assistant superintendent for school facilities in the Corona-Norco Unified School District and chairman of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, agreed that alternative design and project delivery are hot topics in the school business these days. "It's been a subject in our district as we were planning a sixth comprehensive high school," Rozzi said. Although the project has slowed because of site availability issues, district officials envision a school with sustainable architecture and technology, which could then serve as a laboratory for students. "It just seemed to be the right thing to do. From a curricular aspect, it makes sense," he said. Skeptics contend that school officials are "greenwashing" ordinary projects. The skepticism may arise because some of what CHPS involves is very basic: Orientation of the school building so it makes the best use of natural light, skylights, windows that open and provide cross-ventilation, shade trees in appropriate places, low-water landscaping and drip irrigation. Not exactly high-tech stuff. Other features of CHPS-certified schools, however, can be more involved: high-efficiency and extraordinarily quiet heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and ducts, downsized cooling systems where appropriate, recycled or sustainable building materials, carefully selected furnishing and fixtures, abundant insulation, pitched roofs with solar panels or photovoltaic cells, or low-sloped roofs with a white mineral cap sheet to limit heat retention, and — especially in polluted areas — heavy-duty air filtration systems. These schools also often feature highly automated lighting and HVAC systems that rapidly adjust to room conditions. "From the beginning of the design process," the CHPS literature states, "each of the building elements — windows, walls, building materials, air conditioning, landscaping, etc. — is considered part of an integrated system of interacting components. Choices in one area often affect other building systems; integrated design leverages these interactions to maximize the overall building performance." That approach is a significant departure from covering the ball field with portable classrooms. Among the most committed to green school facilities is the LAUSD, the nation's largest school district. For about 30 years, the district built no new schools and invested little in the facilities it did have. But in 2001, the district embarked on a gigantic, $20 billion construction program that is scheduled to result in 132 new schools and the overhaul of dozens more by 2013 (see CP&DR Public Development , December 2002). The district has completed 68 new schools, for which CHPS criteria has been applied to 42. The district has used CHPS for 15 existing school upgrades. All 20 new schools scheduled to open during the next two years will be CHPS-certified, according to an LAUSD spokesman. "Green" schools do cost roughly 5% to 10% more to build. "The additional cost is in energy-efficient mechanical systems," explained Thorman. Yet CHPS proponents contend such systems help schools save 30% to 40% on energy bills. Mehula, of the LAUSD, said that when the green features are integrated into the design of a school up-front, construction cost does not have to cost more. Besides construction techniques and building operations, CHPS criteria also include site selection, land development and neighborhood compatibility. The CHPS best practices manual recommends selecting sites near public transportation and within walking distance of a majority of students to decrease energy use and local traffic congestion. Some school districts are bringing back bike racks and working with other government entities on bike lanes and paths that serve school campuses. CHPS also provides instruction on capturing stormwater in cisterns, ponds and vegetated areas. The LAUSD designs new schools to promote community use of the facilities, said Mehula. Playgrounds are available as public park and recreation space, and buildings are designed so that sections can be locked off while community members use other sections, he said. "We know that schools need to be centers of the community," he said. Thorman's big emphasis is on energy independence for schools. Photovoltaic cells may be installed on existing schools, he said, and solar panels may be designed into new facilities, even serving as shade structures in a parking lot. Contacts: David Thorman, state architect of California, (916) 445-8100. Guy Mehula, Los Angeles Unified School District, (213) 241-7000. Ted Rozzi, Corona-Norco Unified School District, (951) 736-5045. Collaborative for High Performance Schools: http://www.chps.net/