Bren Hall on the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, is a modernist academic building perched on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Housing the university's Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, the sleek collection of geometric shapes includes classrooms, labs, study areas, offices and common rooms, and was completed in 2003 at a cost of about $26 million. Former Vice President Al Gore's 10,000-square-foot mansion was constructed 80 years ago in the Nashville suburb of Belle Meade. Purchased five years ago for $2.3 million, it includes eight bathrooms and an industrial-size kitchen, and replicates the classic plantation architecture of the antebellum South, with a symmetrical facade and two-story Greek columns flanking the formal entrance. Despite their apparent geographic and architectural dissimilarities, Bren Hall and Gore's home share one important attribute in an era of growing concern about the carbon footprint of the built environment and its implications for global climate change: Both structures have been recognized for their eco-friendliness by the nation's leading promoter of sustainable building design, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). Gore's home recently achieved gold status, the second-highest level, under the council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program. Bren Hall has platinum-level LEED certification, the highest rating, and is regarded as the most technologically advanced and resource-efficient laboratory building in the nation. In the case of the Gore home, certification was the result of an ambitious renovation project that included installation of solar panels, a rainwater-collection system, geothermal heating and replacement lighting. Bren Hall, on the other hand, was designed for maximum efficiency from the start. The list of its special features runs to several pages, including photovoltaic panels; site and building design strategies intended to maximize availability of natural light and air flow; building materials incorporating recycled concrete, steel, wallboard and other components; water-efficient plumbing fixtures; and super-efficient motors, boilers and other mechanical devices. Green building strategies are being embraced by a growing number of local and state governments. In some cases, the trend is being driven by a desire to reduce water and electrical use in areas where those critical resources are in limited supply or costly to import. Some elected officials also seem motivated, however, by frustration over the Bush administration's foot-dragging in response to scientific warnings about global warming, and are determined to take steps on their own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cities and counties cannot regulate tailpipe emissions or, for the most part, coal-burning power plants. They can, however, regulate land use and building design, and that's where they are focusing. More than 720 mayors nationwide have pledged to meet the emission-reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to address global warming that the Bush administration opposes. The local governments are using building design standards and zoning ordinances to cut emissions. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, for example, has pledged to reduce the city's greenhouse-gas emissions 35% below 1990 levels by 2030. In November, the Los Angeles Planning Commission voted to require that new buildings with more than 50 housing units or 50,000 square feet of floor space meet at least the lowest level of LEED certification standards. The commission also approved rules that would expedite permitting, perhaps shaving as much as a year off the processing time, for builders who are willing to seek silver certification — the third-highest of the four LEED certification levels — for their projects. Other cities have also adopted strict green building rules for private development, including San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. Santa Monica has rules and incentives similar to those being adopted in Los Angeles, although they apply even to small projects. San Francisco intends to require new buildings of at least 25,000 square feet to meet LEED gold criteria by 2012. There are practical advantages to building green. Although constructions costs can be inflated when builders employ recycled or low-impact materials and ultra-efficient lighting, heating, water and air-conditioning systems, the operating costs for such structures typically save owners and tenants money over time. There is also the appeal to consumer conscience as energy prices — and sea level — rise. But it's easier to make green claims than it is to back them up. To weed out imposters, a number of third-party certification programs have popped up to verify the eco-friendliness of buildings and assure customers that they are getting their money's worth. Green-building certification programs include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star homes project, the American Lung Association's Health House program, the Environments for Living program and the California Building Industry Association's Green Builder program. Some focus on energy efficiency while others concern themselves with encouraging use of least-toxic building materials or reducing use of virgin resources. But the USGBC's LEED program is the most well-established and widely used set of standards, to the point that even developers outside urban areas are seeing LEED certification as a potential marketing tool for buyers with an ecological conscience. Ginn Development, for example, recently announced it would seek LEED certification of homes and condos it is building in association with a ski resort in Vail, Colo. The LEED rating system was developed in 2000 by the USGBC, a nonprofit association of more than 12,400 member companies and organizations. Founded in 1993, the council includes among its membership building owners, real estate developers, architects, designers, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, nonprofits and government agencies. The heart of the LEED certification program is an extensive checklist of materials, site strategies and design elements generally intended to reduce the environmental impact of a structure. The checklist is divided into six categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation in design. Within each category is a set of specific green building criteria and prerequisites; buildings submitted for LEED review earn points for satisfying those requirements. Earn enough points and the building achieves one of the four levels of LEED certification. It's neither easy nor cheap to get your building certified. Although the average fee is only about $2,000 when submitting building documentation for review (the amount varies with the size of the project), producing that required documentation is far costlier — as much as $100,000, according to some experts. That is not much to add to the price of a multimillion-dollar project, but it's a heavy burden for smaller ones. The potential effect of greener structures is vast. According to Doug Newman, executive director of the National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities, buildings account for 65% of electricity consumption and 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. And over the next 25 years, the country will need 427 billion square feet of buildings to accommodate growth, about half of which will be new construction. LEED-certified buildings so far are only a drop in the global-warming bucket. According to the USGBC, there are more than 10,300 homes across the country involved in the LEED certification pilot program for residential structures, and only 400 of them have been certified. That is not much when you consider that the U.S. housing stock increases by about 2 million units a year. But many analysts forecast that the green share of building starts will jump in coming years, and the eco-friendly sector will expand to account for 10% of the market by 2010. The LEED program has recently expanded its focus beyond building design to community design, recognizing that the way you organize land use can have as great an impact on energy consumption as the type of light bulbs and windows you install in the buildings. According to Newman, 70% of a community's energy consumption is influenced by urban land-use allocation, site design and development practices. LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) is a rating system, according to the USGBC, "that integrates the principles of smart growth, new urbanism and green building into the first national standard for neighborhood design." The rating system has been developed cooperatively by the Congress for the New Urbanism, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the USGBC. The LEED-ND program is still in its infancy. The call for applications to the certification pilot program was issued in 2007, and 238 projects from 39 states and six countries were selected. The proponents of those projects are still gathering the information that will be submitted to the USGBC for evaluation. The pilot program is expected to be revised this year before adoption of a final certification process in 2009. Resources: U.S. Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=51 Guide to green building certification programs: http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=20978 National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities: http://www.necsc.us/ Center for Resource Solutions (certification program for low-carbon energy sources): http://www.resource-solutions.org/mv/index.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star homes project: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index American Lung Association's Health House program: http://www.healthhouse.org/ Environments for Living program: http://www.eflhome.com/index.jsp?action=fl_li California Green Builder: http://www.cagreenbuilder.org/

A federal law protecting religious institutions from land use regulations does not extend to a Masonic Temple operated for commercial purposes, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. Although the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has a broad sweep, it does not encompass commercial enterprises used to fund a religious organization, the court ruled. The court upheld the City of Los Angeles' decision to shut down the Scottish Rite Cathedral in the mid-Wilshire district for failing to abide by zoning conditions. In the late 1950s, the Scottish Rite Cathedral Association of Los Angeles (SRCALA) received a zoning change and variance to construct a four-story Masonic Temple. (The Scottish Rite is a member of the Freemason family.) Although the facility could accommodate several thousand people, the city approved the project with an undersized, 259-space parking lot based on SRCALA representations that only nonprofit and charitable organizations would use the temple. For years, SRCALA leased the premises to religious and community organizations with no ties to the Masonic Lodge. After getting numerous complaints about parking, noise and trash from residents of the adjacent neighborhood, the city began public nuisance abatement proceedings in 1993. After hearings, zoning officials concluded the cathedral was a public nuisance and limited usage to Masonic functions and "bona-fide nonprofit non-Masonic organizations." The City Council denied SRCALA's appeal. The SRCALA responded by closing the cathedral for nearly 10 years. In 2002, the association signed a long-term lease with a new entity called the Los Angeles Scottish Rite Center, LLC, (LASRC) to refurbish the facility and host events. The LASRC events included boxing, concerts, live theater and dance, and religious services. Almost immediately, the neighbors resumed complaining. In early 2004, the zoning administrator tightened conditions to bar use by non-Masonic organizations and prevent the cathedral from charging for parking. When the LASRC ignored the new conditions, the zoning administrator in March 2005 revoked the cathedral's certificate of occupancy, effectively closing the facility to everybody. The SRCALA and the LASRC sued, arguing that revoking the long-standing certificate of occupancy violated RLUIPA. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien rejected the claim, concluding that Freemasonry is not a religion. The SRCALA and LASRC appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Seven, ruled the city's crackdown did not run afoul of the federal law. The Second District undertook an analysis that concluded the Masonic principles of the Scottish Rite have many attributes of a religion. But the "threshold question," according to the court, was whether the cathedral was being used for religious purposes. RLUIPA prohibits a government from imposing a regulation that burdens one's religious exercise unless there is a compelling public interest for the regulation, and the regulation is the least restrictive means. "As broad as RLUIPA's language may be, however, Congress's view of its application was narrower than that espoused by SRCALA and LASRC: Specifically, a burden on a commercial enterprise used to fund a religious organization does not constitute a substantial burden on ‘religious exercise' within the meaning of RLUIPA," Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss wrote for the court. "In effect," Perluss continued, "SRCALA ceded is right to operate the cathedral to LASRC, a commercial entity with no apparent relationship to Masonic practices other than its name, which then marketed the cathedral as a venue for all events, commercial events included." In fact, SRCALA president admitted that the group had not conducted Masonic functions at the facility since 1993 and had no intention of doing so in the future, Perluss noted. The court declined to consider SRCALA and LASRC arguments that the city violated their First Amendment rights, as well as an argument that a 1980 overlay zoning district prohibiting churches violates RLUIPA. The cathedral association has asked the state Supreme Court to review the case. The Case: Scottish Rite Cathedral Association of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles , No. B194230. 07 C.D.O.S. 12361, 2007 DJDAR 15913. Filed October 3, 2007. Ordered published October 17, 2007. The Lawyers: For SRCALA: Roger Jon Diamond, (310) 399-3259. For the city: Tayo Popoola, (213) 978-8068.

A federal judge has ordered the City of Half Moon Bay to pay a landowner $36.8 million for transforming his 24-acre property into an unbuildable wetland. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker determined that a city drainage project constituted a taking of developer Charles Keenan's property by making the land unbuildable under environmental regulations. With an annual budget about one-third the size of the damages award, the city will appeal the decision, possibly on the ground that Judge Walker did not have jurisdiction. Keenan did not press his taking claim in state court first. During the 1980s, the city built a storm drain system for the area that — possibly by accident — turned the private property into what Walker called a "bathtub." Through a trustee, Keenan bought the property in 1993 and has battled the city ever since over a proposed 85-lot subdivision. The city and Keenan have been to the appellate level in state court twice over environmental regulations. In 2003, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the Coastal Commission did not have jurisdiction over a previously approved coastal development permit for the subdivision ( City of Half Moon Bay v. Superior Court , 106 Cal.App.4th 795; see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2003 ). Two years later, the same court in an unpublished ruling concluded the property is indeed a wetlands — a decision that led to the federal takings lawsuit. Keenan has indicated he is willing to settle the case, possibly by accepting development rights to property elsewhere in town. The case is Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay , No. 05-4149VRW. Placer County has sued former Planning Commissioner Michelle Ollar-Burris for fraud, violating her fiduciary obligations as a planning commissioner and unfair business practices. County supervisors removed Ollar-Burris from the Planning Commission in June 2007, after the Sacramento Bee revealed that she and four associates skirted the Subdivision Map Act while dividing land into new rural housing neighborhoods east of Auburn (see CP&DR In Brief , July 2007 ). The county's suit coincided with the release of a county investigative report that said Ollar-Burris and her associates had actually created six subdivisions without ever going through the Subdivision Map Act process. One 59-acre parcel near Weimar, for example, became 13 parcels through a series of sales transactions and parcel map filings. An Auburn real estate broker, Ollar-Burris has denied any wrongdoing and says she is the victim of a political vendetta. The City of San Diego and the San Diego Association of Governments have sued California State University over a San Diego State University master plan adopted in November 2007. The city and SANDAG contend the university is not paying its fair share to mitigate transportation impacts of the plan, which is aimed at increasing enrollment from 25,000 to 35,000 full-time students. The plan commits the university to funding $6.4 million in off-campus street improvements and asking Caltrans for an additional $10.1 million for freeway work. But the city says the university should commit $21.8 million for street and freeway improvements, and SANDAG says the university should fund millions of dollars of trolley and bus service upgrades. "It's an honest disagreement over what's required by CEQA, and we welcome the opportunity to address that in court," San Diego State spokesman Jack Beresford told the San Diego Union-Tribune . Humboldt County supervisors have backed away from a proposal to require a conditional use permit for construction of a house on land designated timber production zone (TPZ). Supervisors had been headed toward the new requirement in part because Pacific Lumber Company's plan to emerge from bankruptcy calls for selling a 21,800-acre subdivision of 160-acre parcels on TPZ land (see CP&DR Environment Watch , November 2007). Property owners strongly objected, and in December the Board of Supervisors decided to place the issue of TPZ regulations into a 7-year-old general plan update process. A $400 million flood control project to protect Sacramento's Natomas Basin has been approved by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Authority. The project involves raising 25 miles of Sacramento levees by up to three feet and building an adjacent 300-foot-wide "piggyback levee." The project is intended to provide 200-year flood protection to 70,000 residents who now lack even the federal minimum 100-year protection. Yet the project still must be approved by the State Reclamation Board and the Army Corps of Engineers, and a group of landowners who fear they will lose homes and property to the project is threatening to sue. In September, the Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected Sacramento's request to allow continued development in the Natomas basin before 100-year protection is provided.

The housing market flopped, and global warming became an issue of overarching concern. Without question, those were the two biggest land use stories of 2007 here in California. Those two stories alone made it a big year for California land use news. Of course, those of us who write about land use in California like to think that every year is a big year for land-use news. After all, with 100 million acres and 37.7 million people, California has the right basic ingredients. So, it's not surprising that 2007 offered plenty in the way of big land-use stories. And we've selected what we think are the 10 most important. Some of these stories have been around in various forms for many years, while others are only now coming to the fore. Some are stories of statewide and even national significance. Others are important regionally or locally. We think it's an interesting mix, and we're willing to bet that all of these stories will continue to evolve during 2008. With that, here are California Planning & Development Report 's 10 Most Important Land Use Stories of 2007: 1. The Housing Bust For nearly 10 years, housing has dominated not only the land-use debate, but dinner table discussions. While prices shot through the roof and the demand appeared limitless, we all forgot that no housing market remains strong forever. 2007 brought everyone back to Earth. Statewide, the median price for single-family homes dropped by more than 10%. Housing starts decreased by 31%; housing starts during November were at their lowest level since 1981. While California's shortage of housing that is affordable to poor and working-class people remains a problem, no one expects a great deal more housing activity during 2008, except possibly in the foreclosure market. 2. Climate Change Seemingly every land-use policy discussion in California these days is colored by the issue of global climate change . Part of the reason is the lawsuit that Attorney General Jerry Brown filed against San Bernardino County over that county's handling of climate change during a general plan update. Brown's office settled the lawsuit when the county agreed to take a number of modest steps that could limit greenhouse gas emissions, but the point was made: Climate change is an issue that must be addressed within the California Environmental Quality Act process. That assertion was confirmed when the Legislature approved AB 97, which charged the Resources Agency with adopting CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. 3. Southern California firestorms The fires that struck Southern California during October were not as destructive as those of four years earlier. Still, the wind-driven fires did destroy more than 1,000 houses and, at one point, more than 500,000 people in San Diego County alone had to evacuate their homes. While the fires rekindled discussions of how to create fire-safe subdivisions, the blazes for one the first times also had people questioning whether development should be permitted at all in the most hazardous areas. 4. Legislature approves flood control package If it's not fires in California, it's floods. Six bills aimed at improving the coordination of flood control and land-use planning in the Central Valley and Bay Delta region won approval in September . The legislation requires the state to prepare new flood plain maps and a Central Valley flood protection, and mandates that cities and counties incorporate the flood protection plan into general plans. The legislation also increases the level of flood protection required in urban and urbanizing areas as of 2015. The result of all this could very well be a curtailing of new subdivisions in low-lying areas. 5. Teeing up the eminent domain rematch Although the U.S. Supreme Court issued its controversial Kelo decision upholding the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes in 2005, and California voters rejected an initiative advertised as eminent domain reform in 2006, questions about the government's use of eminent domain did not vanish during 2007. Instead, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation moved forward with an initiative that would restrict eminent domain powers . The initiative appears headed for the June 2008 ballot � the same ballot that is likely to have a competing, more modest initiative prepared by local government associations. This could become the most important land use story of 2008. 6. Bay Delta environmental crisis In November, biologists found only four Delta smelt where in past years they scooped up the tiny fish by the hundreds. The endangered fish is considered an indicator species, and what it indicated in 2007 was environmental peril in the Delta , which provides water for two-thirds of the state's homes and millions of acres of farmland. At different times, a state judge and a federal judge ordered cutbacks in pumping from the Delta. Meanwhile, numerous academics, interest groups and government agencies said the state must drastically change the way it manages the Delta. 7. State Supreme Court rejects project water analysis In February, the California Supreme Court said the water analysis for a 20,000-unit housing project in the City of Rancho Cordova was inadequate. In its closely watched decision , the court said a water analysis must discuss not only the likelihood of future water sources materializing, but also alternative water sources � and the impacts of tapping those alternatives � should the likely sources not materialize. Development lawyers said virtually no EIR could pass the test established by the state Supreme Court, although an appellate court late in the year upheld a study for a proposed housing development in Los Angeles County. 8. Sacramento approves rail yard reuse In December, the Sacramento City Council approved a plan to convert 240-acres of largely unused rail yards just north of downtown into a new urban district with 12,000 housing units, office towers, hotels, a cultural district, waterfront development and extensive retail areas. The project is one of the most ambitious urban infill efforts in the country. 9. Planning paralysis in Monterey County No place in California has more contentious land-use politics than Monterey County , as evidenced by an election in June. That was when voters said no to a relatively growth-friendly general plan update prepared by the county (the fourth version of the update in a process that started in 1999) and to a general plan written by slow-growth advocates. Voters also denied a 1,100-unit housing development in an area north of Salinas that has been considered a growth area since at least the early 1980s. The election sent everyone either back to the drawing board, or back to the courtroom. 10. Ballot-box zoning Although voting on local land use matters was fairly quiet in 2007, ballot-box zoning never goes away entirely. In April, voters in Dixon overturned a City Council decision approving a new horse racing track, entertainment center, hotel, and retail and office development on 230 acres. In May, voters in Santa Paula became the first in Ventura County to approve a major boundary expansion since voter-mandated growth boundaries swept the county starting during the mid-1990s. Voters in the poor city were willing to bust the boundary for 500 upper-end houses, a resort hotel and a golf course. - Paul Shigley and Bill Fulton

We have heard, with sadness, that his Honor the Mayor of Los Angeles and his special friend of some months, Ms. Mirthala Salinas, former political reporter for Telemundo, have called it quitsville. The great hook-up of power with beauty, of City Hall and Spanish-language media, of two lonely narcissists, each in search of the perfect audience, is over. And with that romance, an era passes. But what exactly happened during the Greatest Romance of the 21st Century, (keeping in mind that it's still a very young century)? A certain fly on the wall was able to listen in on the final conservation between two of the most scintillating and intriguing personalities of recent times — and the hitherto unheard story about the way their romance foundered on an important land-use decision in the San Fernando Valley. Readers should keep in mind that NBC Studios and Thomas Properties of Los Angeles have announced plans to build a $3 billion broadcast facility for the national television network, and that the City of Los Angeles (insert picture here of Mayor Villaraigosa smiling winsomely) has jurisdiction. Without further ado, our telenovela de amor: Scene: A quiet bedroom. A couple in the bed. General disarray of bed clothing, suggesting passion spent. Antonio: You seem unusually quiet tonight, mi corazon . A penny for sus pensamientos ? Mirthala: Oh, nothing, caro, just thinking… ( She looks north out the window, toward the future home of NBC's West Coast televisions studios. ) Antonio ( apprehensive ): Oh no, I've told you not to waste that pretty little head with thinking. Mirthala ( Suddenly, decisively ): Tony, I want to get back into television. Antonio ( Cautiously, not knowing yet where the conversation is heading ): Of course, of course, television is nice… Mirthala ( turning her head sharply toward him ): Antonio! You will have something to do with the approval of the new NBC studios at Universal, que no ? Antonio: Of course I do, my darling. This is a great event for the City of Los Angeles, bringing hundreds of high-paying jobs into our employment-tax rolls… Mirthala ( angrily ): Don't talk to me as if I were a child or a television reporter, Tony. You have some leverage here… Antonio ( with the uneasy tone of a man on stormy seas ): Well, suppose I did? Then what? Mirthala: ( seizing him by the shoulders ) You must make that approval conditional, Tony. Antonio ( throwing aside the bedclothes and grabbing his trousers from the night stand ): Dios , Mirthala, what are you saying? Conditional on what? Mirthala: I want to get back into TV. And not just any TV, Esai , I'm talking national peacock TV. Antonio: Now, hija , I've told you a thousand times not to ask me to pull strings… Mirthala: You owe me, Tony! Because of you I had to leave my job. It's the very least you can do… Antonio ( miserably, to himself ): Oh, God, spare me. ( To Mirthala ): Exactly what role do you see for yourself at NBC, cara? Assistant news producer, perhaps? Intern film editor? Mirthala: Don't act stupid, Antonio. You know I want to be on camera again. Antonio ( weary, resigned ): What slot were you thinking of, darling? Mirthala: Saturday Night Live. Antonio: No way, gal pal! You would be the butt of endless jokes at your expense--and mine. Ditto for the Tonight Show and Conan O'Brien. Mirthala: At least Carson Daly! Antonio ( pleading with her ): Sweetheart, that demographic is too young for you! You're over 30. Mirthala: You bastard! ( quickly regains self control ) Then a continuing role in a dramatic series, at the very least. Antonio: What about Law & Order Special Victims Unit? They have a Latina star. ( Shuts his eyes. ) Oh, I love Law & Order! It stars Mariska Hartigay!... Mirthala: Are you kidding? She's not Latina! She's half Hungarian and half Jayne Mansfield. Antonio: Who cares? ( He gets an idea. ) What about 30 Rock? Mirthala ( With distaste ): Eesh, Alec Baldwin! I don't want to kiss him! He's too old. Plus he plays a Republican. Antonio: We're running out of options. ( Cruelly ) How about a walk-on in Days of Our Lives? Mirthala ( In a fury ): Day-time TV? Is that what you think of me? ( She quickly gathers her clothes and marches indignantly from the room. ) Find yourself a new squeeze, you lizard. The honorable, my a– ( She slams the door behind her. ) Antonio ( calls out behind her ): But angelcake! It could be a speaking role! ( Defeated, he sinks back on the bed, slapping his forehead with his hand. ) On no, not again! Dear Lord, what do women want? ( Sighs heavily. ) That's it! No more babes! This is not the way the future First Latino Vice President in United States History should behave! I'm swearing 'em off… except … ( He sits up, and unfolds his Razor cell phone. ) Hello, the NBC operator, please. … It's the mayor of Los Angeles. I want to arrange a meeting with Ms. Hartigay. … Yes … I want to get her viewpoint on the NBC deal…. - Morris Newman

Larry Livingston, who died the other day at the age of 89, was one of California planning's true pioneers. And through a courageous public declaration of his own disillusionment, he became a symbol of the practicing planner's frustration. Livingston was an early (1949) graduate of MIT planning school. He was the founder, more than a half-century ago, of the planning firm now known as Dyett & Bhatia. He worked on many of the greatest planning projects of the ‘60s and ‘70s in Northern California, including BART and Yuerba Buena Center. Livingston should have been known for his pathbreaking methods of assessing the impact – fiscal and otherwise – of suburban development. Instead, because his own careful research was twisted around by advocates to make a case for something he didn't believe, he's known as "Mr. Open Space". In fact, the lingering mischaracterization followed him all the way to his obituary last Friday in the San Francisco Chronicle , which put "Mr. Open Space" in the headline. Livingston had a distinguished career that spanned all the way from California's postwar boom to the fiscal crunch that followed Proposition 13. He received the American Planning Association's Distinguished Leadership Award in 1987. But he was best known for his 1980 essay in Planning magazine, " Confessions of a Planner ," in which he looked back on his 30-year career and questioned the value of planning in general and his contribution in particular. "I must confess that I share the blame for the failures of city planning in California," he wrote. "While in some cases I foresaw the adverse consequences of planning programs — such as those that fostered suburban sprawl — I was unable to block them, sometimes because I did not present my case convincingly, and sometimes because the odds against me were too great." Livingston was best known for the project that brought him the most publicity – and the most frustration: An open-space study for the City of Palo Alto in 1971 that assessed the impact of permitting development of 5,000 acres of foothill land. Livingston concluded that the city would be better off fiscally if the land were left undeveloped – and bought by the city at market value -- than if development were permitted. It was the first time any planning study had ever dared to suggest that new housing was a money-loser for local government – and this was long before the passage of Proposition 13.  In the ferocious anti-development environmental politics of the day, Livingston also became the poster child for open space – and soon came to regret it. In "Confessions of A Planner" – and, years later, in an interview with me for Planning when he won the Distinguished Leadership Award -- he took great pains to point out that the only reason buying the land was cheaper than allowing development was because Palo Alto's lavish public services were so expensive. In a normal city, this would not have been the case. "People typically hear only what they want to hear, and, without real justification, I became a minor hero to many conservationists," he wrote. "On the strength of an undeserved reputation as an uncompromising advocate of open-space preservation, I received commissions to prepare comprehensive plans for such environmentally sensitive areas as Santa Barbara and Jackson Hole. Some residents of these areas were disappointed when the plans I prepared did not rule out all development possibilities. They were unable to accept a balanced view of the consequences of urban growth." After my own 30 years of writing and consulting in the field of planning, I guess I feel quite a bit of empathy for Larry Livingston. By now I've pumped out so much work product that I suppose you can find something I've researched or written to support just about any point of view about urban growth. And, like Larry, on more than one occasion I have been frustrated as to the underlying reason why somebody wants to hire me – and taken the job (and the money) anyway. Goodbye, Larry, and thanks for the inspiration. From now on I'll let the Chron call you "Mr. Open Space". I'm just going to remember you as "Mr. Thoughtful".

Proponents of placing land use ballot measures before voters in San Mateo and Riverside have lost separate appellate court rulings. In the San Mateo case, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the decision of election officials to reject certain petition signatures, a decision that blocked a referendum on a mixed-use development from reaching the ballot. In the Riverside case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that a City of Riverside lawsuit challenging the validity of a proposed ballot measure was not a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). In late 2005, the City of San Mateo approved specific plan amendments for the Bay Meadows race track site. As amended, the plan calls for replacing the horse track and parking lot with approximately 1,200 housing units, 1.25 million square feet of commercial space and 150,000 square feet of retail uses (see CP&DR Local Watch , March 2006). Project opponents led by the group Friends of Bay Meadows circulated petitions on a referendum to force a vote on the specific plan amendments. In December 2005, Friends submitted 5,708 signatures on referendum petitions. City Clerk Norma Gomez and San Mateo County Chief Election Officer Warren Slocum, however, rejected 1,131 of the signatures, leaving project opponents 84 short of the required 4,661 signatures to qualify for the ballot. Friends then went to court to challenge the rejection of about 100 signatures. Bay Meadows Land followed up with its own suit alleging the referendum petitions were invalid for technical reasons. A San Mateo County Superior Court judge ruled against Bay Meadows Land in its suit, but ruled for the city, Gomez and Slocum in the Friends' lawsuits. Everyone appealed what they didn't like about the lower court ruling, and the First District consolidated the proceedings. Friends argued that Gomez and Slocum erroneous invalidated five categories of signatures. Rather than plowing through all of the questioned signatures, however, the First District addressed only one type: 36 signatures for which someone other than the voter printed the voter's name and address below the signature. Such "assisted" signatures are permitted when the voter cannot personally print his or her name and address. Instead, someone else may print that information and a witness may sign to affirm that the voter did in fact sign the petition. Elections officials rejected these 36 signatures because there was no witness signature next to each voter signature. Friends argued that the signature of the petition circulator on the petition was adequate, but the court agreed with elections officials that individual witness signatures were required. "Having that information is patently relevant to the ability of election officers to verify the signature or mark of a voter who could not, for whatever reason, write out the information personally," Justice James Richman wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "No such witness signatures are present here � a defect, we hold, that is not cured by the circulator's verification of each section of the petition." "If the Legislature intended to permit a circulator to endorse all �assisted' signatures, it could readily have done so," Richman continued. "But it did not � . The Legislature drew a clear distinction among �circulators,' �voters,' and �persons.'" With those 36 signatures thrown out, there was no way Friends could reach the needed 4,661 valid signatures even if it won every other contested signature. Hence, the court said all other challenges, as well as the appeals of Gomez, Slocum and Bay Meadows Land, were moot and did not decide them. Bay Meadows Land Company has since downsized the project to about 1,060 residential units and 850,000 square feet total of commercial and retail space. Final entitlements are still in process. In Riverside, the city sued over a proposed initiative to limit the use of eminent domain. Referendum proponents contended the suit was a SLAPP. However, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled the city was challenging the initiative, not the citizens who presented the initiative. The decision has been decried by a number of groups, including American Civil Liberties Union, which has asked the state Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth District. The Planning and Conservation League has asked the state high court at least to de-publish the Fourth District ruling so it may not be cited as precedent. Meanwhile, the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties are hoping the Fourth District ruling stands. Only a few months after the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Kelo v. City of New London , (2005) 545 U.S. 469, upholding the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, Riverside resident Tom Stansbury and a group called Riversiders for Property Rights submitted to the city a proposed initiative for preparation of a ballot title and summary. The initiative sought to prohibit use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, and to prevent the transfer of property taken by eminent domain to a private party for 15 years. In November 2005, the city sued Stansbury and the Riversiders. The city argued that the initiative was invalid because eminent domain is a matter of statewide concern not subject to local initiative, and because the measure was inconsistent and self-contradictory. Stansbury and the group responded that the city's lawsuit was a SLAPP that attacked their First Amendment right to petition. In March of 2006, Riverside County Judge E. Michael Kaiser granted the initiative proponents' anti-SLAPP motion and later awarded Stansbury and the Riversiders $14,000 in attorney's fees and costs. The city appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Two, overturned Judge Kaiser. The Fourth District noted that the appeal was moot because initiative proponents had failed to get enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Nevertheless, the court decided the appeal "because it is a matter of broad public interest which is likely to recur." The anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure � 425.16) "provides a mechanism for quickly identifying and eliminating civil actions filed for the purpose of chilling the exercise of free speech," according to the appellate court. Many early SLAPPs were filed by development proponents against people and groups who testified against a project. Pivotal to the Fourth District's decision was the state Supreme Court ruling in City of Cotati v. Cashman , (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 69 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , October 2002). In that dispute, a group of mobile home park owners had sued the city in federal court over the constitutionality of a rent stabilization ordinance. The city then filed a lawsuit in state court seeking a judicial declaration on the ordinance's validity. The park owners argued that the city's state court suit was a SLAPP, but the state Supreme Court disagreed. What was at issue was not the park owners' ability to seek legal redress, but the validity of the rent control ordinance, the court concluded. "The same rationale applies here," Justice Douglas Miller wrote for the Fourth District. " he city was simply asking for guidance as to the constitutionality of the proposed initiative. Indeed, the city did nothing to limit respondents' activities in connection with the initiative, nor did the city, by its action, otherwise impact respondents' First Amendment rights." The initiative proponents argued that only by challenging an initiative after voters pass it may the government contest a ballot measure's validity without interfering with the right to petition. But the Fourth District called this position "untenable" and cited City of San Diego v. Dunkl , (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th, 384, 389 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2001): "It is well accepted that pre-election review of ballot measures is appropriate where the validity of a proposal is in serious question, and where the matter can be resolved as a matter of law before unnecessary expenditures of time and effort have been placed into a futile election campaign." The Fourth District reversed Judge Kaiser's SLAPP ruling and his award of attorney's fees and costs. First Case: Friends of Bay Meadows v. City of San Mateo , No. A115503, 07 C.D.O.S. 14249, 2007 DJDAR 18340. Filed December 12, 2007. The Lawyers: For Friends: Stuart Flashman, (510) 652-5373. For the city: Shawn Mason, city attorney, (650) 377-3305. For the county chief election officer: Brenda Carlson, county counsel's office, (650) 363-4250. Second Case: City of Riverside v. Stansbury , No. E040125, 07 C.D.O.S. 12246, 2007 DJDAR 15728. Filed October 12, 2007. The Lawyers: For the city: Kevin Randolph, Best, Best & Krieger, (951) 686-1450. For Stansbury: Richard Reed, (951) 779-04950.

Blackwater in Iraq means a swirl of controversy over private security forces guarding American diplomats – a job that in the past was done by uniformed U.S. military personnel. But there's a kind of a Blackwater phenomenon on the home front as well – the increasingly common practice of laying off all possible non-essential military-related functions on the private sector. Increasingly, in the case of military bases, this has a huge impact on planning because the Pentagon is now assuming that many basic needs of military personnel and their family will be provided by military base communities, not on the bases themselves. Perhaps the most dramatic example of the domestic Blackwater phenomenon is in housing. Remember when everybody lived on base? Today, the Pentagon's assumption is that 70% of military personnel and their families will live off-base in adjacent communities. Similarly, a whole variety of support services required to keep bases going – which in decades past would have been done by military personnel – are now being farmed out to local contractors. That's a huge impact – or a huge opportunity – depending on how you look at it. Last week, the Pentagon's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) put on a " growth summit" for communities around the country where the military is increasing its operations. Here in California, most communities affected by military bases have had to deal with shrinkage, not growth, as CP&DR readers have discovered over the years. (See, for example, our recent article on the City of Concord's attempt to block the Navy's transfer of a 5,200-acre closed base to a Virginia defense contractor. Yet the impact of increased privatization is likely to be similar whether the base is growing or shrinking. And at the OEA conference, I was struck by how familiar the issues are at military base communities in other parts of the county. Take, for example, Fort Drum , a major Army training base near where I grew up in Upstate New York. Although the surrounding region, anchored by the City of Watertown, is chronically depressed, Fort Drum is growing like mad. And even in low-cost Upstate New York, developers can't bring new housing onto the market at a price the military families can afford. The new houses typically cost around $220,000 . But low-paid military families can typically afford only $120,000 to $150,000. The solution? It's familiar if you're from California. A nonprofit entity that takes control of some land and uses every possible public funding source to create "affordable housing" for military families.  The flip side of the whole military base story is that, with the Pentagon's assistance, rapidly growing military bases are taking a page from their shrinking or closed counterparts when it comes to economic development. Virtually every one of the 20 or so growing base communities has created regional economic development entities – not unlike the ones created in California as a result of the base closures – trying to figure out how to identify and exploit economic "assets". So, these are the issues that we see in base communities: Affordable housing and economic development – not to mention workforce training (for military dependents) and open space (to create buffers around the bases). They're pretty familiar. The irony is that planning for military bases – whether expanding or shrinking – is not a whole lot different than planning for growth or expansion in any other community. And there are plenty of models in both military and non-military communities to draw from. - Bill Fulton

The City of Sacramento took a giant leap on Tuesday when the City Council approved Thomas Enterprises' plan to redevelop the rail yards just north of downtown. But there is no guarantee the direction that Sacramento leaped is forward. On the other hand, the project might be exactly what Sacramento needs to ditch its cow town image. For years, city officials have longed for redevelopment of the Union Pacific rail yards — the western terminus of the transcontinental railroad. And why not? Wedged between downtown and the American and Sacramento rivers, the site is potentially one of the great urban infill locations in the United States. With any such opportunity, progress is slow. Union Pacific has not always been a willing partner. Nearly four years ago, our Morris Newman wrote about a different developer's run at the site . In 2006, voters reject an ill-defined, sales-tax-funded basketball arena project on the site. In the meantime, the housing market shot to the sky and then fell to earth. So give the city and Georgia-based Thomas credit for plugging away. There is no doubt the plan is ambitious. It calls for up to 12,000 residential units, more than 1 million square feet of retail space, multiple office towers and hotels, a cultural district surrounding new railroad museums, waterfront development on the Sacramento River, and a multi-modal transit center. The vision is of urbanity. But there are reasons for concern: • At 240 acres, the site is enormous. Great cities typically are built one block at a time, not with sweeping strokes by a master developer. • The up-front infrastructure costs are equally enormous (at least $740 million) and funding is uncertain. The plan counts on $150 million from the state's 2006 housing bond, which appears overly optimistic. • Early phases of development will be heavily oriented toward retail. Thomas and the city like this approach because retail generates money for further development and for municipal coffers. However, the plan requires Thomas to develop only 1,000 housing units within the first 10 years. Without residents, the rail yard project is just another "lifestyle center," which is Thomas's specialty. • It appears the first thing to get built will be a Bass Pro Shops, a 200,000-square-foot big-box with a giant parking lot. So much for urbanity. • What about the existing downtown? Sacramento's downtown is OK, but it's not thriving. Redevelopment has faltered for decades, as evidenced by the endless struggle to remake the K Street mall. If capital starts flowing to the rail yards, who's going to be left to invest in downtown? Heck, who's going to be left to live, shop and eat in downtown when there's a spiffy new district just next door? Westfield, which owns the Downtown Plaza shopping mall, opposes the rail yard project for just this reason. • Which brings me back to size. Downtown and midtown Sacramento have long suffered from a lack of density. There simply are not enough people and stuff crammed together to create the sort of urban vitality found in San Francisco, Portland or that other big government town, Washington, D.C. An additional 240 acres of development may simply dilute things further. Still, there are also reasons for hope. As I said, this is potentially one of the great infill sites in the country, and infill is something that cities in the Central Valley need much more of. Sacramento is trying to think big and long-term, and, again, that approach is needed in the Central Valley. Not long ago, Sacramento would have been willing to convert the rail yards into a basketball arena with 8,000 parking spaces, a couple big-box power centers and a two-story office park. In other words, it could have become North Natomas without the housing. Instead, there's an opportunity to make a real city. - Paul Shigley

Driving through the Napa Valley last Saturday, the feeling crept over me once again. It's an uneasy, hemmed-in feeling that I often get while traversing the floor of this long, narrow, beautiful valley. Grapevines to the right. Grapevines to the left. Grapevines behind me. Grapevines in front of me. Okay, I admit it. I felt claustrophobic. And the reason I felt claustrophobic – other than an innate tendency in that direction – is because the Napa Valley, beautiful though it is, is what you might call a mono-landscape. It's natural, yes – but it's nature manipulated by human beings for a single economic purpose: the sale of wine. It's not a rural area. It's a factory and a theme park rolled into one. If this isn't always evident as you drive up Highway 29 or the Silverado Trail, it's pretty obvious when you enter a tasting room – and hear the constant ca-ching of the cash register. This kind of a factory and theme park, of course, requires land – land to grow the grapes and land to provide the backdrop. So it's not surprising that the voters of Napa County have locked in a requirement making it very difficult to change how agricultural land is used. In 1990, the voters adopted Measure J – the original "SOAR" measure, which requires voter approval when changing the land use designation on agricultural land. In 2008, Napa voters will decide whether to renew Measure J . In his brilliant book Nature's Metropolis , academic William Cronon came up with the term "second nature" to refer to landscapes like Napa Valley that appear natural but have, in fact, been altered by people for economic reasons. Because it appears natural, a farming or forestry area has sentimental appeal to people – residents and visitors alike – and this affects the politics of land use, which in turn affects the economics of the landscape being protected. This is perhaps most obviously true in the Napa Valley, which has probably the most valuable agricultural land in the world. But it's also true in a place like Ventura County, where I live, which has adopted Napa's Measure J approach countywide. Except in Ventura's case, the SOAR initiatives were adopted over the objections of the farmers, rather than with their consent. (Click here  for a brief history of SOAR-style urban growth boundaries.) In Ventura and elsewhere, residents voted to protect one economic landscape (agriculture) in order to prevent the creation of another economic landscape (urbanization) even though the people in the business they were protecting didn't want it. Since agriculture is an economic landscape, however, that means that the landscape's owners – farmers or growers – can still manipulate it even if they don't urbanize it. Since the passage of the SOAR initiatives, for example, we here in Ventura County have seen significant changes to our agricultural landscape – even though we haven't seen much urbanization. Our iconic orchards are being pulled out and replaced with row crops. And some of our row crops are being replaced with greenhouses. The reason is simple: Having come to terms with the idea that they may never develop their property, agricultural landowners are focusing instead on squeezing every dollar they can out of agriculture. The same is true in Napa – and the other emerging wine areas of the state – where there are constant battles over the proliferation of tasting rooms in supposedly rural areas, traffic on back roads, and the like. It's a reminder that the factory and the theme park don't always fit together well – at least not in the same mono-landscape.

As we at CP&DR know, the business of rating urban things is dangerous. Our recent rankings of the best and worst big city downtowns and medium-sized city downtowns didn't exactly thrill everyone. But people, myself included, love lists. You probably read or heard about the Brookings Institution's recently released report on the walkability of the country's largest metropolitan areas — "Footloose and Fancy Free: A Field Survey of Walkable Urban Places in the Top 30 U.S. Metropolitan Areas." But if you're truly interested in the subject, you might want to read the entire report for yourself. Two reasons for reading the report: First, the methodology is problematic, something which the study's author, Christopher Leinberger, acknowledges. I think the methodology makes the rankings nearly meaningless. Second, the report contains some observations and conclusions – which are not harmed by the methodology — that appear to hold true in California. If you read the news stories, you know that the Washington, D.C., area ranked first in walkability, followed by Boston and San Francisco. At first glance, that seemed like a reasonable top three. What caused me to pause in the first place was the ranking of Sacramento: 27th out of 30. Now, I've knocked Sacramento's alleged urbanism in the past.  But it's hard for me to believe that Sacramento is less walkable than the likes of Houston, Orlando and Phoenix. Sacramento's downtown and midtown are very walkable. Uses are mixed, many sidewalks are wide, motorists are accustomed to pedestrians, and the streetscape is generally pleasing. Older residential neighborhoods such as East Sacramento, Curtis Park and Land Park are full of people on foot. On the metropolitan periphery, much of the college town of Davis is easily walkable, as is the older core of Woodland. Ever tried to walk somewhere in Phoenix, a place defined by high-speed surface streets and low-density development? Good luck. Turns out the Brookings' report rankings are based on the number of walkable urban places per capita. For the purposes of the report, a walkable urban place must be "regional serving," rather than "local serving," a distinction that I think misses the point of walkability. The definition is thus: "Regional-serving places provide uses that have regional significance, such as employment, retail, medical, entertainment, cultural, higher-education, etc., and generally integrate residential as well." The report lists five types of regional walkable urban places: downtown, downtown adjacent, suburban town center, suburban redevelopment, and greenfield (such as mixed-use "lifestyle centers"). According to this criteria, the Sacramento metropolitan area's 2 million people are stuck with only one walkable place — downtown Sacramento. Phoenix's 4 million people can choose from Tempe and "24th and Camelback." Houston's 5.5 million people have the lively Montrose district and two suburban lifestyle centers. Those are the only sorts of places that rate in the study. Moreover, the study admittedly does not account for the size of these places. Thus, downtown San Francisco is given the same weight as the handful of walkable blocks in Emoryville (sic) and Menlo Park. In addition, the study counts only those urban places that are at or near "critical mass," meaning new development does not require significant public or private subsidies. I'm baffled here. Why consider staunchly slow-growth Menlo Park to be at critical mass, but not nearby Mountain View — where developers are building hundreds of market-rate housing units in the very fine downtown ? But enough of my griping. Leinberger does use the survey to make some interesting observations: • "Today, walkable urban places are just as likely to be found in the suburbs as in center cities." This is especially true in California, no matter how you define walkable urban place.  • "Rail transit seems to play a significant role in catalyzing walkable urban development." Just have a look around a BART, Metro or San Diego Trolley station. • "A tale of two kinds of metropolitan areas may be evolving: Those metros benefiting from the trend toward walkable urbanism, and those out of position." Those out of position, according to the report, are those not committed to providing good rail transit systems. The report names Cincinnati, Detroit and Kansas City. If this conclusion is true (and I have trouble arguing against it), places such as the Inland Empire and Orange County (both of which have very limited Metro service), Fresno, Bakersfield and Sonoma County are stuck with the car culture, for good or ill. - Paul Shigley

PLANNING MANAGERSSENIOR PLANNERSASSOCIATE PLANNERS Salary:   Planning Managers :   $73,961 - $100,951/Annually             Senior Planners :  $5,004 - $6,830/monthly             Associate Planners :  $4,643 - $6,338/Monthly Description :  Monterey County is one of the most beautiful places in the world.  Dramatic coastline with miles of beaches, spectacular mountain ranges and a rich agricultural history are enjoyed by its residents and visiting tourists. Monterey County is a multi-cultural and diverse society set in a picturesque coastal location.  Nobel-Prize winning Author John Steinbeck wrote about the people and the land of the Salinas Valley calling it "the valley of the world." The following positions await the right candidates: The Planning Manager reports to the Assistant Director of Planning and has overall responsibility for the work accomplished within an assigned functional team.  The Planning Manager guides the work of assigned staff to ensure the team works within established Department policies and in accordance with the Department's interpretation of applicable codes, ordinances, laws, regulations, guidelines, policies, and directives.  A Bachelor Degree in Planning, Geography or related field and three years of increasingly responsible experience in a supervisory or senior role will be necessary to succeed in this role.  A Masters Degree in Planning or Environmental Services is desired.  Final filing date is January 5, 2008. The Senior Planner is the advanced working level/lead worker in the professional planner series.  Under general direction the Senior Planner serves as the subject matter resource specialist to other planners in addition to performing the most complex and controversial projects.  Bachelors Degree in Planning or related discipline and approximately three years experience performing professional planning duties comparable to an Associate Planner position in Monterey County.  Final filing date:  Open Continuous The Associate Planner , under direction, performs a variety of complex land use planning work within a team of other professional planners.  The Associate Planner performs journey level professional planning work requiring a thorough knowledge of county planning policies, procedures, and regulations.  Bachelors Degree in Planning or closely related field and two years experience performing planning duties comparable to an Assistant Planner in Monterey County or four years experience comparable to an Assistant Planner in Monterey County.  Final filing date:  Open Continuous How to Apply: Detailed brochure for each position is available on the County's Website. Website:  www.co.monterey.ca.us/personnel Apply On-Line at:   https://jobs.co.monterey.ca.us/sigma/ (831) 755-5895 EOE Filing Date: Planning Manager  - Final filing date:  January 5, 2008Senior and Associate Planner:  Open Continuous