In 2013, 34 pedestrians died on the streets of Denmark. The city of Copenhagen, roundly hailed as the world's pleasantest city for walking and biking, has about 10 percent of Denmark's population of 5.6 million. We can extrapolate that exactly three pedestrians died in Copenhagen in 2013, for a rate of about 0.5 per 100,000. To be sure, those three deaths deserve due lamentation, scrutiny, and sympathy. On the other hand, they deserve celebration. Copenhagen's pedestrian fatality rate is about as low as it gets. The lowest pedestrian fatality rate of any major American city is 0.76. Copenhagen's rate is a full five times lower than that of the City of Los Angeles, which, at 2.57  (pdf) is towards the high end. If you divide Copenhagen's fatality rate by Los Angeles', you get 19 percent. The question that some in Los Angeles are now asking is, what happens when you divide by zero? Founded in Sweden in 1997, Vision Zero is an international movement dedicated to reducing pedestrian fatalities to nil. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti supports Vision Zero enthusiastically. He made it is one of inspirations behind the new Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035 , which I reported on this month. In loose affiliation with a handful of other cities around the world and around the state -- including San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco -- Los Angeles has pledged to calm traffic, improve sidewalks and crossings, enhance public transit, and do a host of great things that are, directly or indirectly, designed to make walking safer. Safer is admirable and good, just as 2.57 is not good at all. Safer is especially good when it comes with collateral benefits and when multiple goals -- such as placemaking -- are achieved at once. But  zero ? The trouble with Vision Zero is that, from the moment it was devised, it was destined to fail. Even before I covered the Mobility Plan, Garcetti's embrace Vision Zero made me uncomfortable, for its both grandiosity and fantasy. How can Los Angeles -- or any other city in the civilized world -- ever hope to live up to such a stark, uncompromising goal? Accidents are going to happen, even in Copenhagen. Someone is going to bust an inner tube and hit the curb. Someone is going to slip on a carelessly discarded smørrebrød and faceplant into an oncoming bus. Someone will get tangled in his scarf and end up in a canal. Even perfect cities aren't perfect. The fact is, planning can never eliminate all bad things -- whatever the thing happens to be. In the case of pedestrian safety, it can absolutely reduce  deaths. It can, if you go back to high school calculus, approach zero. But this is still a free country. Unless Los Angeles bans cars entirely and replaces all its pavement with compacted marshmallow, it can never reach zero. Not in 2015, not in 2035, not ever. In the battle between absolutes and public policy, policy never wins.  As much as I admire the Swedes' approach to urbanism, Vision Zero strikes me -- in its rhetoric, it not necessarily in its strategy -- as a paternalistic extension of parents' paranoia over germs, dirt, boogeymen, and walking home from school. Should public policy look out for citizens' safety? Of course, but not maniacally so. And, more to the point, not inefficiently so. Planning Commissioner Richard Katz notes that Los Angeles really shouldn't worry about traffic deaths. It should worry about  all  deaths.  There are four million ways to die in the naked city, from lung cancer to drug overdoses to gang shootings. Public policy should be prejudiced only by those cases that will yield the most lives saved. Then again, we can't repeal the Second Amendment, so we might as well fix our streets. Laura Lake, who heads a group that is suing the city over the Mobility Plan, takes the Zero Paradox a step further. She notes that by slowing traffic on certain streets, the plan might impede ambulances that are responding to fires and medical emergencies. For every pedestrian saved, someone else might expire in a gurney on the way to the hospital. Lake's hypothetical is, possibly, a bit out there. But these potential unintended consequences are surely worthy of discussion, especially when the Vision Zero movement is gaining so much momentum. That's a lot of preordained failure. The planning field hasn't had much luck lately with vague, ominous slogans. ( Agenda 21 , anyone?) Let's hope that, unlike Agenda 21, Vision Zero faces not unhinged opposition but rather a more nuanced, thoughtful strategy than its name implies and a willingness to strive for realistic goals.

The state Office of Planning and Research has released a public draft of the update to its General Plan Guidelines for the state, beginning the public review period of the draft. The "general plan guidelines package," when it is completed, will include new guidelines for general plans, along with a GIS data mapping tool that will allow communities to access large amounts of free data in crafting their general plans, and an easily navigable website. The draft does not incorporate any changes from legislation in the current cycle, such as SB 379. These changes will be incorporated after the public comment period, prior to finalizing the draft. The  general plan guidelines document  updated with sections on visioning, community engagement, social equity, resilience, economic development, healthy communities, and climate change, as well as links to data, tools, resources, and model policies throughout. The  general plan guidelines GIS based data mapping tool , currently in beta being updated during this review, will allow all users access to large amounts of free data, organized by elements and by themes, for creating their general plans. Public comment period ends December 5. (See CP&DR's preview of the general plan guidelines.) Affordable Housing Sought for Treasure Island San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim is pushing the Treasure Island development of over 8,000 residences to include 40 percent affordable and middle-income housing, a significant increase from the currently-approved 27 percent. Kim's proposal hinges on this year's AB 2, which establishes a Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities, allowing cities to invest property tax funds into affordable housing. Lennar Urban, the developer of the site, is unlikely to budge to 40 percent, but it could up the ante to 30 percent if it works out a deal with the state. "We have an existing development agreement in place with specific provisions for affordable housing and community benefits. If we and our partner, the city, mutually determine that this legislation creates additional funding opportunities for the project, we will move toward the 30 percent goal as outlined in our agreement,"  Lennar Urban  regional vice president Kofi Bonner told the San Francisco Business Times. (See CP&DR coverage of Treasure Island's EIR.) S.D. Supervisor Horn Accused of Conflict of Interest Over Development Approval California's Fair Political Practices Commission has advised San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn to recuse himself from a key vote on a 1,700-home development in Lilac Hills because he has a conflict of interest stemming from a property he owns near the project. The letter could spell bad news for the project, as Horn has received contributions from the developer and could prove the key vote to approval of the project, which would vastly increase the city General Plan's call for little more than 100 homes to be developed. The FPPC letter states that he has a conflict of interest because his property lies 1.3 miles from the nearest boundary of the proposal. "Under these facts, a reasonable inference can be made that the financial effect of such a major development in a relatively undeveloped, rural area would have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on the market value of your real property," the letter states. Though he originally stated that he would indeed recuse himself from the vote, Horn has now said that he is seeking clarification of the FPPC letter and a reconsideration of their decision. Sacramento Streetcar Seeks New Life Bouncing back after voters within three blocks of Sacramento's proposed downtown streetcar project rejected the financing plan, officials are now hoping to ask several hundred downtown property members to put in $30 million for the estimated $150 million project. Though the original voting group of about 1,200 within three blocks of the project were not being asked to contribute to the project costs, they had a legal right to make a call on whether to set up the community facilities district at the time. However, under the new structure, a benefit assessment district, advocates must provide a detailed engineer's report to show the project's economic benefit for each property owner along the corridor. The federal government has indicated that it would likely provide Sacramento with a $75 million grant for the 3.3-mile project, and the remaining funds would likely come from the city of West Sacramento, Sacramento County, the city of Sacramento and the state. (See prior CP&DR coverage: here and here .) S.F. Makes Evictions Harder San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee allowed legislation to pass that will make it more difficult for landlords to evict tenants for minor transgressions. Lee had previously indicated that he might veto the legislation because of a provision that would allow tenants to take on more roommates than their lease allows, but his office refused to take a stance on the bill, instead allowing it to pass without his signature. The legislation, drafted by Supervisor Jane Kim, is largely aimed at curbing widespread evictions over lease violations like improperly painting walls. Warriors Complete Purchase of Arena Site The Golden State Warriors have finalized plans to purchase a 12-acre site in San Francisco's Mission Bay neighborhood to build a new $1 billion stadium development within the next two years. The deal, reportedly brokered with owner Salesforce.com Inc for $150 million, shows that the Warriors have a level of confidence to break ground soon even as the project faces a potential legal challenge from the opposition group Mission Bay Alliance. However, Mayor Ed Lee has stated that a complex traffic deal recently cut between the Warriors, the University of California, San Francisco, and the city will undermine the popular arguments of the opposition group. The traffic deal creates an annual $10 million fund fed by Warriors arena revenue for extra traffic control officers, additional light-rail cars and other fixes for potential traffic issues. The Warriors expect to have the arena up and running in time for the 2018-19 NBA season. Report: Segregation in L.A. Declining A new report finds that segregation in the Los Angeles area is is on the decline, as homogenous white neighborhoods and homogenous black neighborhoods have been on the decline from 2000 to 2010. The report from the London School of Economics and Political Science finds that overall the amount of people living in strongly segregated neighborhoods has decreased from 40 percent in 2000 to 33 percent in 2010, while percentages of whites living in homogenous white neighborhoods has declined from 32 percent to 21 percent by gaining significant population shares of Hispanics and Asians. Percentages of blacks living in homogenous black neighborhoods has declined from 15 percent to 11 percent, with many neighborhoods becoming black/Hispanic neighborhoods. The study used geo-computational software EquiPop to create neighborhoods by expanding a buffer around a given location until it encompasses the nearest hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands neighbors and then computes the demographic composition of the buffer population. L.A. Metro Touts TOD Sites Seeking to dot Los Angeles with " transit-oriented communities " where developments occur within a two-mile radius of transit stations, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority has picked seven locations where it wants to see affordable housing connected to transit. Choosing locations in Burbank, Duarte, Willowbrook, Crenshaw, El Monte, Union Station, and North Hollywood, Metro will now work with local governments, community groups, and private developers to expand its development goals. While it doesn't have the power to change zoning laws or the money to develop the land itself, officials said the program is the beginning of a years-long process to tie together transportation and Los Angeles communities. Port of Los Angeles Falls Short of Pollution Goals The Port of Los Angeles admitted that it has not completed 11 of 52 measures it had agreed to implement a decade ago to reduce air pollution in exchange for expanding the 130-acre China Shipping terminal. A decade ago, community groups settled a lawsuit against the terminal expansion, requiring the port to put $50 million in a fund to offset the effects of more trucks, ships, and cargo equipment on nearby neighborhoods. Environmental groups and the port have pointed to the changes required at the China Shipping terminal as a model for how to reduce air pollution and public health effects at seaports. "This whole time we've been led to believe that this is a much cleaner project than it has been," said Mark Lopez, who heads East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, told the L.A. Times. Nevertheless, the Port still says that even though it did not complete several of its required measures, it still has met overall air-pollution reduction targets. Port of L.A. Executive Director Gene Seroka told the L.A. Times that the port's air-quality measurements show pollution has declined to "levels that were even better than what we attempted to produce." Judge Strikes Down S.F. Eviction Law A Superior Court judge struck down a San Francisco ordinance forcing landlords to pay evicted tenants the difference between their current rent and the market rate for a similar unit in the city for two years, up to $50,000. In the ruling, Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said the required payment exceed the Ellis Act's reasonable relocation assistance, which he said are those which would offset the immediate costs of eviction, including first and last month's rent, the tenant's security deposit, and moving expenses. He said additional charges to "subsidize the payment of rent that a displaced tenant will face on the open market, regardless of income ... have no relationship to the adverse impact caused by the landlord's decision to exit the rental market." Nevertheless, Supervisor David Campos, the author of the ordinance, said that the city would appeal the ruling. "I think that in the midst of the worst housing crisis in the history of San Francisco, adjusting relocation payments to reflect the crisis in which we are is a reasonable step," he told the SF Gate. L.A. River Greenway Gets Boost The City and County of Los Angeles will provide a joint investment of $6 million in the Los Angeles River Valley Greenway, a project related to the city's ambitious master plan for the river. The greenway will fill in 12 miles of gaps in the Valley portion of the river project to allow Angelenos to walk and bike from Canoga Park to Elysian Valley. The city and county will split the costs evenly, with the city's $3 million contribution coming from funds dedicated to open space preservation and park facilities. "With this investment, we take one more step in linking our communities to each other and to the backbone of our region — the Los Angeles River," Garcetti said in a press release.

OAKLAND, Oct. 4 -- The California Chapter of the American Planning association announced its awards at the 2015 installment of its annual conference.  Opportunity and Empowerment Award of Excellence Courtyard at La Brea, West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation Comprehensive Plan Award: Large Jurisdiction Award of Merit Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan, City of Santa Ana Planning Division Award of Excellence Jordan Downs Urban Village Specific Plan, City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Comprehensive Plan Award: Small Jurisdiction Award of Merit:  National City SMART Foundation, City of National City Award of Excellence: Comprehensive Plan Award: Small Jurisdiction North Bayshore Precise Plan, City of Mountain View Implementation Award: Large Jurisdiction Award of Merit Devil's Slide Coastal Trail, San Mateo County Award of Excellence Glendale Downtown Specific Plan and Mobility Study, City of Glendale Community Development Department Implementation Award: Small Jurisdiction Award of Merit City of Piedmont Rent-Restricted Second Unit Program, City of Piedmont Innovation in Green Community Planning Award Award of Merit City Heights Urban Greening Plan, City of San Diego Planning Department Award of Excellence CAPtivate Western Riverside County, WRCOG's Subregional Climate Action Plan, Western Riverside Council of Governments  Economic Planning and Development Award Award of Merit Salinas Economic Development Element. City of Salinas Transportation Planning Award Award of Merit North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan and Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program, Caltrans District 11 Award of Excellence Measuring Mobility in Pasadena -- Beyond Level of Service, City of Pasadena Best Practices Award Award of Merit Climate Change and Extreme Weather Adaptation Options Pilot Project for Transportation Assets in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Award of Excellence People Streets, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation Public Outreach Award of Merit At Home in Encinitas: Developing Housing Solutions, City of Encinitas Award of Excellence Land Use Planning Awareness Project, County of Riverside Department of Public Health Urban Design Award Award of Excellence  Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan, Perkins + Will Planning Advocate Award of Exellence James Rojas Planning Agency Award  of Excellence City of West Hollywood Community Development Department Advancing Diversity and Social Change Award (in Honor of Paul Davidoff)  of Merit:  Jurupa Valley Environmental Justice Element, City of Jurupa Valley Academic Award Award of Merit Cultivating Economic Prosperity and Creating Identity along Historic South Main Street in Santa Ana; Kristin Kaczmarek, University of California, Irvine, Planning Policy and Design Award of Excellence Walking and Cycling in San Francisco: Identifying Underserved Locations that are Particularly Receptive to Non-Motorized Transport via the Pedestrian and Bicycling Survey; Rebecca Walters, San Jose State University, Urban and Regional Planning Communications Initiative Award  of Excellence "Visualizing the Code" Video Series, City of Anaheim Planning Department Hard-Won Victory Award  of Excellence Barrio Logan Gateway Sign, City of San Diego Planning Department 2015 Scholarships Outstanding Student Award?? Jessica Medina, USC Outstanding Student Award, Runners Up?? Ryan Sclar, UCLA; Alison Ecker, UCB; Kate Bridges, UCLA Diversity in Planning Award ??Mimi Morisake, SDSU Merit Scholarship? Brenna Callero, UCI; Nicole Bourgeois, UCI; Erick Tucker, SJSU CPR Memorial Scholarship ? ? Cassandra Gutierrez, USC?; Ellen Keating, SLO; ?Paul Donegan, SLO David Wilcox Scholarship ?? Sam Blanchard, UCB Ken Milam Scholarship ?? Logan Philippo, USC; Paul Wack Sustainability Scholarship  ?Andrew Stricklin, UCLA ?Richard H. Weaver Scholarship  ?Michael Shilstone, USC Section Student Awards Central Coast Section Jana Schwartz, SLO; Vivon Crawford, UCSB; Marie Laule, UCSB ?Inland Empire Section ?Nicole Bourgeois, UCI?; David Mach, Cal Poly Pomona ?Los Angeles Section? Nour Chaaban, CSUN; ?Camille Stewart, UCLA?; Cassandra Gogreve, USC?; Joanne Wong, UCLA ?Northern Section? Evelyn Saint-Louis, UCB?; Alexandra Ball, CSUMB?; Jaime Scott, SJSU; Mariaclara Zazzaro, SJSU?; Colleen Courtney, CSUMB  ?Orange Section  ?Joseph Cryer, UCI; Maria Christina Martinez, UCI ?Sacramento Section? Jeffrey Graham, UCD ?San Diego Section Ginger Stout, UCSD; Georgiana Hale, SDSU

The words "pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure" probably cannot motivate the masses the same way an unguarded 8-year-old in a faded crosswalk can. That's understandable. According to the Centers for Disease Control, two-thirds of drivers nationwide exceed speed limits around schools. The result is that one child ages 5-15 per 200,000 are killed as pedestrians each year.  Funding the sorts of safety projects—and neighborhood co-benefits—that would improve those grisly statistics tend to make up a small fraction of transportation spending in the United States. But a safety program aimed at schoolchildren that originated a little over a decade ago in Marin County has found a way to introduce pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure funding into budgets at nearly every level of government. Tugging at the heartstrings of parents while also promoting policies near and dear to smart growth advocates, Safe Routes to School (SRTS) reaches out to school officials, parents, students and local government officials on encouraging more kids to walk to school and making it safer for those who do. While the program is explicitly focused on the safety of schoolchildren, urban planners see it as another way to bolster the case—and get public support—for programs that make neighborhoods more pedestrian-friendly for everyone.  "This program is one of the best leverage points for creating more walking and biking in our communities," said Jessica Meaney, California Policy Manager for the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a network of organizations focused on implementing Safe Routes to School programs. Two generations ago, walking and biking didn't need advocacy. They were the norm and driving to school was the curious exception. According to Low-Income Schools and Communities Study released last year by Caltrans, as recently as 1980 the majority of children living within a 2-mile radius of a school walked or bicycled to school.  Today, that number has dropped to less than 15%.  Not coincidentally, said the study, 5% of children between the ages of 6 and 11 were considered to be overweight or obese in 1980.  "These statistics point to a rise in preventable childhood diseases, worsening air quality and congestion around schools, and missed opportunities for children to grow into self reliant, independent adults," the study concludes. In recognition of these trends, SRTS caught on in Marin because, according to the Marin Bicycle Coalition, up to 27% of the county's morning commuters consisted of parents driving their children to school in the largely affluent, suburban county. Ironically, this contributed to a higher-than-average carbon footprint for the environmentally conscious county. The coalition then set up nine test cases in a pilot program. The coalition reports that by the end of the program, the participating schools experienced a 57% increase in the number of children walking and biking and a 29% decrease in the number of children arriving alone in a car – all without heavy investments in development or infrastructure. Instead, SRTS attempts to make profound changes through interventions as subtle as signage, bike lanes and routes, sidewalk fixes, and outreach campaigns.  The program went countywide in 2003 and was incorporated into federal transportation funding authorization of 2005.  Ten years since its inception, pending state legislation seeks to make the program even more widespread and to engrain the program in neighborhoods that are not nearly as affluent as those in Marin County.  AB 539 would authorize local governments to double the base fines for speeding in school zones where existing law prohibits local governments from reducing the speed limit. AB 516, sponsored by Manuel Pérez (D-Indio), would help ensure low-income communities are able to bring SRTS programs to their local schools. AB 516 would require that at least 50% of grants go to those communities and it would require greater public participation in the SRTS planning process.  AB 516 has been re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations while AB 539 was passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.   AB 516 was prompted in part by the Caltrans study that found that only 44% of state Safe Routes to School grants went to low-income communities. The report notes that community infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods often dissuades children from walking and biking. The report notes that low-income youth are up to three times more likely to be obese than higher-income peers and that these obesity levels are due in part to the lack of opportunities for active recreation in low-income neighborhoods.  "Disadvantaged and rural communities tend to lack the infrastructure -- sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, etc. -- that help to make communities walkable and improve quality of life," said Pérez. "The Safe Routes to School program has been an effective tool to improve walkability and pedestrian and bicyclist safety."  The report notes that the governor's Strategic Growth Council has recommended that investments in personal mobility be targeted at low-income neighborhoods.   Caltrans recently issued a call for projects to fund $42 million in projects over the next two years and has established a new website -- http://www.casaferoutestoschool.org -- to assist cities interested in implementing SRTS programs. That funding depends on the passage of a new federal Transportation Act.  Visually, the program can be summed up by the street signs commonly seen around school zones: two stick figure children carrying books as they walk to class. But in reality, those signs have a decreasing amount of relevance today. The majority of children arrive at elementary school in the back seat of a car. Safe Routes to School's  aims to change that habit. The benefits, they say, range from decreased dependence on autos to the health benefits of walking to greater connections between kids and their neighborhoods.  These statistics are, in part, a legacy of school busing programs that became widespread in the 1970s. While aiming to create more diverse student bodies, those programs also took some students away from local schools, thus forcing them to rely on buses or parents and erasing the traditional walk to school. At the same time, the preponderance of those cars and buses makes many routes less safe and palatable for those kids who can walk.  "15 to 20 percent of morning congestion is caused by parents dropping their kids off at school," said Alexis Lantz, Planning and Policy Director at the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. "And, I think, of the school-age children in the city of Los Angeles, 25 percent of them are overweight." The dual goals of reducing congestion and improving the health of students are part of the reason the City of Los Angeles recently approved a $1.2 million study to set up a citywide Safe Routes to School program and collision database. It's an effort to streamline the city's applications for Safe Routes to School grant money available through the Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration. Both of these funding programs are administered by Caltrans.  By collecting data on where collisions are occurring, by what transportation mode, and near which schools, the study and database are expected to help the city identify areas in need of attention before accidents occur. "Before, whenever there was a fatal collision, everybody would race to the site to see how we could have prevented it," said Bruce Gillman, a spokesperson at the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The city had previously applied for grant money, but always on an ad hoc basis by council district. The citywide program will replace those 15 district applications with one citywide application, a move expected to greatly increase the chances of winning these competitive grants. "It will be an infusion of literally millions of dollars," Gillman said. The funding itself is intended for a combination of infrastructure projects and non-infrastructure efforts. The latter mainly takes the form of safety education campaigns, which are as important as any improvements made to the built environment, according to education advocates. "It's one thing to put a sidewalk out there, and it's one thing if you put out bike lanes, but you really need to, especially with kids, do the safety education. Especially with parents," Lantz said. "Parents have their own fears about walking and biking to school, and that extends beyond just road safety to personal safety in regards to crime and gangs." And being that these education-heavy programs don't necessarily require shovels in the ground, they are able to cheaply achieve some of the walkability goals of the smart growth movement. "It creates an environment of people being out and walking the streets and doing activities that really support place-making and community-building," said Pippa Brashear, project manager at the Project for Public Spaces.   Gail Carlson is the public health program coordinator in Riverside County, where she has been working to implement a Safe Routes to School program at 13 elementary schools. The program's goal is to get more kids walking and biking to school, and for Carlson, that means focusing on education. "Even though sidewalks are being built, kids aren't walking. For whatever reason that is. So we need to complement that with the education and the encouragement and provide that vision that there are alternative modes that kids can get to and from school safely," said Carlson. The Riverside County program runs Safe Routes to School workshops to educate parents, and is encouraging programs in schools like "Walking Wednesdays" and "Fit Fridays." Some schools have upwards of 200 kids participating in these events twice a week. One elementary school has a Safe Routes to School page in its yearbook. In addition to these educational efforts, Carlson said a few infrastructural changes have also been made since the county's Safe Routes to School program started in 2008. Visually striking red curbs and curbcuts are some of the basic improvements they've seen, but there have also been signs posted along some "walking bus" routes – paths used by parents who will walk their kids to school and pick up other kids along the way. But getting more kids walking to school takes more than just preaching the gospel. Often what drives implementation of a program is getting stakeholders to recognize when there are safety problems. "It means working with the teachers, principals, parent organizations, the students themselves to identify the problem areas, do walk audits, do bike audits, and create encouragement programs that don't necessarily take funding, they just take parent and staff involvement, and work with the community to build that support," said Lantz. And once these audits are done and programs are starting to form, cities have higher odds of winning grant money from the state or federal government to continue the work. This is good news for kids trying to get to school safety on foot or bike, but it can also be a boon for cities with few other resources to dedicate to pedestrian and bicycle safety efforts. "If a city has gotten a Safe Routes to School grant, that could very well be one of the few sources they're getting to directly address pedestrian safety and bike safety," said Meaney. At the same time, a SRTS program may depend on the nature of the surrounding environment. Thus, locales that intend to implement a Safe Routes program have incentive to consider the broader implications of place-making.  "It's sort of a chicken or an egg: Place-making supports SRTS (and vice-versa)," said Brashear, of project for Public Spaces. She said it's no good to have "kids walk down an uninhabited street with poor facilities or poor urban design."  Brashear recommends that planners use place-making strategies "by bringing activities to areas around a school and having design for a public space and public rights of way, that not only brings safety but also comfort and excitement. That really goes hand-in-hand with laying out the sidewalk."  Meaney said Safe Routes to School programs have impacts beyond the school zone. They also help cities comply with the stipulations of SB 375, the statewide law that requires regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And by emphasizing safety around schools, the program makes those areas safer not only for kids—and other vulnerable populations—but for the entire community. "I think everybody benefits when we live in neighborhoods that kids can walk and bike to," said Meaney. Contacts: Caltrans Safe Routes to Schools Program Low-Income Schools and Communities Study (.pdf) Pippa Brashear, Project Manager, Project for Public Spaces, 212.620.5660 Gail Carlson, Coordinator, Riverside County Public Health Program, 951.358.7173 Alexis Lantz, Planning & Policy Director, L.A. County Bicycle Coalition, 213.629.2142 Jessica Meaney, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, 213.221.7179

When is $6.6 billion considered pocket change? When you're the state of California and you still have $10.8 billion to go.  Even with a tax windfall based on a better-than-expected economic projections for the next two years, that's where things stand with the budget deficit, which Gov. Jerry Brown is furiously trying to plug with a host of tax and realignment schemes. Land use has featured prominently in Brown's deficit-reduction strategies, and with his budget revise--released Monday--it appears that Enterprise Zones may be spared while redevelopment remains on the chopping block.  Ironically, the roughly $900 million Enterprise Zone program has relatively few friends in the state and has been fiercely criticized by researchers. Conversely, nearly every local official, real estate developer, and planner in the state has, either because of genuine conviction or parochial interests, issued resounding protests against the killing of redevelopment .  Brown reportedly salvaged Enterprise Zones in part because he did not have enough support in the Legislature to kill them. Instead, he proposes a reform that would extend tax breaks only to companies that can prove they are creating new jobs. His redevelopment proposal, however, remains unchanged.  Other elements of the governor's revised budget related to land use:  Closure of 70 state parks < pdf =">pdf"> , for a savings of $33 million Increase in Prop. 1B capital funding from $2.3 billion to $3.3 billion. Reinstatement of allocations for Prop. 1C funding, including 25 million for the Housing, Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks Program; $18 million for the Transit-Oriented Development Program; and $20 million for the Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) Program. Prop. 1C grants had been suspended several months ago.  Elimination of over 40 state boards and commissions. The League of Cities identified several of interest to cities:  State Mining and Geology Board State Office of Gang and Youth Violence Prevention Commission on the Status of Women Governor's Office of Gang and Youth Violence Prevention California Council on Criminal Justice Fair Employment and Housing Commission Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Standard Board  Selling non-essential properties such as the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, the Montclair Golf Course in Oakland, and most of the holdings of the Capital Area Development Authority in Sacramento.  To the last point, it's understandable that the governor would want to get some white elephants off the state's books. Lord knows, the Coliseum -- a partnership between the the state, the City of L.A., the County of L.A., and its main tenant, USC -- is a hot mess. But liquidation of CADA properties would kill one of the major drivers of development in downtown Sacramento, where CADA acts as the de facto redevelopment agency. Though this move would follow the spirit of the governor's intention to eliminate all redevelopemnt agencies, the difference is that CADA is a zero-sum game, since it's a state entity in the first place.  June 15 is the deadline for the Legislature to act on budget proposals.  --Josh Stephens

With different aspects of the City of Bell scandal continuing to come to light, "Bell" is starting to become short-hand for government corruption. Still, Bell's mess does not displace San Bernardino County from its longtime position at the top of the local government corruption charts. The situation in Bell is easily summarized: A small group of top-level city employees and four councilmembers abused their powers to get rich at taxpayers' expense. According to prosecutors and news investigations, the city officials may have received millions of dollars in excessive salaries. They simply wrote themselves large paychecks. Meanwhile, the corruption allegations, indictments and convictions in San Bernardino County are numerous, complicated and mostly concern real estate development. The latest twist was last week's indictments of former county Supervisor Paul Biane, developer Jeff Burum, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, a former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt and currently the county's director of governmental affairs. San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramon and the state attorney general's office allege that Burum used campaign contributions, gifts and threats to get Biane, Ovitt and then-Supervisor Bill Postmus to approve a $102 million settlement of a lawsuit that Burum had filed against the county. Biane, Erwin, Kirk and Burum have denied wrongdoing. In 2006, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted, 3-2, to settle the lawsuit filed by Burum's Colonies Partners, which was developing a 440-acre housing and retail project in Upland called Colonies Crossroads. The developer had sued for reimbursement for providing flood control facilities that it said were the county's responsibility. The settlement smelled bad at the time, as the county had already won one appellate court ruling in the litigation, and both the county counsel's office and outside attorneys urged rejection of the settlement. Maybe it was merely business-as-usual. Back in the 1990s, consecutive county administrators, Harry Mays and James Hlawek, went down after running the corner office like a criminal enterprise. Both were fined and subjected to county civil suits to recover ill-gotten riches. Mays spent two years in prison; Hlawek got off with three years probation. A county investment officer and the treasurer/tax collector also did time for taking bribes from a local businessman in exchange for county contract favors. In 2004, then-Supervisor Gerald Eaves pleaded guilty to accepting unreported gifts from a businessman who received county approval to erect billboards on county land. The mayor of Colton and two city councilmen went down in the same bribes-for-billboards scheme. Around the same time, two San Bernardino councilmembers pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from a developer. To summarize: Seven elected officials and three appointed government officials in three jurisdictions were guilty of various corruption schemes from the mid-'90s to the mid-'00s. In March of this year, Postmus, the former supervisor who resigned under pressure as county assessor in 2009, agreed to plead guilty to three felonies for conspiracy to accept a bribe, conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds. The plea deal included Postmus's agreement to testify in future criminal trials. Two of the felonies to which Postmus copped stemmed from payments and gifts that he and his political operations received from Colonies Partners. (The other felony concerns Postmus hiring people in the assessor's office to do nothing but political work. Postmus aide Adam Aleman had already pleaded guilty to destroying public documents and lying to a grand jury about the political operations on the public's dime; a different aide is awaiting trial.) When the district attorney and attorney general's office indicted Postmus last year, they did not name five un-indicted co-conspirators. However, it was easy to identify Biane (who voted for the settlement and lost re-election last year), Kirk, Colonies managing partners Jeff Burum and Dan Richards, and Colonies PR consultant Patrick O'Reilly as the five. All have vigorously denied wrongdoing, but the indictments appeared to be a matter of time. Erwin was already being prosecuted. Meanwhile, local newspapers have reported that the county has spent $21 million suing the City of Upland, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Caltrans in an attempt to recoup some of the $102 million settlement cost. SANBAG recently increased its contract with attorneys defending against the lawsuit to $8 million. Upland has spent $3.6 million defending the lawsuit. That's more than $30 million in public funds spent in an argument over a lawsuit settlement that, according to prosecutors, was illegitimate. And there's so much more. In April, the attorney general's office charged county Supervisor Neil Derry with perjury and filing a false campaign expense report. The attorney general alleges Derry laundered $10,000 in campaign contributions, including $5,000 from area developer Arnold Stubblefield, through Postmus's political operation. Rex Gutierrez, a former assessor's office employee and Rancho Cucamonga councilman, is now a resident of Tehachapi State Prison. Postmus hired Gutierrez at the assessor's office as a favor to Burum, whose nonprofit company received a $42.5 million contract from Rancho Cucamonga to maintain affordability covenants at an apartment complex. Former San Bernardino County CEO Mark Uffer last year filed a whistle-blower retaliation lawsuit against the county after the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to fire him. Uffer alleges he was dumped because he tried to halt the county-Colonies settlement and reign in numerous other corrupt practices. A trial on Uffer's claims could provide the biggest show yet. John Pomierski resigned as Upland mayor in February, shortly before being indicted for allegedly trying to extort money from a nightclub and medical marijuana cooperative that were seeking city permits. Also indicted was John Hennes, an appointee to the city's building appeals board. District attorney's office investigators and the FBI raided Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, the county hospital in Colton, last fall. Investigators have not explained what they were seeking, but there are allegations that high-ranking county officials received free treatment at the hospital. District attorney's investigators also are known to be asking questions about the county's negotiations, since suspended, with potential developers of 1,200 acres of surplus county land in Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Bell? One simple scheme to take tax money. That's the minor leagues compared with San Bernardino County. – Paul Shigley

Here's some flattering news about the state of urbanism in California: the freeway capital of the world is also, apparently, one of the public transit capitals of the country. A recently released study by the Brookings Institution entitled "Missed Opportunity: Jobs and Transit in America" ranks four California metro areas in the top ten out of 100 metro areas studied, according to at least one metric.  The study ranks metro areas according to the percent of the working-age population with reasonably convenient access to transit. With 97% coverage, Honolulu took the top spot, with a slew of western cities following it. Cities in the bottom ten, many of which are in the South, had no better than 35% coverage.  California dominates the top-10 with these four metros:  No. 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, with 96% coverage.  No. 3 San Jose-Sunnyale-Santa Clara, with 95.6% coverage No. 5 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, with 91.7% coverage No. 6 Modesto, with 90.4% coverage Other California cities fared nearly as well: Stockton ranks 15th, the San Deigo area ranks 16th, the Sacramento area ranks 19th, Bakersfield ranks 21st, and Riverside-San Bernardino ranks 23rd. Some of these areas rank considerably lower when frequency of service is factored in.  That's the good news. The bad news is that, in many of these cities, the buses and trains that residents can board so easily won't necessarily take them where they want to go, or get them there in a timely manner. The study places a premium on the ability of commuters to go from home to work in less than 90 minutes. According to this metric, San Jose-Sunnyvale does great with 58.4% and a No. 3 ranking. But L.A.-Long Beach-Santa Ana falls to 69th place, with only 25% accessible. In the Riverside-San Bernardino area, only 6.6% percent of jobs are served by transit, ranking the area 96th.  It's probably not worthwhile to fret about individual rankings all that much. However, Brookings' methodology -- and its implicit statement about what transit planners' priorities ought to be -- is compelling, especially as California regions attempt to reduce their vehicle-miles traveled in accordance with SB 375.  California clearly has a lot of transit, with buses and trains going every which way. But the polycentric nature of all of these areas means that jobs are spread out and optimal routes are hard to come by--hence the "spatial mismatch" that can confound transportation planners. The Brookings research in many ways seems to dovetail with a study put out by the Public Policy Institute of California, which contended in its report "Driving Change" that the success of SB 375 depends in part on orienting transit towards employment centers rather than towards residential centers. It thus implied that TOD should focus more on offices than on apartments.  Put together, these two studies illustrate a concept that most planners have known all along: transit and land use planning must be coordinated for either to be efficient. California's transit agencies have done a great job covering vast amounts of territory. Now it's time for them to serve vast numbers of people.  --Josh Stephens

A state appellate court has ruled that a city and its redevelopment agency's approval of a term sheet for the development of a professional football stadium was not a "project approval" that required review under the California Environmental Quality Act Although the term sheet was detailed, and substantial sums had been spent on consultants leading up to that agreement, it did not commit the city to a definite course of action, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled. At issue was a term sheet approved in June 2009 by the City of Santa Clara and the city's Redevelopment Agency (collectively, "the city"). It set forth the basic provisions of a proposed transaction to develop a stadium that would be the home field of the San Francisco 49ers National Football League franchise. The terms included the stadium location, size, financing and operations (see CP&DR Deals, April 2008 ). The property for the proposed stadium is currently a parking lot leased to Cedar Fair, the owner and operator of Great America amusement park. Cedar Fair argued that the term sheet approvals had to be set aside because no environmental impact report (EIR) had been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to the governmental approvals of the term sheet. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge held that preparation of an EIR was not required because approval of the term sheet did not constitute approval of a project under CEQA. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision in favor of the city. In deciding whether an EIR was required in the Cedar Fair case, the Court of Appeal looked to the seminal decision by the California Supreme Court in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, December 2008 ). Under the standard established in Save Tara, the key question in this case was "whether the term sheet, �viewed in light of all the surrounding circumstances,' �as a practical matter,' committed the city or the Redevelopment Agency �to the project as a whole or to any particular features, so as to effectively preclude any alternatives or mitigation measures that CEQA would otherwise require to be considered, including the alternative of not going forward with the project,'" Justice Franklin Elia wrote, citing Save Tara. In the Santa Clara situation, that standard was not met. Cedar Fair argued that, as a practical matter, the city had in fact committed itself to the proposed stadium project in light of the 39-page term sheet's high level of detail, subsequent statements made by city representatives in support of the stadium, and the large amount of money already invested by the redevelopment agency in the process of reaching an eventual final agreement. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument for several reasons. First, the court acknowledged that the term sheet was extremely detailed and that the parties preliminarily agreed to numerous provisions concerning the proposed stadium project. However, the court found that mere detail did not constitute the requisite "approval" under CEQA. The court pointed out that the Supreme Court in Save Tara rejected the idea that "once a private project had been described in sufficient detail, any public-private agreement related to the project would require CEQA review." Second, the court found that the term sheet expressly bound the parties only to continue negotiating in good faith and did not make the terms binding or even conditionally binding. By its very language, the term sheet "memorialize the preliminary terms"; mandated that the parties use the term sheet as the "general framework" for "good faith negotiations"; stated that the City "retain the absolute sole discretion" to make decisions under CEQA, including deciding "not to proceed with the Stadium project"; provided that the term sheet created " o legal obligations � unless and until the parties have negotiated, executed and delivered mutually acceptable agreements based upon information produced from the CEQA environmental review process"; made clear the parties' intent to not "create any binding contractual obligations" with respect to the development of the stadium or to commit any party to "a particular course of action"; and recognized that a no project alternative was still available. "The commitment to continue negotiations pursuant to the term sheet is unlike the commitment in Save Tara, where the City of West Hollywood contractually bound itself to sell land for private development conditioned upon CEQA compliance," Elia wrote.  Third, even though substantial sums were spent on consultants because of the magnitude and complexity of the project being negotiated, and even though such sums suggested that the city was "politically dedicated to the goal of developing a NFL stadium," those expenditures did not establish any legal commitment to any feature of the project that effectively foreclosed meaningful environmental review, the court ruled. Fourth, the court rejected Cedar Fair's arguments regarding the subsequent statements by city councilmembers and city staff members regarding the binding nature of the term sheet. Those statements contradicted the language in the term sheet, because the term sheet "cannot be reasonably construed as creating any contractual commitment on the part of to conditionally approve or undertake any aspect or feature of the stadium project," the court ruled. In summary, the Sixth District held that the allegations of the petition and the judicially noticed documents "do not demonstrate that the term sheet, in light of surrounding circumstances alleged, committed respondents, as a practical matter, to a definite course of action with respect to development of a stadium and effectively ruled out any mitigation measure or alternative, including the alternative of not going forward with the project." Still, Elia acknowledged, "The modern phenomenon of �public-private partnerships' for development makes the time of �approval' under CEQA more difficult to ascertain since a local agency may be a vocal and vigorous advocate of a proposed project as well as an approving agency. But �an agency does not commit itself to a project simply by being a proponent or advocate of the project.'" Santa Clara did approve an EIR for the stadium project last year. Cedar Fair has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the validity of that document.  The Case: Cedar Fair, L.P. v. City of Santa Clara, No. H035619, 2011 Cal.App.LEXIS 506. Filed April 6, 2011. Ordered published April 28, 2011. The Lawyers: For Cedar Fair: Sean A. Cottle and John A. Hickey, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, 408.287.9501. For the City: Karen M. Tiedemann and Juliet E. Cox, Goldfarb & Lipman, 510.836.6336.

The midpoint of 2011 is rapidly approaching, and that means the first glimpses of the "Sustainable Communities Strategies" created under SB 375 are beginning to emerge. In particular, the "Big Four" metropolitan planning organizations � those from the Los Angeles Area, the Bay Area, San Diego, and Sacramento � are all moving forward with their SCS processes, and discernable trends are beginning to emerge. Although there are 18 MPOs in California � all of which must create SCS's under SB 375 � the "Big Four" cover the communities in which almost 30 million people live. (Most of the rest of the population lives in the San Joaquin Valley, where 8 MPOs are attempting to coordinate their efforts to become, essentially, the fifth member of the Big Four.) No matter how you cut it, it's not easy for any of the Big Four to hit the targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction being laid down for them by the state. The targets are expressed in terms of per-capita greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and the MPOs typically have a high-single-digit reduction (at least) by 2020 and a 12-15% reduction by 2035. That's tough to do � especially considering 2020 is now only a little over eight years away. On the other hand, it's not like the MPOs are starting from scratch. The MPOs have been working on "smart growth"-style blueprint plans for several years that move in the direction of an SCS. "All four MPOs have been doing this stuff for a long time," said Steve Heminger, executive director of the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, at the recent General Assembly of the Southern California Association of Governments in La Quinta. "We have to remind ourselves to be proud of what we have already done." And, increasingly, the MPOs are working to sell the major changes in urban form based not on greenhouse gas emissions reduction per-se, but on what have come to be known as the "co-benefits" � shorter commutes, more land conservation, a shift away from the traffic congestion created by automobiles, and many other things. As SCAG's Hasan Ikhrata said at the General Assembly, maybe the greenhouse gas emissions reduction should be considered the co-benefits compared with everything else. For better or worse, however, that's not how SB 375 is set up. Because it's largely an implementation mechanism for the AB 32, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law, SB 375 is � in technical terms � an exercise in air-quality modeling, where different strategies are manipulated in different ways to try to hit the targets. So far, the San Diego Association of Governments is the first out of the box with a draft SCS (as required by law), but Sacramento has also done a lot of work on it. Meanwhile, MTC, partnering with the Association of Bay Area Governments, recently released its "Initial Vision Scenario," which moves a lot of development around the region (see CP&DR Vol. 26, No. 8, April 2011 ), and the two COGs within SCAG that "took delegation" � that is, agreed to do their own SCSs � have released drafts. The SANDAG experience so far is telling. Two aspects of the draft SCS in particular are worth noting.  The first is the fact that SANDAG chose to take the SCS out 40 years, to 2050, rather than 25. SANDAG's still got to hit the 2020 (7%) and 2035 (13%) targets, of course, but the longer time frame does allow the region to put more things in place and see how they play out over a longer time frame. The second � which smaller MPOs are going to have a tough time replicating � is a really aggressive effort involving transit and high-occupancy vehicles. SANDAG Executive Director Gary Gallegos notes that the SCS calls for running10-minute headways on the trolley system and undergrounding the trolley in downtown San Diego to increase capacity. The SCS calls for a 250% increase in transit service miles and "hundreds of miles" of managed lanes (basically, toll lanes to manage congestion). This results are trend-bending � Gallegos noted that transit travel time from Otay Mesa to job centers near UC San Diego would be cut by two-thirds by 2050, so they are competitive with driving � but the amount of investment and behavioral change required is nothing short of mind-bending. Indeed, it's a big question as to how � and whether � California can make the level of investment in transit that's required to bend these trends sufficiently. There's been a lot of discussion recently about how California's budget crisis has compelled the state to cut back on transit funding at exactly the same time that the state is implementing SB 375. "Transit in California is on very shaky financial ground," Heminger said at the SCAG event. "The shortfall is $1 billion a year."  Local transit advocates around the state � especially in Los Angeles � have been calling for the state to give regions and localities more options to raise revenue for transit. But Senate Majority Leader Darrell Steinberg's recent proposal to give locals more taxing options generally is clearly going to run into the Republican anti-tax buzzsaw, so it's not clear whether those options will really be expanded. Maybe the most interesting conclusion you can draw from the early SCS work is that the whole land use/transit thing can only take you so far. The conventional wisdom over the past couple of years � promoted by me among others � is that you need land use change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because technological solutions can't solve the problem all by themselves. This is clearly true. But it's also true that you can't hit the SCS targets without the transportation demand management and transportation system management components. Look at SANDAG's "hundreds of miles" of priced lanes and the Bay Area's general willingness to pay tolls, both of which manage demand. (I recently read a blog that said one of the ten ways you know you're from the Bay Area is that you think $7 is a reasonable price to pay to cross a bridge.) Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this general trend is contained in the draft Gateway COG SCS prepared by Cambridge Systematic ( pdf ). Cambridge concluded that the Gateway cities � those along the 710 corridor, mostly � can cut per-capita GHG emissions by 4% by 2020 through transportation and transit efforts and another 3% through land use change. But there it stops. From 2020 and 2035 � at least according to this draft SCS � the only way to cut per-capita emissions further is to build a series of regional and statewide projects. Some of these are transit projects � High Speed Rail, the Green Line to LAX � but most of them are highway improvements, such as expanding I-5 in southern L.A. County and building an I-710 freight corridor. The bottom line is that the SCS process doesn't necessarily mean that land use change will fall out as the biggest factor in meeting the targets. This isn't an either/or thing � either land use change or roadway improvements. It's a both/and. We're going to have to do everything we can possibly think of and then some to get there. And then we've got to figure out where to get the money.

While the Legislature remains deadlocked on Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal, it seems that what does not kill redevelopment may in fact make it stronger. Many observers had written the obituary for the state's redevelopment system back in March when Brown was insisting that the state had to recoup redevelopment's tax increment in order to help plug its $24 billion deficit. A late proposal by the California Redevelopment Agency and League of California Cities seemed to go nowhere.  A flurry of activity this week suggests, however, that the fight to save redevelopment is very much alive. In particular,  the rallying cry has been to reform, and not eliminate, redevelopment. Recently introduced legislation attempts to do just that.  SB 286 - Wright SB 286 , sponsored by Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles) has been amended to include CRA's package of redevelopment reform measures.  According to the CRA, the reform measures in SB 286 would add specificity to the types of information needed for making findings of blight; limit the percentage of total land area of a jurisdiction which may be included in project areas; exclude the schools share of property taxes in new project areas formed after January 1, 2012; prohibit uses of tax increment for specific purposes such as golf courses and never before developed parcels of land if 20 acres or more; add new requirements to five-year implementation plans and require agencies to focus activities on state priorities such as job creation, cleaning up contaminated property, basic infrastructure needs, and affordable housing; provide for more public oversight; require development of performance indicators to measure agency success; require performance audits of agencies by the State Auditor and provide funds for those reviews; and specifically prohibit the use of tax increment for non-redevelopment, non-agency operating costs. The bill was heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on May 5 but no action was taken. The bill has not yet moved forward in part because some members want to wait until the governor releases his May revise, due out on May 14. That day is the deadline for bills to be approved by committee in their house of origin. However, there is speculation that SB 286 may be allowed to miss this deadline due to the heated debate surrounding redevelopment. CRA officials have said that SB 286, paired with SB 450, represents the most comprehensive reform of redevelopment in nearly two decades.   SB 286 Analysis by Senate Governance and Finance Committee SB 450 - Lowenthal In addition, and complementary, to the proposals in SB 286, Sen. Alan Lowenthal's (D-Long Beach) SB 450  addresses the use of redevelopment housing set-aside funds. SB 450 includes requirements to restrict the use of the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds for planning and general administrative expenses. It also would provide funding for audits of redevelopment agency housing programs by the Department of Housing and Community Development, to allow the State Controller to conduct reviews of redevelopment agency audits and recommend suspension of auditors that are not conducting audits in accordance with the applicable standards and guidelines.   CRA believes that these and other reforms will help redevelopment agencies to more efficiently utilize their affordable housing funds, track their accomplishments over the long term, and keep the public better informed of the agencies' affordable housing programs and developments. SB 77 and AB 101 SB 77 and AB 101 are the budget bills that would eliminate redevelopment. Both are still technically alive in both houses. However, the Legislature appears to have reached an impasse and it is unclear whether either will come up for a vote.  CRA/League Alternative Proposal The CRA says that its proposal for agencies to voluntarily transfer funds has not yet been made into a bill because of the stall in budget talks. The CRA is waiting for the governor's revise to come out May 14, at which point budget talks may resume. The CRA says that its proposal does not depend on either SB 450 or SB 286.  The CRA recently held a videoconference discussing all of these pending measures. A recording of that conference can be viewed here .  Validating Acts At the same time that reform measures have been advanced, lawmakers in the Senate Local Government Committee have taken measures that the CRA and League say would inappropriately weaken redevelopment agencies. The Validating Acts are largely procedural, usually bipartisan bills that affirm the state's support for certain local actions, including bond issuances by retroactively fixing inadvertent errors. Generally three such bills come out each year; this year they are SB 191, SB 192, and SB 193.  While redevelopment has traditionally been covered by the validating acts, the current bill language excludes them. CRA and the League contend that this move represents an inappropriately partisan effort to support Gov. Brown's plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies.  When Senator Lois Wolk presented the validating acts last Wednesday in the Assembly Local Government Committee, Assembly Member Alejo asked for amendments to all three bills.  Mr. Alejo reportedly said that he was concerned about the actions taken by some redevelopment agencies in recent months in reaction to the Governor's proposal to end redevelopment agencies.  He worried that the validating acts might be used inappropriately to attempt to protect questionable asset transfers and interagency borrowing.   The CRA contends that this move was implemented at the behest of the Department of Finance following last week's Senate Government and Finance Committee hearing. It further contends that the exclusion represents retaliation against local governments that have attempted to shield those assets from a possible "fire sale" if and when agencies are liquidated.  These measures are due to be heard May 11 in the Assembly Local Government Committee.  --Josh Stephens

"Life in the Slow Lane" is the headline of a piece in The Economist that provides a very interesting analysis of the lack of infrastructure spending in the United States. Because the story is in The Economist , it comes at the topic from a European perspective. No doubt this will trouble conservatives because, well … I'm not sure why conservatives fear comparisons with other prosperous, industrialized, democratic societies. Anyway, I think the story is worth reading. The Economist looks primarily at transportation systems and makes the point that the U.S. is not only failing to build needed capacity, the country for decades has not adequately maintained the roads, railways and air transport systems it has. I don't see how there could be any argument on this point. Has a single study in the last 20 years concluded that we're doing a good job with transportation infrastructure? I think a similar point could be made about other critical systems – water, wastewater, schools, flood control. We continue to make due with a surprising amount of physical structures built during the Depression and the post-war era. Yet all we hear these days is that we can't afford new roads, levees and water lines, and we defer maintenance at every opportunity. The next federal transportation bill will likely be smaller than the previous one, which itself was inadequate. (Some commentators are already calling it dead on arrival .) Environmental Protection Agency programs that pay for clean water projects appear likely to suffer major budget reductions. In Sacramento, hardly anyone is even talking about this stuff – even though California's roadways are the most congested and in just about the poorest condition; even though some communities in the Central Valley lack safe drinking water ; even though we know that, sooner rather than later, a flood is going to wallop the Delta and put the two largest water delivery systems out of commission for an extended period. None of this stuff is new. The Economist says the U.S. can't figure out, or doesn't want to figure out, how to pay for basic transportation infrastructure. The bottom line is that we are unwilling to pay for the literal building blocks of the country. Why? Why can't we find agreement on something so obvious? We wring our hands and pound podiums about burdening our children and grandchildren with budgetary debt at the same time we ignore the infrastructure deficit – and its severe consequences – that we're forcing on those same generations. The Economist story concludes that, without substantial infrastructure investment, the American economy will grind to a halt. I think the grinding has already begun. Sorry, kids. – Paul Shigley

The unique geography of the San Francisco Bay ensures that there is only one Bay Area. Uniqueness and unity are not, however, the same thing, and planners are now working to convince the Bay Area ' s own residents and public officials that there is indeed One Bay Area. One Bay Area is the brand name under which the region ' s Sustainable Communities Strategy is being developed. It is a collaboration among the region ' s two major planning organizations  –  the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which is the region ' s official Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Association of Bay Area Governments  –  plus the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The process also includes and from the region ' s nine counties and 101 cities. Building on generations of collaboration among these entities, the region ' s SCS, which is mandated by Senate Bill 375, will be called Plan Bay Area. In March, Plan Bay Area took its first step towards becoming reality with the release of the Initial Vision Scenario by MTC and ABAG. The IVS outlines expected population growth in the region and broadly identifies the locations where new residents and households can be located with the least impact on vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, pursuant to the goals of SB 375. " Frankly we are trying to get people to think as one, "  said Randy Rechtsler, director of legislation and public affairs at the MTC.  " We often use the phrase  ‘ Bay Area '  so why don ' t we get people focused on the place they live? " " Plan Bay Area is the brand that is being put on the concept of this SCS, "  said Jeff Hobson, deputy director of the transit advocacy group TransForm.  " That ' s all more of a communications issue than an issue of planning conflicts. " The IVS operates on the assumption that in the next 25 years the Bay Area will add 2 million people and 902, 000 housing units, for a 33 percent increase. The IVF projects that Plan Bay Area, when completed, will direct 97 percent of that growth to infill areas, leaving only 3 percent of household growth to greenfields. It also concentrates growth in the counties that are already most heavily urbanized. Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties will accommodate roughly two-thirds of that growth. Rechtsler said that the need for cities to conduct Regional Housing Needs Assessments will compel them to accept their allocated numbers. But that will not be nearly enough to make Plan Bay Area attractive to all the region ' s cities. " Since (SB 375) has no enforcement teeth in it and was much more the carrot as opposed to the stick approach, the question is, are there any carrots that are going to be available to create some sort of an incentive, "  said Jake Mackenzie, vice mayor of Rohnert Park and MTC commissioner. The plan relies to a great extent on Priority Development Areas (PDAs), to which the majority of new growth will be directed. PDAs will be sprinkled throughout the region ' s cities and, presumably, entail a range of incentives and supporting policies to facilitate development. To make PDAs worthwhile, planners say that the region will have to abandon its current formula of allocating infrastructure funds and instead start awarding them according to merit. In essence, cities that are willing to openly embrace their PDAs and attract development to them would receive a more generous share of public funds, leaving reluctant cities to fend for themselves. " It ' s clear that there are some cities that really are stepping up … those are the places that are going to need to get the lion ' s share of our dollars, "  said Stephanie Reyes policy director at the Greenbelt Alliance. The implementation of PDAs is just one issue that is likely to dominate regionwide discussions, which begin in earnest in May with a series of public workshops. Portraying the region ' s growth in such broad strokes, the IVF appears straightforward enough. It is, however, intended largely as a conversation piece around which countless discussions will revolve in the coming months and years. That ' s where Plan Bay Area and One Bay Area become public relations campaigns as much as they are planning documents. The challenge of getting literally millions of stakeholders on board is one that will face all four of the state ' s major urban regions as they all develop their own Sustainable Communities Strategies. " But when it comes back to the county and to the local level, I still don ' t think that we ' ve properly captured the attention of our colleagues, and we certainly haven ' t captured the public ' s attention, "  said Mackenzie. Bay Area planners say that the buy-in necessary for the plan ' s success might come more easily in the Bay Area than it will in the state ' s other three, less geographically distinctive regions. As diverse as the nine counties are  –  from vineyard-laced Napa to the city-county of San Francisco  –  the planners behind Plan Bay Area are hoping to capitalize on the nine counties '  physical and psychological connections to the bay. " The Bay Area also rallied around other things too, building of bridges and building of BART, "  said Rentschler.  " All this groundwork has been laid for us and asking people in the Bay Area to live in a more dense setting is actually asking someone to take advantage of these great assets that we already have here. " This mentality, planners say, has produced a rich tradition of regional planning that might not link, for instance, Redlands to Santa Monica or Oceanside to Poway in quite the same way. " I think we have a chance better than others because we have the Bay to rally around, "  said Rentschler.  " That ' s a great asset to have. " If Bay Area stakeholders are to disagree, a host of opportunities for dissention await. Though SB 375 seeks the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, many insist that it should also lead to  –  or at least not impede  –  economic growth. Scott Zengel, vice president at the business group Bay Area Council, said that, as currently articulated, the IVS fails to draw a necessary connection between population growth, housing locations, and jobs. " Generally what we see as missing from the process — and this goes from performance targets to the Initial Vision Scenario — is in-depth economics and jobs indicators and analysis and scenario-running, "  said Zengel .  " Jobs are an input for the model. From our perspective, it ' s a bit backwards from how it ' s supposed to be. " Planners argue, however, that job-creation simply is not a part of the planning process. In fact, they say that the plan will naturally improve the region ' s economic fortunes and that any attempt to guide job growth would be far-fetched at best and inappropriate at worst. " We're not doing an activist (population) projection, "  said Rentschler.  " On the other hand, we're doing an activist projection on where we want people to reside. That is true. " Some cities, especially small ones, may not take kindly to an effort that implicitly links them with the region ' s major centers, no matter how light a city's burden may be. " Some small cities that have a RHNA number that ' s less than double-digits will somehow hit the roof that this is just unfair, "  said Rentschler.  " For some folks that just want to be left alone, I don ' t think they ' re going to be so enamored of this process. " Others worry that places appropriate for residential growth today may not be appropriate in 25 years. In fact, by then some places might not even be places anymore. That ' s because the inexorable emergence of climate change and especially sea-level rise could make some low-lying parts of the Bay Area uninhabitable. In fact, a great deal of the developed land ringing the bay is landfill, built up scarcely higher than the current sea level. Plan Bay Area must, they say, account for adaptation as well as mitigation. " We ' re going to have to deal with the impacts of the emissions that are already in the atmosphere, "  said Will Travis, executive director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.  " We need to be doing two things at once: Trying to avoid the unmanageable by reducing greenhouse gases and manage the unavoidable by adapting to the impacts of climate change. " Travis said that some of the area ' s most prominent areas are threatened, including downtown San Francisco. Meanwhile, Reyes of the Greenbelt Alliance said that she was concerned about the 3% of household growth that is projected for greenfields and not infill locations. The crucial piece that the IVF intentionally does not yet account for is the transportation connections that will, planners hope, enable new and existing residents to get around and among these new population nodes without despoiling the atmosphere as much as residents currently do. " We hope the final plan will do more to affect land use patterns, and we just haven ' t started to change the transportation investment and policies, "  said Hobson.  " We have to know what those distributions are like so that we plan for the transportation scenarios to match up with those. " Contacts & Resources One Bay Area www.onebayarea.org Jeff Hobson, Deputy Director ,  TransForm, (510) 740.3150 Jake Mackenzie, Vice Mayor, City of Rohnert Park, (707) 588-2226 Stephanie Reyes ,  Policy Director ,  Greenbelt Alliance, (415) 543-6771 Randy Rentschler, Director  of  Legislation and Public Affairs ,  Metropolitan Transportation Commission/ Bay Area Toll Authority, ( 510) 817-5700 Will Travis, Executive Director, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission,  (415) 352-3600 Scott Zengel ,  Vice President, Bay Area Family of Funds ,  Bay Area Council, (415) 946-8716