Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is reportedly set to announce his selection of Michael LoGrande as the city's next planning director. A 13-year veteran of the department, LoGrande currently serves as its chief zoning administrator. He replaces Gail Goldberg, who had served as planning director for four years before announcing her retirement three weeks ago.  LoGrande's path to the directorship contrasts with that of Goldberg, who arrived in 2005 to a department far different from the one she is leaving. LoGrande has spent more of his career at the department and rose up the internal ranks via the relatively low-profile office of zoning administration. Goldberg went to planning school relatively late in her professional life but quickly rose up the ranks in the San Diego Planning Department to become its director. She was appointed much fanfare in the midst of the mid-2000s real estate boom, and she immediately pledged to revamp the city's numerous community plans and to support Villaraigosa's vision for a more dense, more livable city. Many of those ambitions were hampered by severe budget cuts and an entrenched bureaucratic structure that Goldberg inherited. The debate surrounding Goldberg's replacement was whether he or she would attempt to revive Goldberg's desire to "do real planning" or whether case processing and internal reorganization would take precedence.  LoGrande now takes over a department that has been depleted by layoffs and early retirement and that has been the subject of a recent scathing city audit that faulted the department for not implementing reforms quickly enough. In particular, the planned "12 to 2" streamlining program, in which the Planning Department would handle approvals that used to require the attention of ten other city departments, remains to be fully implemented.  Villaraigosa will make a formal announcement of LoGrande's selection on Monday. He must still be confirmed by the City Council.  -- Josh Stephens

Some thoughts on the LA Times' Christopher Hawthorne's r ather brutal drubbing of the recently completed Robert F. Kennedy Education Center (three schools encompassing K-12) on the former site of the Ambassador Hotel near downtown Los Angeles. Hawthorne contends that the Los Angeles Unified School District has given the city the worst of both worlds. The new school complex tries to preserve some of the most historic aspects of the old hotel, which had been empty and closed for more than 15 years following the Northridge earthquake of 1994. After a bitter battle with preservationists, LAUSD's decision-which was handed on to its architects-was to preserve certain historic aspects of the hotel, while demolishing others. The constraints imposed by the preservation project, in turn, held back the new project from being something original and impressive, according to Hawthorne. So, in Hawthorne's assessment, the new project is successful neither as preservation nor as a new, stand-alone project. I can see his point about preservation, but I think he is beating up the school complex (and by extension the district and its architects, Gonzalez Goodale Architects) needlessly to make his point. Hawthorne's argument is strongest on the hodge-podge approach to preservation. In an analysis I wrote for CP&DR a few months ago, I praised the approach for preserving most important urban design aspect of the original hotel: The deep Wilshire Green front lawn of the hotel shored up the four-story fa-ade of the new high school, which closely follows the dimensions of the original hotel fa-ade.  Inside, a coffee shop by Paul Williams has been turned into a teacher's lounge, while the original Cocoanut Grove nightclub has been restored to something close to its 1940s appearance. More importantly, the school provides hillside views and green spaces to students in a neighborhood with very little open space. This campus is a pleasant place to be for 4,200 school children who were formerly bused out of the neighborhood. As a placeholder for the memory of the Ambassador Hotel, the RFK Education Center probably falls short. It's not really a preservation project, but a brand-new structure that, for better or worse, wants to make a gesture toward the past. If Hawthorne thinks that the gesture is half-hearted and unsuccessful, that's his privilege. If we examine the school outside of preservation issues, however, the RFK Education Center is a handsome, utilitarian group of buildings. Although not a masterpiece, it symbolizes the positive force of public investment in a poor neighborhood, and provides good-looking elevations on all four sides.  True, the glamour is gone and another piece of LA history has largely vanished. That said, a living school campus is better than a dead hotel. --Morris Newman Editor's note: Correction appended.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George is probably most widely known for his 2008 majority opinion striking down the state's prohibition on same-sex marriages, and for his 2009 opinion begrudgingly upholding voters' ability to ban same-sex marriage and effectively reverse the court's earlier ruling. But in land use planning and development circles, George's legacy is one of centrism and consensus. Time and again, George has corralled all of his colleagues into unanimous decisions on sticky land use regulatory issues. In light of George's announcement last week that he will not seek re-election this November, a quick review of the George court's land use decisions is in order. In 2003, a state appellate court ruled that the method of choosing Coastal Commission members was constitutionally flawed because members appointed by the Assembly and Senate served at-will terms of office. The ruling had the potential to devastate the c`ommission's ongoing regulatory activities. State lawmakers responded by changing the system to provide their appointees with fixed four-year terms. The state Supreme Court in Marine Forests Soc'y v. California Coastal Comm'n , 36 Cal. 4th 1 (2005) overturned the appellate panel's decision. Although the high court questioned the original, at-will terms for appointees, the court focused its ruling on the amended, fixed-term appointments. The new version was just fine, the court determined. What's more, George went out of his way in his opinion to confirm the legitimacy of past Coastal Commission decisions. George's decision angered property rights activists who had battled the Commission for decades, but what the chief justice did was prevent chaos. A less-clear ruling could have opened the commission to all sorts of legal and administrative challenges. In 2007, the court issued a ruling for planners and, one could argue, for community control. The case involved a City of Hanford zoning regulation that prohibited most furniture sales in a planned commercial (PC) zoning district. The regulation was intended to help preserve the economic viability of downtown Hanford, which had nice collection of furniture stores in its mix of uses. A retailer located in the PC district challenged the ordinance as an unconstitutional limit on economic activity and won at the Fifth District Court of Appeal. But George led the state high court's unanimous reversal. "In the present case, it is clear that the zoning ordinance's general prohibition on the sale of furniture in the PC district — although concededly intended, at least in part, to regulate competition — was adopted to promote the legitimate public purpose of preserving the economic viability of the Hanford downtown business district, rather than to serve any impermissible private anti-competitive purpose," George wrote in Hernandez v. City of Hanford , 41 Ca. 4th 279 (2007). Again, the court headed off chaos, as the Fifth District's decision could have been used as a basis to challenge all sorts of Euclidian zoning regulation. During recent years, the state high court has taken an unprecedented interest in the fine details of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court has issued nine CEQA decision during the past four years (including one case dealing more with timber harvest plans than CEQA), and eight of those nine decisions were by 7-0. One ruling had a single judge's concurring opinion, and one ruling brought a lone dissent. It's true the court hasn't had a real wildcard from the left or right since Janice Rogers Brown departed in 2005. Still, only through the chief justice's leadership could the seven-member court find unanimity on nearly every CEQA issue. And, taken as a whole, the CEQA decisions carve a path right down the middle. Neither environmentalists nor developers are on a big winning streak at the court. This isn't to say the George court hasn't had sharp disagreements on land use law. On issues of due process for property owners and the taking of private property, the court has often split 4-3 or 5-2 in favor of regulators, with George in the majority. In general, though, those rulings upheld the regulatory system devised by voters or legislators, and implemented by various agencies. The rulings were conservative in that they did not significantly depart from legal precedent or well-established practices. One final point: Some recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on land use matters have provided very little useful direction for planners, developers or anyone else involved. In the most recent decision, involving the rather bizarre notion of "judicial takings," it's difficult to figure out even who won. At the California Supreme Court – at least during the George years – there has been little need to parse tea leaves or ask law professors to select the winner. Decisions may be fairly narrowly drawn, but they are clear and often useful to practitioners. Let's hope such decisions keep coming under the state's next chief justice. – Paul Shigley

The Vision California modeling exercise, however meticulous in its calculation methods, still relies on a slate of assumptions that call for some vigilant critiques. Calthorpe & Associates, which devised Vision California based on previous work, have stated elsewhere that the key to the global warming crisis lies in curbing "sprawl," that pejorative term for low-density suburban development. To the extent that a large lot, single-family home with a multi-car garage represents a choice, it is in Calthorpe's view neither a preferable nor sustainable one. To gain traction in the public consciousness, the rationale for a smart growth alternative is always carefully constructed around the public policy issue  du jour . Recently, it has been about global warming. Now a plethora of research linking sprawl to the obesity crisis has provided additional ammunition to the smart growth cause, as have the economic and housing market crises. The report's greener scenarios may indeed present a multi-benefit package that can be justified on many policy grounds, but the ubiquity of smart growth as a solution to every environmental or social crisis has had the effect of diluting its intellectual credibility. When it is applied generically, smart growth becomes less an inventive response to specific problems and more of a fixed idea. The Vision California "Rapid Fire" model is intended to be used by localities as they see fit. Even so, to label the development scenarios in  Vision California  as "options" – and to imply that ever family across the state will be $6,500 richer for them – is misleading on another level, as if land use planning in California were not an utterly decentralized affair, resistant to orchestrated regional efforts. Judging from the recent defeat of California Senate Bill 1445, which would have added a mere $1 to vehicle license registration fees for SB 375 implementation this approach is still a non-starter in California. Of course, to worry over the political feasibility of a smart growth future is somewhat of an easy target. The lack of an implementation strategy is actually less troubling than some of the assumptions and claims underlying the report itself. For one, studies on the relationship between household densities and VMT have proven to be inconclusive about the VMT-reduction benefits of "compact" development. Proximity to transit may encourage less driving in some instances, but the rate of vehicle ownership does not necessarily decrease. Though the correlation between car ownership and driving is complex at best, the fact remains that some residents may commute to work via public transportation but still opt to use their cars for leisure and personal trips. If we dig deeper into report's assumptions, VMT reduction is premised upon "increased transit service and/or new … development" in transit-oriented districts. This, in turn, requires additional infrastructure.  On this point, the report claims that the costs of urban infill (in terms of infrastructure) are significantly less than those of greenfield development, based on the "efficiencies of providing service to higher concentrations of jobs and housing." In reality, the retrofitting of sewer/water systems and the construction of new transit/road systems necessary to accommodate smart growth levels of densification can be extremely expensive. Moreover, the report focuses only on the capital costs of infrastructure and "does not yet analyze the costs for operations and maintenance." As any urban planner knows, the cumulative ongoing costs to local cities and agencies of operating and maintaining a transit system can very well exceed the original capital costs, even in present value (discounted) terms. This omission in the infrastructure cost comparison skews the results decidedly in favor of urban infill in this initial report. Project officials say that future generations of the Vision California modeling tool will account for these operational costs – and many other factors – so planners should keep a close eye on those numbers. The Smart Growth coalition has made for some strange bedfellows. Environmentalists are excited about the potential to preserve land and consume less. Developers like the concept of higher densities, as long as market prices can support them. The investment in transportation and infrastructure needed to support TOD is by definition capital-intensive, ensuring a steady supply of lucrative contracts for the construction and financial services sectors, especially with the burgeoning trend toward public-private partnerships. This alliance has come together in the Vision California report, with the CHSRA leading the charge for an 800-mile, high-speed intercity passenger rail corridor stretching from Sacramento to San Diego. In light of that project's estimated $42 billion price tag, we can only hope that Vision California is right – that the benefits of Smart Growth and transit-oriented development are rich enough to justify the enormous costs of building the infrastructure required for a Green Future. Adam Christian is an urban planner and is currently working on LA Metro's public-private partnership program.  He is the author of a 2009 Harvard Kennedy School case study on California High-Speed Rail.

Of the many raps on urban planning post-World War II, one of the biggest was that it was led by the head and not by the heart. Engineers made precise calculations that yielded efficient highways but not much by way of soul. Though that trend has largely been abandoned, the release of a new, ambitious study may usher in a new approach to empirically based planning.  The Vision California project attempts to assess the stakes of different growth scenarios that may develop across California by 2050. Commissioned jointly by the California High Speed Rail Authority and the state Strategic Growth Council and created by the Berkeley planning firm of Calthorpe & Associates, the $1.5-million first phase of Vision California estimates dollar value of potential growth patterns – most notably, the compact development promoted by SB 375 . In its broadest strokes, Vision California's model suggests that, over the next 40 years, a deliberately compact development pattern will consume only 1,800 square miles of land instead of 5,400 and will save individual households up to $6,400 annually in 2050. It also compares a cumulative infrastructure investment of $183 billion versus one of more than double that amount under the status quo. That is according to the most optimistic of the four growth scenarios that the report presents. Those scenarios range from a "business-as-usual" approach to a "green future," which assumes that a combination of policy interventions and trends have spurred compact development statewide. The report also predicts related outcomes such as greenhouse gas emissions, transportation costs per household, and residential energy use. It does not, however, estimate the cost of maintaining infrastructure or of operating transit. These conclusions are similar to conclusions of similar regional studies done by Calthorpe and others in Portland, Salt Lake City, and other western metros over the past decade. These calculations come from Vision California's "Rapid Fire" modeling tool, a spreadsheet-based calculator that enables planners to plug in relevant data for their localities and calculate the costs associated with a range of possible land use decisions. The Vision California model is intended to go beyond the regional boundaries of blueprint planning and instead provide information on statewide growth scenarios including, but not limited to, those that surround the stations of the state's proposed high speed rail network. In unveiling the model, planners essentially treated the entire state as a single scenario, with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. The project's ambitious scope may carry with it inherent uncertainties. (See sidebar "Vision California: Science or Value Judgment?" ) "They are very, very difficult to model with any degree of certainty particularly over extended periods of time," said Richard Lyon, vice president for governmental affairs at the California Building Industry Association. "They certainly can provide kind of a pedagogic exercise....but in the end these systems modify themselves and they are in many cases incapable of being modeled with any degree."  Despite the variables, Vision California and the Rapid Fire spreadsheet tool, however, are designed to inspired dialog among planning agencies and across regions. The partnership between HSRA and SCG arose a year-and-a-half ago, when HSRA had already commissioned Calthorpe to design a model to help guide development around potential stations on the state's proposed 600-mile high speed rail network. At the time, SCG was also interested in developing tools that localities could use in order to assess the value of collaborative and regional land use planning.  "Vision California started off as more of a mode-centric -- in this case high speed rail effort -- but the same principle needed to be applied multimodal and across the geographic boundaries of the state," said Gregg Albright, Deputy Secretary for Environmental Policy & Integration at the California Business, Transportation & Housing Agency. Albright is a member of SCG's multi-agency team.  "Fifty years ago those weren't built to do what they're asked to do….they were built initially to design roadways," said Joe DiStefano, project lead. "We've set out to build a model that can hopefully see through some of the differences in the models and provide a common framework, if you will, for reviewing or assessing how varying regions and the state as a whole would perform under varying land use scenarios."  The next generation of Rapid Fire modeling tool that the Vision California team will be developing over the next year or so will be map-based. It will allow planners to visualize the effects of different land use patterns as they appear in the built environment, rather than as a gross number on a spreadsheet.  In many ways, the modeling suggests benefits that will accrue to localities as a result of efforts to implement AB 32 and SB 375. But the "green future" scenario would likely require the state, regions, and localities to go above and beyond the incentives and regulations that accompany those laws.  "We're trying to contextualize what has become a climate change debate and hopefully informing a deeper understanding...that it's not just about climate change. It's about costs, it's about energy, it's about public health," said DiStefano.  "SB 732 made it clear that the Strategic Growth Council needs to look for ways to provide information -- modeling, data -- to help local decision-making," said Albright, referring to the 2008 law that gave rise to the SGC. "What can we do to equip and empower localities to help them recognize they don't have to be fearful of these (policies) coming down from the state."  Although the report largely confirms the "double-bottom-line" economic and environmental benefits that planners and environmentalists have long touted regarding smart growth, even the suggestion that a single model could capture all the complexities of regional land use strikes some as hubristic.  San Diego County Supervisor and Air Resources Board Member Ron Roberts said shortly after the report's release in late June that ARB staff members were already citing its conclusions without offering much by way of context.  "I thought that was a pretty preposterous number, and it turns out that that number is their expectation in the year 2050," said Roberts. "I thought for our staff to just throw it out there ...was misleading.  What you're going to save in 2050 just is not of much interest to me." "I think when we draw figures like that it's an attempt to overhype the benefits, and that concerns me because I think ultimately that calls into question any legitimacy that there is for the concept," added Roberts.  Moreover, even if the results of the Rapid Fire model are internally valid, their applicability to the real world remains hazy for some.  Lyon, of the CBIA, said that the biggest variable that the model may not be able to capture is simply the preferences of California residents. Lyon said that many homeowners decide where to live primarily according to safety and decent schools – regardless of how much they could save by living in a green neighorhood. "That's the challenge: to address issues of safety, schools, that's where they need to focus their time and attention," said Lyon. "Any notion that government or state government or modeling scenarios is going to somehow transform development patterns or convince people to move back to urban areas is fanciful." The report's authors contend that the Rapid Fire model employs peer-reviewed assumptions and metrics regarding the dollar value of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, fuel, building energy, land consumption, and infrastructure. The goal, they say, is not to replace traditional fine-grain transportation models but rather to provide broad analyses. This would allow planners to compare the outcomes of different scenarios at almost any scale, from the neighborhood to the region.  Despite the dramatic difference in developed land between the two scenarios, DiStefano cautioned that "we would not become Manhattan." He suggested that the "green future" scenario might instead resemble the mixed use community of 10,000 residents that has been developed on 4,700 acres at the site of Denver's former Stapleton Airport.  "For the most part the greener scenarios….the majority of development does not occur in tall multifamily developments," said DiStefano. "The benefits that we see are simply in a more compact version of what people are used to today….organized in a way that allows people to walk and bike, and take shorter drives."  Though the results of this initial would seem to provide unequivocal endorsement of compact planning and heightened investment in transit and other alternative forms of transportation, its authors are quick to note that the report and any subsequent calculations using the Rapid Fire model are intended solely to provide local officials with food for thought and perhaps reveal costs and benefits that were heretofore invisible. They are not intended to drive policy in a particular direction. "I don't think it stands for any particular way of making decisions or looking at decisions," said Bryant. "It's a tool that will develop that will allow …planners and anyone interested to plug in their own information and their own assumptions and draw their own conclusions on decisions they're making." Vision California indicates that the public sector would be plugging in a tremendous amount of money to facilitate more compact development. However, it also implies that the relative benefits of transit investments – as well as savings in fuel and other auto-oriented costs – far outweigh those of, for instance, highways. "It's not an issue of cost. You're going to grow one way or another. If you grow in this way…you're not changing how we are; you're changing how you're going to grow," said Leavitt. "That would be there either way. In order to grow you either build additional freeways or you build in ways that reduce subdivisions."  Leavitt said, however, that realizing the green future scenario does not necessarily depend on build-out of the estimated $40 billion high speed rail system.  Ultimately, the benefits of even the relatively modest investment in Vision California may be elusive. Whatever dollar value the model assigns to compact development, ultimately this may be one trend that has already taken root.  "I don't think we need Vision California telling us about smart growth," said Roberts, the San Diego supervisor. "I think the local communities get it with respect to smart growth – it's apple pie and motherhood. There aren't that many people who are proponents of stupid growth."   Contacts & Resources:  Vision California Official Site  R. Gregg Albright, Deputy Secretary for Environmental Policy & Integration; Business, Transportation & Housing Agency, (916) 324-7502  Cynthia Bryant, Chair, Strategic Growth Council ; Director, Office of Planning & Research, (916) 322-2318 Joe DiStefano, Project Lead, Calthorpe & Assoc. , (510) 548-6800  Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director, California High Speed Rail Authority , (916) 324-1541 Richard Lyon, Vice President for Governmental Affairs, California Building Industry Association, (916) 443-7933 Ron Roberts, Supervisor, San Diego County, (619) 531-5544

It doesn't matter which superlative you pick: 25 Los Angeleses. 100 San Joses. 2,000 Poways. Nearly three Californias. That's how many people will be added to the United States population by the year 2050. They are not all going to live in Los Angeles, San Jose, or Poway, but a great many of them are going to live in California, thus pushing the state's population to about 60 million, according to the state Department of Finance. In his latest book, The Next 100 Million: America in 2050 , Los Angeles-based author and urbanist Joel Kotkin discuses who these 100 million new Americans are going to be, where they are going to live, and what type of lifestyles they will lead. They will, according to Kotkin, be more diverse than ever, but they will also drive familiar land use patterns by filling out suburban areas rather than flocking to larger, denser urban cores. CP&DR Editor Josh Stephens spoke with Kotkin about how these trends may play out in California. What proportion of America's 100 million more people are going to end up in California? Migration to California is nothing like what it used to be, that's for sure. The projections of California's population have been ratcheted down a bit in recent years. If you have a weak economy, if housing prices on the coast remain prohibitive, if you have a planning regime that makes it difficult to build single family homes, it's conceivable that people will go elsewhere. Are the state's planners and policy makers ready for that influx? I think the planners to a large extent have been drinking the same Kool-Aid and they think they can force people to live in higher densities than they have generally wanted to do. I think there's very little concern about the economic development aspects. Just like a lot of, if you will, "cowboy developers" built huge tracts but didn't think about jobs and amenities, you have planners who are thinking about design and amenities but aren't thinking about jobs. I think there's a market for high-density. I don't think it's huge, and as the millennial generation gets older they will want a townhouse or single-family house, and if they can't find it in California they'll find it somewhere else like Texas. Is it OK for California if people want to move to Texas? If you already have your money and you're comfortable, having more people in California probably doesn't do much for your life. But if you're building a business and you depend on the migration of workers into your areas as part of your workforce, then it's probably a negative. As somebody who came to California and always found it to be an exciting environment, I don't see the same excitement and same level of dynamism as I did 20-25 years ago. I hear my students talking about moving back to St. Louis or Texas. Maybe this is California going into its late middle age, and maybe that's just an evolutionary step. When I go to a place like Houston, Austin, or Dallas the upward trajectory is very strong. In California, I don't feel that as much as I did before. Is there a place for further density in urban cores? There's certainly a place for it, but I think the market for the density was vastly exaggerated. If you look at the condo buildings that are in trouble or have gone rental, I would not exactly call it a great success. There's a role for density, but it should be market-driven, not planning-driven. It's the plain vanilla neighborhoods that are going to be the people who stay, who belong to the synagogues and churches, who are going to vote, who are going to live in that neighborhood for 20-30 years. A lot of the young people who live in the high-density housing are transitory. You're not going to build your community as much on those areas. What places in California are you most optimistic about? In the San Gabriel Valley the Arcadias and places like that are fascinating laboratories. And Ontario. What I like about Ontario is that is has the airport, transportation connections, a strong job market. It's the connecting point between LA County and the Inland Empire. I like Burbank. Downtown Burbank is in many ways livelier than downtown Los Angeles. You see people on the street and a mix of movie theaters and shops and restaurants, and it's really in a human-scale space. Irvine has a very high percentage of its population living and working in the same area, and that's a direction we're going to have to go in to achieve sustainability with a growing population. The one thing we can do is try to get people to do more at home or close to home. Which places are you most concerned about? By far the biggest worries would be South LA, Oakland, and of course all the outer-ring suburbs: San Bernardino, Moreno Valley, the parts of the Central Valley that are close to the Bay Area but have an insufficient job base. If the Port of LA declines along with what's left of the industrial economy, those areas could be in serious trouble. The Santa Monicas, San Franciscos, and Palo Altos of the world will do fine. They're attractive and have strong economic institutions. But Oakland is a very different story from San Francisco. People will pay for density in exchange for lots of amenities, but if there's not much amenity, then what's the point of the density? As the state and its cities mature, what should the center cities do? What should they do to avoid being just "luxury" cities? I look at what LA could do, and the first and foremost thing is to improve the climate for entprenhurship and encourage poeple to start and grow companies. Right now, that's not happening. Our losses in Los Angeles County are much deeper than in most of the other urban areas of America. We need to build up our infrastructure and have a much better economic climate. Our economy is getting weaker and weaker, so our ability to invest and build up is also weaker. Arnold and Villaraigsoa talk about green jobs, but to have green jobs you have to have jobs. You can't get people to retrofit their houses for energy savings when you don't have any money. You're generally bullish on suburbs. Which suburban areas are going to have trouble as the population grows? The ones that don't have jobs. The high unemployment in the Inland Empire is made up in part by people who used to work in LA and have lost their jobs. Places that have not generated economies to support their housing are really vulnerable. How does diversity play out in California these next 40 years? It's a real advantage. California is a leader in all the things you associate with diversity. There's been enormous growth both in Southern California and in Silicon Valley tied to immigrant networks from India and China, and also other countries like Israel. These are great strengths because those ethnic groups are probably willing to pay a little more and deal with a little more hassle to be in a place where there are cultural institutions, restaurants, and connections. The immigrant economy is something we have and can build on. But you have to invest in skills education and infrastructure. And one thing is certain: many of those immigrants are going to want single-family homes. Take that out of the equation, and they're going to start looking elsewhere. This interview has been edited and condensed.

Legislators in Sacramento are currently considering an assembly bill that, though it originated with the City of Los Angeles in mind, proposes some significant changes in California Redevelopment Law (CRL).  AB 2531 , sponsored by Felipe Fuentes (D-Los Angeles) is an important step forward for the state economy for a variety of reasons. The bill's language would alter current law by allowing redevelopment agencies to focus their interest on both the physical removal of blight – through traditional brick-and-mortar redevelopment projects (already allowed in current redevelopment law) – and the more intangible economic development aspects of job creation and development. In other words, RDAs would be free not just to facilitate development but also to support businesses that would operate in redevelopment areas. Furthermore, RDAs could once again assist in economic development through the creation and facilitation of small business incubators. This bill has received support from a broad range of interest groups, from the Los Angeles County Business Federation to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Its passage looks promising. However, opposing arguments should be properly addressed and placated. The primary argument against AB 2531 is that of mission drift. Some bureaucrats believe that expanding the scope of RDAs beyond physical construction projects will amount to a fundamental change in the purpose of redevelopment law. But remember, RDAs were established to eliminate blight and all its effects. Some of the most apparent manifestations of blight are vacant, unused, or underutilized buildings. Neighborhoods with these types of characteristics often lack jobs or employment centers. Any economic development that improves these elements and fills these buildings also helps remove blight. The second main concern about AB 2531 has been voiced by the Statewide Federation of Counties, who view this extended scope as a threat to county tax revenues. However, the California Legislature has deemed this a "nonfiscal" bill because it does not expand any agency's traditional fiscal toolbox (tax increment financing, debt extension, etc…). AB 2531 will simply broaden the scope of activities that RDAs can fund from their existing revenue sources – it would not increase those resources and it would not decrease counties' receipts. Even if these explanations do not convince opponents of the bill, they should rest easy in knowing that AB 2531 has a built-in sunset clause. If the proposed amendments prove unsatisfactory to legislators and their constituents, the bill will repeal itself in 2018. Of course, Sacramento can always pass legislation to extend the bill if it is successful. AB 2531 also includes a promising amendment for the City of Los Angeles. Currently, the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) is limited in its reach to  redevelopment districts  that are both non-contiguous – the city has over two dozen of them – and that of course do not encompass all areas that might be considered blighted or under-developed in the city. By contrast, most redevelopment authorities are part of the city government, and they can nimbly split their time between redevelopment areas and citywide projects (using tools other than those reserved for redevelopment areas). Because CRA/LA is an independent agency, it cannot focus any attention outside of project areas. The proposed amendments would allow CRA/LA, when directed by City Council, to apply for state or federal economic development grants and apply these monies to projects anywhere within city boundaries. Obviously tax increments must and should remain within redevelopment project area boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the expertise of an organization like LA/CRA must as well. While AB 2531 is an attempt at fixing this acute problem in the City of Los Angeles, the bill will allow other RDAs across the state to focus their efforts on projects that may or may not need new construction. Currently, if Business Owner X is located in an economically disadvantaged redevelopment area and needs to purchase new equipment, a RDA cannot provide funds because X isn't proposing any new construction. If AB 2531 passes, Business Owner X (along with owners A through Z) can turn to RDAs for a variety of project assistance, as long as it helps the economy through job creation and increased tax revenue. If the economy improves by 2018 (fingers crossed), and this expansion of an RDA's scope is no longer viewed as necessary, AB 2531 will fade into the sunset. Until then, given the current economic climate, legislators should be applauded for expanding these definitions. CP&DR contributor Nat Gale is a planner in the Los Angeles Mayor's Office of Economic and Business Policy. The foregoing opinions are his alone.

An agreement between the County of San Diego and the state Department of Corrections to site a state prison reentry facility does not require the county to conduct environmental review prior to entering into the agreement because it did not constitute a commitment to a definite course of action, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. In the agreement, the county identified potential locations for the reentry facility in exchange for preference in the award of state financing for county jails. San Diego County entered into the agreement with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in September 2008. Under the agreement, the county identified two potential sites for placement of a reentry facility for state prisoners: county-owned land in Otay Mesa and state-owned land at the state's Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. If the Department of Corrections were to select one of the sites, the county would be given preferential access to $100 million in assistance to finance the construction of County jail facilities.  Before either location was chosen, the City of Santee sued San Diego County, arguing the agreement constituted a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it committed the county to a particular site for the reentry facility, and committed the county to expanding the Los Colinas Detention Facility, a county jail for women that is located within Santee's city limits. The county demurred. The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the demurrer, and the appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling. Writing for the unanimous three-judge appellate panel, Justice Patricia Benke explained that CEQA requires an environmental impact report (EIR) when a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. "Approval" means a decision by a public agency that commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to the project. Citing extensively to the state Supreme Court's decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood , (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 (See CP&DR Legal Digest, December 2008 ), Benke discussed the "balancing of competing factors" involved in determining when in the process an EIR or negative declaration should be prepared. An agency "must not ‘take any action' that significantly furthers a project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public project'" before conducting CEQA review, Benke wrote, citing Save Tara. An agency, however, is not deemed to have approved a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, § 21100 and § 21151 unless the proposal before the agency is well enough defined to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment. In Save Tara, the state Supreme Court found that the development agreement at issue constituted a project because (1) the city had announced that it was determined to proceed with the development at issue, (2) the city had acted in accordance with that determination, (3) the city had substantially contributed to the project, and (4) the city was willing to bind itself, by a draft agreement, to convey the property. The Fourth District compared Save Tara with Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Assn. , (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 113 (See CP&DR Legal Digest, November 2009 ). In the latter case, the court determined that the adoption of a transportation financing plan did not constitute a commitment to any of the transportation projects listed in the plan. The Sustainable Transportation Advocates court found the financing plan was not a commitment, because the construction of the projects was dependent on obtaining further financing from other agencies, the projects themselves were only described in general terms, the list itself was subject to later amendment, and the projects were subject to CEQA review prior to construction. The Fourth District considered both the face of the agreement between San Diego County and the Department of Corrections for siting a reentry facility as well as the surrounding circumstances before determining the agreement did not represent a commitment that triggered CEQA review. On its face, the siting agreement did not select a particular location for the reentry facility, nor did it make any reference to the LCDF. Citing Save Tara, Benke wrote that because the face of the agreement does not identify a site for the reentry facility and has no unconditional or certain impact on the LCDF expansion, the agreement "does not describe any project which would be subject to any meaningful CEQA analysis. Rather, the face of the agreement places it squarely in the realm of preliminary agreements needed to explore and formulate project for which CEQA review would be entirely premature." Looking at the circumstances surrounding the siting agreement, the court considered the fact that the Department of Corrections had identified water and infrastructure improvements that would be necessary for the Otay Mesa site, had determined the cost of the site, and had prepared a grading plan and vicinity map for the project. The court found these actions were only preliminary, exploratory steps for which environmental review cannot be required. Because nothing in the record "suggests the signing agreement has from a practical perspective foreclosed consideration of alternatives to any project or mitigation measures for those projects, the trial court properly sustained the county's demurrer," Benke wrote. The court further denied the City of Santee's request to amend its lawsuit to allege that, if the Department of Corrections chooses the Otay Mesa site, the state will proceed with the project notwithstanding any environmental review. Such "double-barreled speculation" does not require environmental review, the court concluded. The Case: City of Santee v. County of San Diego , No. D055310, 2010 DJDAR 10129. Filed June 7, 2010. Certified for publication June 29, 2010.  The Lawyers: For City of Santee: Michelle Ouellette, Best, Best & Krieger, (951) 686-1450. For San Diego County: C. Ellen Pilsecker, deputy county counsel, (619) 531-6229. For California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: David R. E. Aladjem, Downey Brand, (916) 444-1000.

(Editor's Note, in regard to the following blog post: The California Planning & Development Report disclaims any belief, credence or even any wish-it-were-true feelings in regard to spiritualims, ghosts, spooks, spectres, poltergeists and similar phenomena—even if one of our correspondents of longest standing, Morris Newman, seems to be crediting his most recent work products to the honored dead. If he's just in a temporary funk, we can try to overlook it. If this line of supernatural thinking continues however, an exchange of memos may be in order, if you know what we mean.) Dear readers, I understand, and even anticipate your skepticism when I try to tell you, as gently as I can, that I was driving my daughter's 1999 olive green Dodge Neon southward from Berkeley on the Monday of the July 4th weekend, after fetching my oldest boy from school. It was about that point in the afternoon that I began to feel even more fuzzy headed than usual. As if instructed by a Sixth Sense, I glanced sidelong at the passenger side, where No. 1 Son had been sitting, and there was an old man with a flowing, snowy white beard, who bore a striking resemblance to the immortal Bard of Camden, N.J. After exchanging a few pleasantries about the weather and the extraordinary mileage on the Neon, the gentleman recited the following poem to me, as we drove down the length of Interstate 5. I enjoyed his company, because the ride is usually so monotonous. He recited the following to me; I took careful notes.  You have taken me by storm, O Interstate! Tho' I didn't want to yield myself so easily to the blandishments of the vile road, O the crassness, the money grubbing! The naïve wonder of urbanites for the commonplace: Grape vines, cattle, stone fruit orchards, McDonalds! We will someday stop at every McDonalds Between Stockton and San Diego, if it kills us,  That's one Youtube video that'll go viral, for sure! Yes, I love Interstate 5. The snob in me dies. This is the Main Street of California. This is small business and farmers repositioning, Fruitstands side by side the shrieking corporate signs: "We're from Nowhere's-ville, baby, and You're coming with Us." Interstate 5 is all about travel, So interesting, so energetic, so American.   Little travel villages popping up everywhere!  We stopped at Petro just north of the Grapevine,  There are actually two (!) Petros in the same roadside location,  Each with its own gas station! I love America, land of invention!  The Petro itself is a work of art, Tho' I suspect it is a corporate product To be cloned mercilessly across the heartland: A general store with sundries, liniments, Christian hoodies,   A Subway sandwich shop, a mini-cinema With movies to watch while you launder your duds. O wondrous hybrid of Little America and 7-11,  O Petro, thou fostereth the love of trucker culture and the road, For millions of Californians motoring through  – zip, zip, zip! Who on the whole are well behaved, diverse, fascinating,  The millionaire in a sleeveless tee from Banana Republic Standing in line with the farm worker at the In N Out.  O the 5 is the great equalizer in an unequal state. Interstate 5 is the Great Strip, the Back Road of California, The 5 is not the 101, with its coastlines, hillsides, picturesque towns,  Interstate 5 is good, old-style California hucksterism, Fruit stands, corn mazes, antiques, trucks full of garlic, Merle Haggard, Tom Joad, Indian food, last gas for 25 miles, All of which we feel a grudging affection for, And which the corporate Nothingness, Heaven forbid, threatens to blot out. Vulgar, plebe California – You are us, and we are you.  (At this point, we dropped off the ghost of the venerable poet at the Beyond Baroque building in Venice, and the recitation went no further. Scholars wishing to anthologize this piece will have to take our word for it.)  -Morris Newman

An appellate court has struck down a Riverside County assessment for park maintenance because the county failed to distinguish between general benefits and parcel-specific benefits provided in return for the assessments, as required by Proposition 218. "The County failed to meet its constitutional burden of demonstrating that the assessment was proportional to, and did not exceed, the value of the special benefits that the use and enjoyment of the parks would confer on assessed parcels," the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded. One of the elements of a Proposition 218 election is the engineer's report in support of the range of assessments. The engineer's report must segregate general and special benefits, and it must be based upon credible, substantial evidence. Because Proposition 218 places the burden on the agency adopting the assessment to justify the assessment, every agency must make its own judgment about much information it must include in the engineer's report. The Fourth District's decision Beutz v. County of Riverside sheds light on the subject. In 1999, a local park and recreation district in the community of Wildomar failed and Riverside County subsequently took over the district's assets and liabilities. The county adopted a parks master plan, and, to help fund the parks, it adopted a development impact fee. In addition, the county proposed using assessments, as authorized by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code, § 22500 et seq.), to maintain the landscaping for the three parks inherited from the district and to help fund a proposed new park. Upon return of the engineer's report, the county authorized the assessments, conducted a protest proceeding, and called an election. According to the engineer's report, there were more than 6,000 assessable parcels in the district, all residential in character. A senior citizen development and non-residential properties were not included because the engineer concluded those properties would not receive any special benefits. The assessment was set at $28 per residential unit, with a maximum assessment of $45. The higher amount was to be triggered by improvements for the then-unbuilt park. In addressing the allocation of general and special benefits, the engineer's report recognized that there would be general benefits to people in the greater community but found that these benefits would be offset by three factors: 1) the county's absorption of the former district's debt; 2) by anticipated county expenditures of $6 million on park rehabilitation and improvements; and 3) by contributions to annual operating costs. Steven Beutz, a residential property owner, filed suit challenging the assessment. Beutz argued that the assessment was invalid because all of the costs were assigned to residential properties without deduction for the general benefits to non-residential properties. The county's decision to exempt 150 publicly owned parcels from the assessment also violated Proposition 218, he argued, because the county failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the parcels would not receive a special benefit from the landscaping. The trial court ruled for the county. The appellate court reversed. With respect to the standard of review, Proposition 218 requires the agency imposing the assessment to justify the special benefits and allocation of financial burden. The appellate court said that a reviewing court applies a de novo or independent judgment review, not the more deferential approach typically applied to review of agency decisions. The first issue addressed by the court in Beutz was whether the allocation of benefits – special versus general – was based on the landscaping maintenance component only, or on the master plan, of which landscape maintenance was a part. On this issue, the appellate court ruled for the county, saying that Proposition 218 allowed for the broader inquiry on the master plan. However, the appellate court ruled for Beutz on the issues pertaining to the assessment calculations. Missing from the engineer's report was an analysis of the relative use/benefit of the parks to the public generally compared with use/benefit by the residents in Wildomar. The court also faulted the analysis for ignoring whether Wildomar residents who lived closer to the parks would use the facilities more than Wildomar residents who lived farther away. "Notably, had the report separated and quantified the general and special benefits of the master plan, based upon solid, credible evidence and purported to base the assessment solely on the special benefits, the substantial evidence standard of review may have applied to the report's implicit conclusions that all Wildomar properties would specially benefit from the parks in equal measure, and that the assessment on each parcel was proportional to and no greater than those special benefits." Justice Jeffrey King wrote for the court. Thus, for assessing agency, the bar is set high. When read with Town of Tiburon v. Bonander , (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1057 (see CP&DR L egal Digest, January 15, 2010 ), which held that an assessment has to be based upon relative benefits, not relative costs, the Beutz decision reaffirms that assessment proceedings require an additional degree of documentation and care by the enacting agency. It also makes clear that across-the-board uniformity of assessments is more difficult to defend. The Case: Beutz v. County of Riverside, No. E046318, (2010) 184 Cal.App. 4th 1516, 2010 DJDAR 7833. Filed May 26, 2010. The Lawyers:  For Beutz; Robert A. Pool, Gangloff, Gangloff & Pool, (562) 920-5853. For the County; Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono & Levin, (530) 432-7359.

The Associated Press  reports  that a Russian billionaire is coming to the rescue of a state park in Sonoma County affected by budget cuts. Viktor Vekselberg, head of Russian-based Renova Group, signed an agreement last Tuesday with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to provide "substantial financial support" to keep Fort Ross open. Fort Ross was the site of a Russian settlement in the 19th century. The foregoing is all true.  \t (FADE IN. AN IMAGINARY BUT ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE SCENE IN THE STATE CAPITOL.) \t OLIGARCH (shuffling through state financial reports. Please supply with thick Russian accent): "Oy! These numbers look terrible. How'd you ever get in such straits?" \t GOVERNOR (with stubborn Austrian accent): "Too much spedding. Not eduff rebennu." \t OLIGARCH: "What you need, baby, is some free enterprise! Ever heard of that?" \t GOVERNOR (exercising supreme restraint): "I think I'm fabbiliar wittit…Wot d'you s'chest?" \t OLIGARCH: "A complete takeover by the private sector. Run this place like a business!" (He pounds his fist on the table for Pan-Slavic emphasis.) \t GOVERNOR (joyful): "Oh, bry-vittle-zation! My fontest treem!" (He dabs away tears with his handkerchief.) \t OLIGARCH: "I'll give you $30 billion for the whole shooting match." \t GOVERNOR: "For the entire state park system? Led be dink about that for a middit." \t OLIGARCH: "Not just the parks, tovarich. The state. You know, Hollywood. Golden Gate bridge. Bikini girls in Orange County. All the casinos in Lake Tahoe…" \t GOVERNOR: "Those are in Ne-badda, my friend, ur, my droog." \t OLIGARCH: "Damn! We'll have to buy that too." \t GOVERNOR: "While we're drawing up the papers for the sale, pleeds tell me, just out of koodiosity, what you blan to do with Califowddia?" \t OLIGARCH: "To run it oligarch way! Take out all cash and buy villa in south of France!"  \t GOVERNOR: "Not to upset the provebbial epple cart, bodd… there is no katch. The katch is in a kronch."  \t OLIGARCH: (in disbelief) "No cash?" \t GOVERNOR shakes his head sadly. \t OLIGARCH: (scarching his chin in deep thought.) "Well, we just have big sell off! Everybody love California! Now they can own!"  \t GOVERNOR (rallying) "That's right, privatize it!" \t OLIGARCH: "Now you whistle Dixie! Yosemite Valley, complete with Capitan and Half Dome, yours for $500 million. For free, we throw in kit fox and bear!" \t GOVERNOR (joining in) "That's right! Sell the ports of Long Beach and Oakland to the Chinese for $200 million!" \t OLIGARCH: "Ah, you learn quickly! All the growing lands in San Joaquin Valley! Snow-covered Sierras! Perfect for home building! All yours for $100 million. We throw in Bakersfield and Fresno for free. These cities are easily converted to migrant farmworker housing. We pass the savings on to you, the buyer!" \t GOVERNOR (caught up in the enthusiasm) "Buy the state capitol – the dome is covered in real California gold! – for $5 million, and we'll throw in the Governor's Mansion, as well. Great for parties!" \t OLIGARCH: "And we'll throw in the Arnold Schwarzeneggar car collection too!" \t GOVERNOR (aghast): "Not my Hubbers!" \t OLIGARCH: "Yes, the Hummers too." \t GOVERNOR (breaking down): "In that case, I guess there's nutting leff for bee…" \t OLIGARCH: "Not true, Tovarich, no true! You are celebrity! Action hero! You can be greeter."  \t GOVERNOR (Astonished): "Greeter….? \t OLIGARCH: "Sure, repeat after me. ‘Welcome to Sebastopol South! Formerly known as California. Hope you en-choy your stay!'" \t GOVERNOR (indignant): "But I'm not doing any pictures!" \t OLIGARCH: "Oh no, not for free! There is value in such things. Make big sign: Take picture with former California governor Arnold Schwartzeneggar, famous state budget tamer! Five bucks." (FADE OUT) -Morris "Chekov" Newman

As national debates about climate change have raged and federal action has grown ever more unlikely in the shadow of -- take your pick -- economic woes, mid-term election jitters, and the blackening of the Gulf of Mexico, the State of California last week edged closer to implementing its own land use based program to curtail climate change. Per a June 30 deadline stipulated in Senate Bill 375, the staff of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released its draft regional targets for carbon emissions reductions.  The targets are based on what participants have said is an extraordinarily sophisticated scenario planning and modeling.  "This body of work...is the most comprehensive, sophisticated regional planning work...for global warming that has happened anywhere in this country and possibly anywhere in the world," said Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and member of ARB's Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). The state's four largest metropolitan planning organizations will have to aim for per capita emissions reductions between 5 percent and 10 percent of 2005 levels by 2020. Because of unique challenges in the Central Valley, the eight largest MPOs there have been assigned "placeholder" targets of 1 - 7 percent per capita for both 2020 and 2035.  For the target date of 2035, ARB staff referred to the ranges devised by each of the so-called "big four" MPOs: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of San Francisco, SACOG, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). MTC and SCAG were assigned placeholders of 3-12 percent while SANDAG and SACOG received placeholder targets of 5-19 percent and 12-17 percent, respectively. Executives of all four MPOs have informed ARB staff that more analysis and scenario planning is necessary before settling on specific targets for 2035.  The targets outlined by ARB to comply with SB 375 are independent of the goals set by the state's other major climate change law, Assembly Bill 32.  While Jim Wunderman, executive director of the Bay Area Council and RTAC member, said that the targets were in line with expectations and that they could "probably be a little more ambitious," the high-end targets for the Central Valley -- even as placeholders -- appear daunting to officials there.  "I think for most of us the belief is that the 7 percent qualifies as ambitious and probably not achievable," said Andrew Chesley, executive director of the San Joaquin Council of Governments and RTAC member . "We want to work with ARB staff to identify and demonstrate targets that are achievable and are ambitious." The state's six remaining MPOs, covering largely rural areas, were exempted from the target-setting process because of their small populations and limited planning resources.  Once finalized, the targets will guide the MPOs' Sustainable Communities Strategies, which are designed to link land use planning with transportation planning in order to foster development that ultimately reduces vehicle miles traveled. In the report that accompanied the draft targets, ARB staff acknowledged that the long-term nature of land use changes and the duration of the current economic recession will affect regions' ability to implement new polices and realize SB 375's intended benefits. The report indicated that "it will take several four-year RTP planning cycles for the land use forecasts and transportation investments to fully reflect the changes envisioned by SB 375."  Participants have roundly praised the target-setting process with rhetoric not typically associated with public bureaucracies.  "The assistance they have offered, the partnerships (ARB) have developed with the regional agencies...has been nothing but positive," said Chesley. "Hopefully we'll be able to carry that through the implementation of SB 375."  This ebullience nonetheless is set against concern from both sides of the climate change argument. On the one hand, many public officials worry that the economy -- and lack of support from the state for crucial pieces such as redevelopment funding and transit funding -- will make targets unattainable or that the targets will make local economies even worse. Others say that this is an ideal moment to raise the state's planning standards.  "The MPOs have done some ambitious policies but we know they can do more," said Amanda Eaken, policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council and RTAC member. "We still fail to see a real substantive shift of transportation funding to support improved land use patterns that the MPOs are calling for." Some even see these austere economic times as a mandate for, and not against, aggressive action.  "We don't have the luxury of doing C or B quality work," said McKeever. "We owe the public A and A-plus quality work." Over the next month ARB is holding seven workshops across the state to receive feedback from stakeholders and agencies in advance of announcing final targets at the end of September. Those numbers will be expressed not as a range but rather as specific percentages that each MPO will be expected to achieve. To have assigned a more narrow range or even tried to hone in on specific draft targets may have been premature and in contradiction with the collaborative nature of the target-setting process thus far.  "If they jumped in...and said here's a precise number for 2020 and 2035 for each of you, it really wouldn't have been as respectful of that process," said McKeever.  Final targets are expected to be different for the so-called "Big Four" and among the eight Central Valley MPOs, but they are expected to be uniform among members of both respective groups.  The release of the draft targets culminates a yearlong process of scoping, research, and discussion among the affected MPOs and the Regional Targets Advisory Committee, a diverse group of public, private, and nonprofit officials who made recommendations to ARB staff in a September 2009 report. The final draft targets come from a technical advisory committee that convened after the RTAC submitted its recommendations.  The mandate to focus on regional carbon emissions forced MPOs not only to develop more complex and sophisticated models than ever before, but also to share information and collaborate in previously unheard-of ways.  "The good news...is that there's a good deal of true learning right now around the question of what a reasonable target is," said McKeever. "We're all pushing ourselves in harder and in different ways than we ever have in the past." ARB's goal has been to produce "ambitious but achievable" targets that the respective regions can strive for through planning for and promotion more compact land uses, mixed uses, efficient allocation of housing, and coordination with regional transportation plans. For all the research that has gone into these strategies, a debate is likely to ensue over which end of the 5-10 percent range the ARB should settle on and whether that final number will hew too much towards ambition or not.  "What does all that mean? That's a little bit mushier," said McKeever. "In September they're going to have to have a board action....they're going to have to have some pretty clear idea on the staff side of much more precise recommendations." Even if the targets land on the high end -- and even if metro areas can foster the intended land use changes by 2020 -- one thing they are not expected to do is reduce overall carbon emissions. By striving for per capita changes in emissions, the targets allow for population growth, which, even with lower per-person vehicle miles traveled, may yet cause a rise in absolute amounts of CO2 released.  That problem will be particularly acute in the Central Valley regions, where a particularly bleak economy and a relatively high growth rate portend significant increases in absolute emissions.  "High-growth areas still tend have a greater propensity for creating (more) trips and creating longer trips," said Chesley. "Our ability to make those reductions is somewhat hampered." This reason gave rise to the separate category for the Central Valley, which, according to Chesley, has such a backlog of entitled developments and such starkly different commuting patterns from the state's more heavily urbanized areas that the region's more modest placeholder targets are appropriate.   Whether SB 375 ultimately spurs emissions reductions in the Central Valley or in any of the other MPOs, participants in the target-setting process have roundly praised the ARB and its approach. The advisory process was designed to be bottom-up and based on each regions' capabilities and expectations rather than on a draft target originating in Sacramento.  "At times you think that people are pursuing the Holy Grail," said ARB Member and Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge. "But SB 375 is a process. A process of regions looking at themselves and stakeholders and asking how best to direct incentives and resources for the future."  ARB Board Member and San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts noted that the reduction of a global pollutant represents a new challenge for a board that has heretofore focused on localized air pollution.  "What we're chasing is greenhouse gases...this is very different from what the Air Board has historically done with air pollution," said Roberts. "If you did something with air pollution, benefit accrued to your area. You may incrementally do something that's good for the planet, but it doesn't accrue to your area or to the state of California per se."  "We really haven't looked at regions as sustainable areas before," said Loveridge.  In part because the ARB is entering such uncharted waters, participants in the target-setting process say they welcome the public discussion that will continue through July 23, when the seven regional workshops will wrap up. And yet, the ARB may find itself lobbied in all directions at once.  "You'll have some folks that say that CARB didn't go far enough, some folks that will say that this is going to be very difficult to achieve," said Wunderman. "And you'll probably have very few people who say they got it right."  Even so, McKeever said that when SB 375 was being drafted in 2007 and 2008, the best ideas, and more aggressive standards, rose to the top through successive rounds of debate and discussion. He hopes the trend will continue in the workshops.  "The bill kept getting better as it got amended and negotiated out; it didn't keep getting compromised and watered down," said McKeever. "That's what's happening right now too." Contacts & Resources:  ARB Draft Targets Staff Report , June 30, 2010  ARB SB 375 Workshop Schedule & Agenda Andrew Chesley, Executive Director, San Joaquin Council of Governments , (209) 235-0600 Amanda Eaken, Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council , (212) 727-2700 Mike McKeever, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Council of Governments , (916) 321-9000 Ron Loveridge, Mayor, City of Riverside; Board Member, Air Resources Board, (951) 826-5551 Ron Roberts, San Diego County Supervisor ; Board Member, Air Resources Board, (619) 531-5544 Jim Wunderman, Executive Director, Bay Area Council , (415) 981-6600